Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What ABC called "pink slime," USDA now says can be labeled "ground beef"

newfoodeconomy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 320 posts

Re: What ABC called "pink slime," USDA now says can be labeled "ground beef"

#251

Post by sexyflanders »

gdubs wrote: post #243

This conversation shows that plenty of people are uncomfortable with a food process like this. Many of you point out that food is complex, and people are irrational to be squeamish about this particular process. But how about this? Maybe people wouldn’t eat so much meat if they were more aware of the process behind it? And maybe, given how detrimental meat production had been to the environment, that wouldn’t be a ba…

>So, rather than protecting people by hiding the truth behind the processes that are behind the food they eat, we should be more transparent.

I agree, but in order to be transparent the ingredients and processes would need to be disclosed (ideally on the packaging) and this news seems a step further in the opposite direction.

Re: What ABC called "pink slime," USDA now says can be labeled "ground beef"

#252

Post by cecilpl2 »

paganel wrote: post #168
jdietrich wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Basically, pink slime is highly processed leavings of beef that cannot be used except by putting it through more or less a blender and a chemistry lab. After butchering a carcass, you're left with a lot of fatty trimmings with small amounts of meat attached that are uneconomical to recover by hand. If you gently heat the fat trimmings and spin them in a centrifuge, you cleanly separate the lean meat from the fat. Th…

It’s really shocking to me, and I’ve eaten lots and lots of meat (including beef) from animals raised and then killed by my close relatives. It’s only that my grand-parents weren’t using a centrifugal thingie to get the most out of the cow they had just sacrificed, and ammonium hydroxide might have been from an alien planet to them. The way we industrially process meat is shocking, yes.

And isn't it great that we have figured out ways to efficiently use more of the resources we have available?

The alternative is we just throw it away and raise more cows, using far more resources.

Re: What ABC called "pink slime," USDA now says can be labeled "ground beef"

#253

Post by [deleted] »

coldtea wrote: post #241
kbutler wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (1) made only with ingredients or processes endogenous to living organisms without human intervention or (2) when harvested industrially, the harvest is only mechanical. Well, there goes cooked food.

Or you know, you can always apply the "principle of charity" to a discussion, instead of pedantry.

[deleted]

Re: What ABC called "pink slime," USDA now says can be labeled "ground beef"

#254

Post by keymone »

cageface wrote: post #249
keymone wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah, it wasn't recommended because for treating epilepsy they were using a powdered meal replacement (like soylent) and were missing some essential ingredients like phosphorus. it's absolutely a diet that can work for anybody, it does require a fair amount of reading though.

I know. I'm not debating the merits of it, I'm just saying it wasn't a popular diet for the average Joe until recently.

well maybe the reason it's growing in popularity is the fact that generally accepted medical and regulatory advice has been idiotic, focused on reducing fats and replacing them with sugars and carbs which resulted in obesity and diabetic epidemic?

that fad lasted for 50 years, taking that into account it's probably too early to call keto a fad - i barely meet people who even know about it, let alone practice rigorously for any prolonged amount of time.

Re: What ABC called "pink slime," USDA now says can be labeled "ground beef"

#255

Post by parasubvert »

an_opabinia wrote: post #184
parasubvert wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have no idea what you're talking about, and have the audacity to refer to the parent poster as shit examples? Your response is a disgrace to HN posting standards. How isn't this science of cooking? Ammonia was a primary leavening agent for baked goods for centuries. Baking soda mostly replaced it but some old recipes still call for it. It's also commonly found in cheeses like Brie. It's in abundance in some fish…

> Ammonia was a primary leavening agent for baked goods for centuries. Listen, I obviously didn't know that ammonia bicarbonate was used as a leavening agent for centuries, or that it was made from deer horns, or whatever. :) Obviously, I also imagined that when a news article says they use ammonia on the beef, they mean ammonia gas (NH3). I don't fault anyone for thinking that either, like gentle John Oliver. Isn't…

My main point was: if someone is trying to be specific with their words, they start using scientific terms and take the romance out of the intuitive thinking, focusing on chemistry and physics. Food safety, nutrition, production is hugely complex, and therefore isn't intuitive.

Chiding someone for trying to be scientific as being pedantic and then complaining that it's so hard to communicate is really a contradiction of needs. I wish there was a middle ground , but to me OP wasn't even being all that geeky scientific or pedantic. He was stating fairly basic facts. Maybe a more gentle exposition is needed?

I'd suggest Googling "Dr Sarah Taber", she has some great twitter feeds and a podcast on the food industry, very eye opening stuff.

Re: What ABC called "pink slime," USDA now says can be labeled "ground beef"

#256

Post by dbt00 »

nate_meurer wrote: post #193
an_opabinia wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ammonia was a primary leavening agent for baked goods for centuries. Listen, I obviously didn't know that ammonia bicarbonate was used as a leavening agent for centuries, or that it was made from deer horns, or whatever. :) Obviously, I also imagined that when a news article says they use ammonia on the beef, they mean ammonia gas (NH3). I don't fault anyone for thinking that either, like gentle John Oliver. Isn't…

> Again, I don't know if they're using ammonia gas on the beef trimmings, but assuming that they are, then you've managed to conflate two different chemicals No, they are the same chemical for the purposes of this discussion. Any form of ammonia you eat -- whether ammonium bicarbonate or ammonium sulfate in bread, or ammonia residues in meat -- will be found as ammonium hydroxide in your blood. It's the same stuff. A…

Can you tell me what the affect of dietary ammonia are on folks suffering from IBS/IBD? Food spends time in your body before it makes it to your bloodstream.

(I’ve got a kid that already avoids hard cheeses because it upsets him and bread for celiac reasons, so...).

Re: What ABC called "pink slime," USDA now says can be labeled "ground beef"

#257

Post by therealforsen »

gdubs wrote: post #243

This conversation shows that plenty of people are uncomfortable with a food process like this. Many of you point out that food is complex, and people are irrational to be squeamish about this particular process. But how about this? Maybe people wouldn’t eat so much meat if they were more aware of the process behind it? And maybe, given how detrimental meat production had been to the environment, that wouldn’t be a ba…

The funny part of it to me is the cognitive dissonance of people who both believe that a change of less than 1 degree in global mean temperature over a century will destroy the Earth, but also that we'll be terraforming Mars by then.

Re: What ABC called "pink slime," USDA now says can be labeled "ground beef"

#258

Post by fucking_tragedy »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #214
fucking_tragedy wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nerve tissues can carry prion diseases. Here's a study[1] on bovine prions in peripheral nerve tissue. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3321908/

Genuine question: does regular muscle meat contain any nerves? I was under the impression all of our muscles contain efferent neurons to deliver motor control signals and afferent neurons to send back stretch reception signals / proprioception / pain. But I wouldn't know exactly where these nerve fibres are located and if they're completely removed from regular cuts of meat. Another question is: do the prions accumul…

I'm not sure of the answers to either of your questions, sorry. I'm just aware that bones contain a high amount of nerve tissue, and therefore have a higher probability of transferring prions to whomever consumes them.

Re: What ABC called "pink slime," USDA now says can be labeled "ground beef"

#259

Post by kbutler »

s_y_n_t_a_x wrote: post #225
jdietrich wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nothing in nature produces food by treating in with ammonia! We are the only thing in nature that "produces" food - every other species photosynthesises, hunts or grazes. We're the only species that can cook. Is cooking unnatural? >made only with ingredients or processes endogenous to living organisms without human intervention Where do you draw the line? Is wheat flour "unnatural" because we winnow off the chaff an…

None of your examples involve adding a chemical to the food that does not occur naturally already in food. Most of your examples just involve preparation, which would not make it unnatural.

Human breast milk naturally contains ammonia, so it does naturally occur in food:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3934511/

(More when the breast is inflamed, which can affect willingness to suckle, indicating there are levels which affect at least palatability)

Re: What ABC called "pink slime," USDA now says can be labeled "ground beef"

#260

Post by kbutler »

coldtea wrote: post #241
kbutler wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (1) made only with ingredients or processes endogenous to living organisms without human intervention or (2) when harvested industrially, the harvest is only mechanical. Well, there goes cooked food.

Or you know, you can always apply the "principle of charity" to a discussion, instead of pedantry.

A gentle nudge to point out the excessive narrowness of that definition of "natural", hoping to broaden the perspective a bit.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Post reply on HN