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

271–280 of 320 posts

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

#271

Post by scotty79 »

paganel wrote: post #191
scotty79 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s only that my grand-parents weren’t using a centrifugal thingie Did our other close relatives use the centrifugal thingie while processing the meat from animals they raised and killed?

Wanted to not repeat the same word in two consecutive phrases, hence my not-perfect choice of words, but to answer your question: no, afaik all the relatives that I know who had killed their meat didn’t use any industrial-like tools to process it.

Seems pretty straightforward. Grind and heat up meat trimmings, spin it to squeeze the heated fat out. Add citric acid as a preservative, flavour it with some spices, freeze an you have nice bit of fairly lean meat you wouldn't otherwise have. Nothing that couldn't be done at home. I wonder how fast it needs to spin.

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

#272

Post by KAMSPioneer »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #261
sp332 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I'm missing what you're worried about. The article says that pink slime can be called "ground beef", not that it can be called steak.

You are skipping over the end effect. If you think you are buying a steak, but are really buying a steak bits + “ground beef” glue, that’s the problem. IMO, calling it ground beef is very misleading unless you are farmiliar with the processes used.

But LFTB ("ground beef glue") isn't added to steak. It's added to normal, non-finely-textured beef trim before mixing, grinding, and packaging as ground beef. So this product about which everyone is talking cannot be mistaken by anyone for a steak. The finished product looks, tastes, and behaves as ground beef, and has roughly the same food safety concerns as ground beef.

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

#273

Post by KAMSPioneer »

chii wrote: post #201
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You aren’t supposed to eat ground beef rare. Steaks you can. If you don’t know your steak is partially ground beef, that’s the issue.

isn't burger patties usually eaten medium rare?

They shouldn't be. The USDA FSIS recommends cooking ground products (including LFTB) to an internal temperature of 160F. Eating ground or reshaped meats without cooking to proper internal temperatures can be dangerous.

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety...

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

#274

Post by deogeo »

nabilhat wrote: post #268
deogeo wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's tastier and less processed, more natural. How well that correlates with being healthy is another matter, but I really have no idea where you're getting classism. No one thinks "Mmmm, what an expensive piece of meat. I bet the poors can't afford it - I'm buying it!"

I've lived in poverty. Following poverty, I thought your straw man's thought. I'm pretty sure I said it out loud. While living in poverty, I knew that more expensive meat was better tasting, and better for me. The pink-slime level of meat products I could sometimes afford caused unpleasant GI symptoms which unprocessed meat didn't. I learned to avoid the cheap meat products and experienced intermittent anemia instead…

I must have expressed myself poorly. I absolutely agree that access to adequate nutrition is a class problem. What I disagree with is the notion that our food preferences are shaped mostly by considerations of class. I.e. that we desire certain foods because they signal that we are rich, not because they're tasty and healthy and 'natural'. I'm sure that might be true for some people, but not for the vast majority.

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

#275

Post by KAMSPioneer »

Pharmakon wrote: post #41
zdragnar wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't about mechanically separated chicken or turkey, it's about "Lean finely textured beef (LFTB)", which is actually leaner than the ground meat that it gets mixed in with.

...Which is the same product, centrifuged and ammoniated.

LFTB is not made from mechanically separated meat. It is made from normal boneless beef trimmings. As has been pointed out in response to numerous such claims all over this thread.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/documents/meat-... (look on page 26)

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

#276

Post by cwyers »

notyourday wrote: post #233
jdietrich wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's a fine sell. Now sell me on, "this is so OK that we should have a statutory right not to ever mention this fact. Food production is really, really complex. If an organic burrito was labelled with every process involved in its production, it would come with a label the size of a telephone directory. Over-labelling is just as problematic as under-labelling, as we have seen with Prop 65; adding more words to a l…

> Food production is really, really complex. If an organic burrito was labelled with every process involved in its production, it would come with a label the size of a telephone directory. Not at all. The fact that this is even being brought up in the argument illustrates how much the industry needs to be regulated. I had an organic burrito on Thursday because my wife in our old age is obsessed at buying only organic…

> 1. Flour tortilla -- made in Brooklyn by a small plant that sells them to bodegas and small supermarkets. In a strange coincidence I used to walk by that plant and I talked to the family that owns it. The tortilla contains the following ingredients:

> * Flour, Salt, baking soda, pork fat, water

What's in the flour? Is it bleached? Treated with a maturing agent? (Most AP flour in the US has been treated with both.) Has it been enriched to replace nutrients lost in the processing?

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

#277

Post by KAMSPioneer »

GordonS wrote: post #269
sp332 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't mind if it were labelled better. But from the consumer point of view, what's the difference? The texture is different and it's been disinfected. Doesn't seem like a huge deal.

> it's been disinfected Woah... that seems like a huge deal to me

It's considered extremely safe. The disinfectant used is either citric acid or ammonia (and the remaining ammonia residue is not enough to be harmful to humans). It does sound concerning, but it generally is not.

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

#278

Post by KAMSPioneer »

rsynnott wrote: post #133
jeffdavis wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Sincere question. Is it unhealthy or not nutritious?

BSE and other prion disease concerns. It's only banned for ruminants; it's legal for chicken, though it must be disclosed.

I believe you're mixing up mechanically-separated meat and lean finely-textured beef. The rationale behind restricting the former often cites BSE concerns, which isn't especially relevant to LFTB.

LFTB is made from normal, boneless beef trimmings.

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

#279

Post by KAMSPioneer »

HocusLocus wrote: post #73

misfolded proteins be very afraid be very afraid be very afraid

LFTB doesn't carry a higher risk of BSE or other prion diseases than normal ground beef. You're likely referring to concerns often levied at mechanically-separated meats, which is orthogonal to the product discussed here. LFTB is made from normal, boneless beef trimmings.

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

#280

Post by burfog »

captainbland wrote: post #210
burfog wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not honestly lean beef. If it were, it would be red. It's connective tissue, with a bit of lean beef mixed in. This has a different nutritional profile. There is less iron, and the amino acid proportions are different. We could call it "pureed tendons, ligaments, defatted fat tissue, cartilage, lean beef, and ammonia or citric acid". That is a long and unwieldy name. The common name, known to consumers, is pink…

Yeah although calling it 'slime' is basically just trying to bring about associations with, for instance, rotting meat or vegetables (which often end up with a slimy texture) for the sake of shocking people and bringing in an audience of predominantly more well off people who "would never eat that ". So rather than give it a name which is deliberately off-putting it's probably better to give it something vaguely neut…

People eat okra, escargot (snails), and natto. All of those have slime.

The name "pink slime" isn't from ABC. It's from an FDA employee who got to examine the stuff.

Post reply on HN