Comments on: It Came From the Media: What Prompted the Ruckus About “Pink Slime”? And Is It Unhealthy?

By: jmcv02

jmcv02 — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 23:15:23 +0000

Paul-Here’s a bit about hormones for you.

http://www.feedstuffs.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=49804C6972614A63A1A10DF54CD95D65&nm=Search+our+Archives&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=AA01E1C62E954234AA0052ECD5818EF4&tier=4&id=C817C39E0A5040F784AB4A9BCADF79DE

By: jmcv02

jmcv02 — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 22:56:05 +0000

Paul- I guess you don’t know a typical production cycle but cattle are on pasture until they enter a feedlot. Thats normally 6 months to a year or more before they go into the feedlot, so yes they do eat grass even in this supposed “factory farming”. Cattle also aren’t shot up with hormones or antibiotics since birth. Outside of the feedlot we only use antibiotics if they get sick and hormones are rarely used on calves to promote wieght gain but some do. In the feedlot we typically use sub-theraptic levels to help promote growth, not really to fight off these unsanitary conditions you think are commonplace. I don’t know who told you GMO corn is undigestable but we wouldn’t waste our money buying it at $5-6 a bushel if they couldn’t digest it. Simply put if they couldn’t digest it how would they grow and put on wieght? Also its only part of the diet not the whole thing, we also use forages such as corn silage, alfalfa hay, vitamins, minerals, etc. ) E.coli is naturally found in ANY ruminant stomach/digestive tract (ruminant=cows, goats, sheep, deer, etc), its part of their mechanism to digest food. Doesn’t matter if you raise it completely natural/organic its gonna be there. Also cows can’t “sit” they stand or lay down. We do our very best to clean pens as often as possible. Most of the time theyre standing on dirt not feces like you think. The stress really isn’t as big as you think once they get settled in. We have a bigger problem with weather and respiratory diseases. Im certain you don’t know but one of cattles’ fatal flaws is their respiratory system is too small/inefficient for their relative size, thats a natural flaw not a breeders fault. They also use it to cool themselves (pant like a dog). Also we dont need to use ammonium hydroxide we just use it to improve food safety, its commonly used in a lot of foods so beef isn’t the only one. No offense but maybe you should educate yourself before you speak about agriculture, I know many farmers/ranchers wouldn’t mind showing you what they do, I bet you wouldn’t think its so bad if you saw it firsthand and stopped listening to the media whose just trying to bump up their sales.

By: Randy Dutton

Randy Dutton — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 23:02:30 +0000

Pink Slime is the name of a short story I wrote that uses an investigative reporter as the vehicle to investigate the issue. Available at Amazon, B&N, Smashwords or look at http://www.pinkslime.us. The science is real but the conclusions are not what you would expect.

By: CQSarah

CQSarah — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 20:03:40 +0000

LFTB has been used in over 300 billion meals and has not once caused any type of food poisoning. when fat is removed from larger cuts of the animal, there is usually some protein attached. If we didn’t have this process, we’d need to slaughter millions more cattle each year. Also, the fat that has been separated from the meat travels by rail and is turned into biodiesel, which is a renewable source of energy. Prices for everything will continue to increase.

By: Brian Too

Brian Too — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:01:51 +0000

Some thoughts:

1). I know that I’ve seen credible, reliable studies that said, in effect, recipes created using a wider array of meat cuts were superior nutritionally to those using a very narrow set of cuts. Even when the narrowly selected cuts of meat were those considered premium cuts;

That’s +1 for pink slime.

2). I would be concerned about the possible bacteriological contamination, at source, of an undifferentiated collection of meat scraps. More handling, more time spent on processing, all these open up pathways for contamination. And even the most effective antibacterial treatment does not address the chemical byproducts of bacterial contamination.

That’s -1 for pink slime.

But c’mon, “pink slime”? Sounds pretty inflammatory, considering this is what most of us would call “sausage ingredient”.

By: Iain

Iain — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:02:46 +0000

As long as they aren’t adding nasty bits that you would refuse to eat if you knew it was there like vagina’s, penis’s, last sphincter, tumors and other gross parts, then who really cares?

By: Amos Zeeberg (Discover Web Editor)

Amos Zeeberg (Discover Web Editor) — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 18:02:24 +0000

@Rich: I hear you on Wikipedia! It’s very tempting to use as a resource. It’s often a good pointer even if not a perfect reference.

Not sure if I agree with all the other points, but maybe there’ll be an expert around (ha) who knows more about it than I.

By: Rich M.

Rich M. — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:06:01 +0000

@ Amos. I appologize for using the word “meat” when I should have used “beef”. Please also refer to USA Title 9 C.F.R. Sections 319(5)(6) regarding mechanically seperated meat. You will find restrictions on the use of all meat productions for certain purposes. The F.D.A. (part of DHHS) and USDA (Agriculture) have shared responsibility as to policy and enforcement of said code, specifically as to labeling and additives. Furthermore the F.D.A. has specific requirements for the documentation of production processes, tracking of lot numbers of components and final products and testing of “shelf” lives.

I also appoligize to you for my infering of you as an expert. Too often Wikipedia is cited as being a credible, inviolate source of information. It is not. It is however a useful starting point. Many times information is manipulated for a purpose (ask Sarah Palin), and is parsed either intentionally or culled unintentionally, giving an incomplete, yet presumably authoritative “source” of information. In actuality, Wikipedia is heresay, cosmetically enhanced to appear as a definitive, reliable alternative to solid, well-practiced research.

I trust you had no issue with my other four observations.

By: Josh

Josh — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 23:39:50 +0000

When I first read a story about this I wondered where I’d be able to buy some of the stuff. It looks easy to mix with other ingredients, maybe you could roll it out and use cookie cutters to make custom sausage nuggets with the kids…

In the ‘good old days’ this meat was reclaimed by cooking down carcasses into stock. It’s not the stuff being eaten that’s bothering people, just what it looks like. I’m sure that mechanically separated brussels sprouts would look gross too.

By: Amos Zeeberg (Discover Web Editor)

Amos Zeeberg (Discover Web Editor) — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 22:25:11 +0000

@Rich: I'm not an expert on meat processing and I'm not passing myself off as such. But you're wrong (and Wikipedia and I are right) about mechanically separated meat: It is allowed for consumption and is consumed widely in the U.S. Only mechanically separated beef is not allowed. Source there is the USDA itself:

"Mechanically separated beef is considered inedible and is prohibited for use as human food... Mechanically separated pork is permitted and must be labeled as "mechanically separated pork"... Mechanically separated poultry has been used in poultry products since the late 1960's. In 1995, a final rule on mechanically separated poultry said it was safe and could be used without restrictions. However, it must be labeled as "mechanically separated chicken or turkey."

Note that the relevant regulator here is USDA, not FDA.