• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

"pink slime"

Beef Products, Inc. (BPI) announced last Monday that it's temporarily suspending operations at three of the company's four plants that process lean finely textured beef (LFTB). For the record, the plants are located in Garden City, KS; Amarillo, TX; and Waterloo, IA. Those plants represent more than 650 jobs.

.As you likely know, BPI was forced to suspend operations by consumer backlash, based on false information presented in an ABC News report March 7. At least that was the trigger.

LFTB is beef. It's safe. It's USDA-approved. It's been in use for decades, in billions of meals. But, consumers clamored so loudly against it that major grocers decided to quit offering ground beef containing LFTB.

LFTB has been the primary source of 100% lean beef protein used in high-demand products such as 90% lean ground beef, according to the National Meat Association.

If you're unfamiliar, think of it in these inexact terms. Grain-fed beef carcasses produce lean trim that's approximately 50% fat and 50% lean. Mixing the lean grinds of hamburger consumers want requires adding more lean meat to the 50-50 mix. That's where LFTB has been such a boon. Mechanically, lean is removed from fat in 50-50 lean trim, leaving basically 100% lean. That 100% lean can then be mixed with fattier mixes to arrive at the 84% lean, 90% lean and so on that you see in the meat counter.

Before the advent of LFTB, coming up with lean ground beef meant using higher value cuts of lean muscle or importing lean trim from other countries where the cattle are, well, leaner. If consumers continue turning their noses up at LFTB, that's the way it will be again. That means less value for the carcasses produced in this country and higher ground beef prices for consumers.

No one knows for sure how this will play out, but there is already economic fallout.

"So far, the impact of the misrepresentation of LFTB has cost the 50% ground beef market about $10/cwt.," market analysts with the Texas Cattle Feeders Association (TCFA) said Friday.

During the past week, the drop credit – in part tied to the LFTB mess – had plunged 55¢/cwt. or roughly $6-$7/fed slaughter animal.

According to a statement from Tyson Foods last week, "…The reduction of BPI's operations means less lean meat will be recovered and more of the beef trimmings will be converted into lower-value products…we believe the decrease in BPI's production will result in less lean beef available in the market and may result in higher consumer prices. Alternatively, we believe there may be an increase in the supply of some of the raw materials used to produce ground beef, and this may result in lower values that could ultimately affect livestock prices."

Some retailers are sticking with LFTB. For instance, Hy-Vee, with 235 retail stores in eight Midwestern states, explained in a statement last week: "Following our recent decision to stop purchasing ground beef containing LFTB, we heard from many customers who asked us to continue carrying this product. They've sent us a clear message: They want a choice when it comes to ground beef, and they want to support companies that provide thousands of jobs in our Midwest trade area. In response to this feedback, Hy-Vee has made a decision to offer both kinds of ground beef – both with and without LFTB. Both products will be identified so customers can determine for themselves which type of ground beef they want to buy."
 
Thanks for an informative post, VB RANCH.

In studying the issue, missed the info re. more specifically how they arrive at the leaner mixes, especially that carcasses are typically 50/50 fat and lean. I thought the difference had beef from imported beef but didn't know where that stood since there is considerably less imported beef these days, with more of that going into foreign markets we enjoyed before the slow acceptance of better trade agreements for USA meat) have been slow to be approved by our govt., it seems.

mrj
 
Economic Fallout From LFTB Continues


Repercussions intensified last week from consumers demanding that retailers do away with ground beef containing lean finely textured beef (LFTB).

AFA Foods, one of the nation's largest beef grinders, filed for bankruptcy last week, citing LFTB fallout as one of the reasons. That followed the previous week's idling of three LFTB processing plants by Beef Products, Inc.—one of the nation's leading LFTB processors.

"…What is important about these closures and bankruptcies?" Len Steiner and Steve Meyer ask in Thursday's CME Group Daily Livestock Report. "They are backing up a lot of 50% lean beef trimmings and beef fat trimmings! Regardless of what you think about LFTB, the market impacts of this situation are apparent…the weekly average price of 50% CL (chemical lean) beef trimmings has dropped from roughly $1/lb. at the end of February to just $0.83/lb. last week. And, prices have plunged even further this week, with yesterday's published quote at $0.59/lb. and some reports that product was being offered at $0.48 to $0.52/lb."

Moreover, Meyer and Steiner point out the economic fallout extends beyond the beef complex. They explain, "Lower grinding beef values have likely played a role in lower pork trimmings prices since some of these products are ready substitutes in processed meats…"

Rather than increasing seasonally as usual, Steiner and Meyer say pork trim prices have declined steadily since March 1.

Apparently, labeling ground beef with or without LFTB is the next immediate battleground.

Rep. Pingree (D-ME) introduced the Requiring Easy and Accurate Labeling of Beef Act that would require any beef containing LFTB to have a label at the final point of sale.

As well, at least two of the nation's primary beef packers are reported to have submitted a request to USDA that would enable them to label ground beef accordingly.

"Rejecting lean finely textured beef will have consequences that many consumers will not like," says Derrell Peel, Extension livestock marketing specialist at Oklahoma State University. "First and foremost ground beef, and especially lean ground beef, will increase significantly in price as it will require more pounds of the more expensive 90s (90% lean beef trimmings) to produce ground beef. This may well contribute to the demise of the dollar menu at your favorite fast food hamburger chain…whether they use LFTB or not. This will also result in increased imports of lean beef, which may be a concern, or a consequence, that consumers do not like."
 
Consumer beefs with red meat put producers on defensive

10:00 PM, Apr. 7, 2012

Written by DAN PILLER


RESTAURANT AND RETAIL REACTION TO THE 'PINK SLIME' CONTROVERSY


How some retailers and restaurants are reacting to the controversy over the beef trimmings known as "pink slime":

» ALDI: No longer selling.

»BURGER KING: Quit using in December.

» COSTCO:No longer selling.

» DAHL'S FOODS: Say the store has never carried the product.

» FAREWAY: Says it has never used.

» HY-VEE:Announced they would cease carrying the trimmings, but then reversed itself and will carry the product, with signs labeling it "lean finely textured beef."

» MCDONALD'S:Quit using in December.

» RED ROBIN: Says it has never used.

» TACO BELL:Quit using in December.

» TARGET: No longer selling.

» WAL-MART STORES INC.: The company said its Walmart and Sam's Club stores will begin selling meat that doesn't contain the trimmings. It did not say it would stop selling beef with the filler altogether.

—WENDY'S: Says it has never used.

Sources: Register reporting, wire reports


ADAIR, Iowa — Veteran cattleman Dave Nichols has a recurring thought some mornings when he awakens.

"After hearing everything so bad about beef and livestock, I wonder why I'm such a bad guy," said the 72-year-old cattle producer. "Some days, I feel like a tobacco farmer."

Nichols represents the future and optimism of the cattle industry. This spring he oversaw the birth of 1,200 calves on his spread in Adair County, up about 200 from previous years, and has sold 400 bulls to other producers for seedstock.

Until a recent dip, cattle prices were at record highs. Beef exports hit record levels in 2011. But cattle producers feel they're on the defensive in a public relations struggle.

The controversy over lean finely textured beef, derisively known as "pink slime," is a here-we-go-again battle in the defensive war the livestock industry has fought for four decades. The original hit to red meat began with scientific warnings about the connection between animal fats and heart disease in the 1960s, which became mainstream recommendations by cardiologists to reduce red meat consumption.

That's been followed by a barrage of blows, some more tied to personal beliefs and changing food preferences than scientific evidence. Cattle producers fear their industry could go the way of Big Tobacco, where warnings of health risk eventually shriveled sales. The average American eats 22 percent less red meat (defined as beef, pork, lamb and veal) than 40 years ago.

The latest controversy was fed by social media, catching the industry by surprise. Meat packers have added the ammonia-treated beef scraps to ground beef for two decades, with few known problems.

The uproar caused the closing of Beef Products Inc. plants in Waterloo, Iowa, and two other locations in Kansas and Texas, putting 660 people out of work.

A beef processor went into bankruptcy last week, citing lost demand for beef trimmings. On the Chicago Board of Trade, cattle futures prices dropped 8 percent from early March.

"And to think that a big reason the trimmings are put into the ground beef is to make it more affordable to middle- and lower-income people to feed their families," said Nichols, who has sold his cattle to 22 different nations around the world.

Gov. Terry Branstad has called for Congress to investigate the "smear campaign" behind the latest controversy. But the domestic decline in beef eating — and the larger consumer concerns over industrialized agriculture — has been growing for years. Were it not for the booming export markets, cattle producers would face shrinking demand.

The forces against beef have included:

» a push toward more whole-grain and vegetable diets beginning in the 1970s. Schools and consumers are embracing "Meatless Mondays" as part of a trend toward healthful eating.

» criticism from the environmental movement unhappy about the large amounts of nitrogen and pesticides needed for production of corn livestock feed.

» a more powerful animal rights movement, which has used undercover videos to portray livestock producers as abusers of farm animals.

Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, took his agency from its traditional role as protector of the nation's dogs and cats into a political activist organization that has pushed, with partial success, voter referenda against animal confinements.

Cattle producers who can live with claims red meat is unhealthy climb the walls over the animal cruelty accusations.

"We treat our cattle better than pets," said Vince Graham, a cattle producer. "If necessary, we get up at 2 a.m. to get out and tend to cattle. During calving we hardly sleep."

Another producer, Faye Binning, asserts that cattle producers are on the right side of the conservation story. "We hear that Iowa needs more grasslands," she said. "Who plants most of the grass? It's the cattle producers, because we need it."

But the health concerns over beef eating have been harder to fight. Cattle producers like Nichols remember warily how a sharp decline in cigarette smoking in the last half-century was prompted by package warnings, then a ban on television advertising.

Ulka Agarwal, chief medical officer for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, said of the red meat industry, "the evidence is stacked against them, that red and processed meat are dangerous."

The Physicians Committee in recent years has put up an in-your-face billboard in Des Moines proclaiming a link between rectal cancer and eating bacon.

All the medical, diet and cultural trends have had an effect.

Cattle producers in Iowa and the rest of the U.S. have gotten the message about reduced demand. The USDA put the total U.S. cattle inventory in January as 90.8 million head, 2 percent below a year earlier and the lowest inventory of all cattle and calves since the 88.1 million on hand in 1952.

The smaller number of animals means fewer packinghouse jobs. Even before the issue exploded last month, Iowa learned of the probable closing of the original Iowa Beef Processors plant at Denison. The closing will cost 400 workers their jobs.

But beef is still a symbol of power and success.

"I don't hear people say they want to go out and celebrate good fortune by eating a salad," said John Lawrence, longtime head of the Iowa State University Beef Institute and now head of ISU's Extension Service.

But Lawrence and Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey acknowledge that red meat consumption is down, partly as a function of reduced production but also in changing eating habits.

While Branstad has inveighed against Hollywood and the media on several occasions during the latest dustup, Northey points to a more basic reason why anti-meat sentiment seeps into popular thinking.

"We're less connected to the sources of our food today," Northey said. "Even in Iowa most people are a generation or two removed from the land. Fifty years ago everybody knew where beef and pork came from. Today they don't, and when you show a video of meatprocessing on network TV or on the Internet, it can disturb people."

While Americans' taste for beef has hit a plateau, foreign countries are buying more U.S. beef than ever before. In 2011 exports of red meat species hit a record $11.5 billion after increases of 30 percent for beef and 17 percent for pork.

The demand hasn't cooled. Since Jan. 1 red meat exports are up 2 percent from a year ago.

"Developing countries want more protein, and they associate red meat with economic progress and higher living standards," said Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey.

The USDA's latest weekly export report for the week ending last Thursday showed the biggest customers for American beef since Jan. 1 are Mexico (37,000 metric tons), South Korea (32,000 metric tons), Japan (27,600 metric tons), Canada (22,200 metric tons) Vietnam (21,700 metric tons) and the former Soviet Union, 11,400 metric tons).

The beef industry doesn't see demand rebounding. Supplies are expected to remain static in the forseeable future, and processors continue to contract. Where a sow hog can produce up to 20 piglets a year, cattle reproduction is much slower.

A calf born this spring won't be ready to give birth until summer 2013, and the nine-month gestation period would bring the new animal into the world in 2014.

Prices will stay relatively high. U.S. cattle prices increased 25 percent last year, driven primarily by a 30 percent increase in beef exports.

The beef industry is putting its hopes on newer and different cuts of beef that will reflect different consumer tastes.

David Dahlquist of Des Moines, a nationally recognized public artist and teacher, says the "foodie" movement among chic urbanites might bring about a new impetus for beef.

"I know a lot of foodies, and they like beef," Dahlquist. "Most of them aren't vegetarians. They like beef. They just want it in different cuts."

Meanwhile, cattle producers plan to focus on doing what they do best.

"What a great spring we had, with the warm weather," Nichols said, exhilarated by the new births. "Best spring for calving I can remember."

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20120408/NEWS01/204080316/-1/NLETTER01/Consumer-beefs-with-red-meat-put-producers-on-defensive?source=nletter-news
Click to expand...
 
Seems like a deal like this would be just the thing for Mike Bullard et al to focus their energies on rather than running around trying to slam borders shut at every imagined opportunity.
 
Silver said:
Seems like a deal like this would be just the thing for Mike Bullard et al to focus their energies on rather than running around trying to slam borders shut at every imagined opportunity.
Click to expand...


From Wikipedia: The term "pink slime" was coined in 2002 by Gerald Zirnstein, who at that time was a microbiologist for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service. Zirnstein has stated "I do not consider the stuff to be ground beef, and I consider allowing it in ground beef to be a form of fraudulent labeling."
The additive was approved for human consumption by the USDA in 2001. Some USDA scientists had argued against approval, saying that it was not "meat" and was in fact "salvage," but were overruled. Approval was ultimately granted by then-Under Secretary of Agriculture JoAnne Smith, who according to former USDA microbiologist Carl Custer stated "It's pink, therefore it's meat." Smith left USDA and joined the board of directors of BPI's principal supplier, where according to ABC News she made at least $1.2 million over 17 years.
Click to expand...

Its called truth in Labeling and ridding all the corruption inside the government/USDA..Both of which Bill Bullard and the boys have been fighting for for many years..
 
From Wikipedia: The term "pink slime" was coined in 2002 by Gerald Zirnstein, who at that time was a microbiologist for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service. Zirnstein has stated "I do not consider the stuff to be ground beef, and I consider allowing it in ground beef to be a form of fraudulent labeling."
The additive was approved for human consumption by the USDA in 2001. Some USDA scientists had argued against approval, saying that it was not "meat" and was in fact "salvage," but were overruled. Approval was ultimately granted by then-Under Secretary of Agriculture JoAnne Smith, who according to former USDA microbiologist Carl Custer stated "It's pink, therefore it's meat." Smith left USDA and joined the board of directors of BPI's principal supplier, where according to ABC News she made at least $1.2 million over 17 years.
Click to expand...

Its called truth in Labeling and ridding all the corruption inside the government/USDA..Both of which Bill Bullard and the boys have been fighting for for many years..[/quote]

Here's some truth in labeling facts! Ammonium Hydroxide which is used in Lean Beef Trimmings is a naturally occuring chemical that stops bacteria from spreading. It is applied in tiny amounts to the lean beef trimmings everyone is losing their minds over. If you have a cheeseburger tonight made (God Forbid) out of hamburger that contains lean beef trimmings, get your obituary written and will complete because you will not survive! :shock: The bun you will eat contains 440 PPM (Parts Per Million) ammonium hydroxide! :shock: The condiments you apply to your "toxic" burger has 400 ppm! :shock: And the cheese you melt to complete your "haz waste" sandwich has 813 ppm. :shock: The pink slime tainted, pure poison, meat from hell has 200 ppm! :???:
So where is the outcry and panic to ban buns and ketchup and CHEESE??????
The corruption inside the government and USDA may indeed exist! But the corruption in smear campaigns led by idiots with a zero tolerance for ANY BEEF PRODUCT and the clueless media is blantant and rampant and off the charts!!! You want facts? There are some facts! And falling for the hype and lies is the same as joining the radicals who are attacking BEEF! Can we get better at promoting our product? Absolutely!!!! But none of us can stand by and let THEM get away with this B.S.!!!
You want truth in labeling? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!! :lol: I thought my inpersonation of Jack Nichelson was spot on! :wink:
 
Please read this editorial from the New York Post. I highlighted in BOLD some of the things i found interesting. :D Do they want to get rid of "pink slime"? Or do they have bigger plans? You decide! If you raise cattle, feed them grass or grain, let them run free range or in a confined space, are a cow/calf, feeder, packer or supermarket i think they are planning to put us all on the endangered spieces list! :shock:

The real 'pink slime' agenda
By JEFF STIER

Last Updated: 11:59 PM, April 5, 2012

Posted: 10:56 PM, April 5, 2012

It's not enough for Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer that the city schools are jumping on the latest elite food fad by dropping "pink slime": He wants them on the bandwagon now.

Let's be clear: The meat product known as "lean finely textured beef" does look gross. But so does just about every meat product — ever seen how they make pastrami? And this stuff is perfectly safe, and almost certainly healthier than its likely replacement.
The US Department of Agriculture goes to great lengths to ensure that the national school-lunch program serves appropriate food to America's kids. And its scientists have been unambiguous: This meat product is perfectly fine.


But activist celebrity chef Jamie Oliver decided to make a stink about it, and "right-thinking" people have rushed to go along.

City Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott acknowledges the feds say the meat is safe, but he lobbied them into letting him ban it anyway. It's off the menu by September.

That's not fast enough for Stringer, who's grandstanding for an immediate ban. He calls it "garbage," as if there's actually something wrong with it, other than the gross "pink slime" moniker.

Funny, it wasn't so long ago that food activists claimed they wanted our food to be more "sustainable." Yet this stuff is an innovative model of sustainable agriculture: It's made with a process that safely uses parts of the animal that previously had been either discarded, or used for lower-value uses, such as animal food. And since the fat is melted out of the meat before it's mixed into other ground beef, "pink slime" actually yields lower-fat meals.

It's also safe: It's treated to make it inhospitable to dangerous E. Coli bacteria. And the main company that makes it, Beef Products International, tests the meat more than USDA's already strict regulations require. That's more than can be said about the different ground-up cow that's likely to replace it.

It's been used for years by schools, leading fast-food outlets and major supermarket chains. And if it didn't taste good, kids would have voted with their stomachs long ago.

Why waste scare dollars to switch to more expensive, higher-fat alternatives?

The real (and ridiculous) agenda here is to make us all go organic. According to food activist MicheleSimon, "Pink slime is just one of many problems with industrialized meat. So let's hope this week's groundswell of interest in pink slime inspires Americans to demand labeling, buy organic or stop eating ground beef all together."

And Mark Bittman in The New York Times calls the "pink menace" a symptom of a larger disease — "the industrial production of livestock on a scale that's far too large to sustain without significant collateral damage."
These people only want us eating grass-fed free-range cattle, if we eat any meat at all. Scott Stringer may be able to afford that diet, but it's pathetic for politicians to kowtow to dishonest elitists.

Jeff Stier is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_real_pink_slime_agenda_aGlxfjc6NEXr8jnX2EU31O#ixzz1rqcctLbt
 
Thanks for sharing good points from the few sensible, HONEST people writing about this issue, 'leanin H'!

I saw another point recently, I believe by a meat scientist or other meat animal specialist of some sort, stating, and I paraphrase: "Be careful what you ask for"....people asked for leaner, safer from bacteria, less expensive hamburger meat...so we produced it for them.....and now people with various more or less hidden agendas' are telling them it is poisoning them!

Might as well have also been headlined "Be careful and watch your back if you produce a high quality beef product".

The sad fact is, the guy who pioneered much of the equipment, faciliies, the processes and extreme measures to produce the safest possible hamburger is being attacked for doing good!

mrj
 
MANHATTAN, Kan. – Given recent historic highs in cattle prices, it shouldn't have been surprising to see values dip somewhat during March, but consumer response to news of lean, finely textured beef in the nation's meat supply hit cattle and beef values harder than many could have anticipated, according to a Kansas State University agricultural economist.

"I think we were due in early March for a pause. The fact that we've had a pullback from historic highs is not really a surprise," said Glynn Tonsor, livestock marketing specialist with K-State Research and Extension.

He noted that CME April fed cattle futures closed at $118 per hundredweight (cwt) on April 6, down about $12 from a month earlier. Similarly, April feeder cattle futures closed at $148, down from $161 in early March. Cash cattle prices softened similarly, with Kansas fed cattle prices off about $3 at $123 to $124 on April 6.

"But the fed cattle basis is quite strong – stronger than normal," Tonsor noted, with cash cattle trading $5 to $6 over futures.

Part of the concern right now, he said, is overall demand for beef. Beef exports have been generally flat compared to last year, as has the dollar index.

"I'm still fundamentally bullish on (beef) exports, but when we look at individual weeks, that's part of the pullback. I'm not going to say we've burst the bubble, but we've pulled back a bit on that bullishness," he said.

The economist noted that oil and gas prices and their forecasts have also played a role in consumer demand, but added: "I tend to think that's a little bit overhyped. Gas still makes up a portion of our individual decision making, but it's mainly an indirect effect in how it's embedded in the prices of many things we buy. Add all that up with the LFTB stuff then we have more concern about demand than we did a month ago."

Consumer reaction to news in recent weeks that lean, finely textured beef is sometimes added to ground beef shocked the trade, Tonsor said.

"Perception is reality. The consumer dollar drives the vast majority of what goes on and people make decisions based on perception. These decisions may or may not be consistent with scientific reality," he said. "To say 'it's beef, stupid' or 'it's always been beef' may be accurate – and I personally believe that – but I'm not sure it's sufficient to change perception. You can't trump perception immediately with science."

"One of the things I've found in other studies such as the impact of media attention to animal welfare issues and meat recalls is that total (aggregate) beef demand is typically affected for one to two quarters. That's still multiple weeks or months, but it doesn't persist for five years," he said. "I tend to think consumer demand reaction to this story in this context will also be relatively short lived."

He noted that labeling changes and other ramifications could come from the LFTB discussion.

"The part that is less known and what may be a little more costly is what's going to change on the supply side – the cost of doing business," he said. "At the extreme, if we quit using LFTB, and I don't expect that will happen, but if we take that away from the toolbox, the cost of business goes up. If we add labeling, that's an added cost, but not as expensive as removing it, and there are a lot of things in between.

"I think the net impact is, the cost of producing ground beef and the cost of beef overall is going up from this, and that probably will have some staying power that goes beyond the negative demand aspects that lasts one or two quarters."

He noted that in March, prices for fresh 90 percent lean boneless beef trimmings dipped about 0.7 percent, but prices for fresh 50 percent lean trimmings (less lean) had fallen 17.6 percent ($83 per cwt) by March 31 compared to $101 on March 3. Fresh 50 percent lean prices fell even further the week before Easter, hitting $63 per cwt.

"The reason I mention this is that fresh 90 percent lean trimmings held up and stayed relatively flat during March. The less lean product which is typically blended with or subject to LFTB, has been hammered," Tonsor said.

"Estimates are that roughly 10 percent of beef on a carcass would fall into the fresh 50 percent lean category and if you use that 10 percent assumption and basically a $40 per cwt falloff in the value of that product during March, that amounts to essentially a $4 per cwt value pullback on fed cattle. That explains a decent portion of the pullback on fed cattle prices during March," he said.

"If you go further and recognize there was discussion even before the LFTB about heavy cattle weights – we've had better growth than we expected -- when we have heavier animals, we tend to have even more than usual fall into that fresh 50 percent lean category," he said. "So at the extreme, if we had 15 percent of pounds falling into that 50 percent category – and I'm probably pressing the point here – if you had that you could probably explain probably a $6 pullback in fed cattle prices. The truth is, maybe somewhere between the $3 and $5 value pullback in fed cattle could be assigned narrowly to the drop in fresh 50 percent lean prices.

Tonsor said he is still analyzing beef demand data for the first quarter of 2012 (January-March), but expects it will show a negative year-over-year picture. He reminded that several analysts over the past few months, before the current discussion, were reminding that the tight supply situation was already known – kind of fixed – so the value of cattle is hinging on demand.

He expects the LFTB issue to continue to be sorted out and that it likely will still have an effect on beef and cattle prices for the short term.
 
Perception is reality.

Had it not been called 'pink slime' would have helped.
With those words, you automatically get a feeling of displeasure.

Oh, but the news loves sensationalism.

This should not have happened to the beef industry, especially with
the latest technology in the plant that produces the product. That
was never researched or told by the MSM--anyway that I know of.
 
FH, good points, and it isn't real clear who hung the "pink slime" term on it, or why some in the industry allowed it to continue.

Main point and solid fact is that it is simply and only finely ground beef. Nothing else is "in" that product. NO gristle, bone, or any other thing which could honestly or legally be called an additive, adulterant, cow lips, or any other part I've seen either stated or implied is in that meat.

mrj
 
What do you mean by "farmgate"?

Since LFTB is nothing but 100% beef that has been 'gassed' very lightly to stop bacteria, the grind makes little difference to my personal preference.

Method of home or professional preparation and cooking makes more difference in the flavor than the inclusion of LFTB, with the possible exception of amount of fat in the mix, and I've enjoyed many levels of fat from such lean home raised beef that I needed to grease the pan to pan broil it, to some purchased in smaller stores where a higher than desired fat content was the only hamburger they had.

mrj
 
It's been years ago. Canned sausage just don't seem like sausages, personal preference wise.

The photo's I've seen of Lean Finely Textured Beef (and it is simply extra lean beef imo) look like any other hamburger as it comes from the grinder, as it had in the photo of the actual product.

Some photo's promoting the 'anti' point of view have actually been ground chicken, so I've read.

The "pink slime" smear of a name seems to have two people claiming fame for the name.....the unhappy, food activist former USDA employee, and the local food promoting, so calle chef (haven't seen his 'chef' credentials, so don't know if he has earned the title, or simply claims it, as some do. His name is Jaime something, don't recall the last name, but he's the one who staged mixing scrapps of red meat, who knows what it was, and mixing it with a couple quarts of household ammonia and adding a small glass of water, mixing with his hands, and squeezing lots of bloody water from it in front of an audience of moms and school kids to show them the 'poison' being fed to the kids.

mrj
 
Like I said before, this looks like the perfect cause for RCalf to champion, and the fact that they are not speaks volumes about their worth to the industry.

.......unless they are and I haven't happened upon that information
 
Silver, I'm not sure what you mean by "champion", in this case.

Do you favor the recovered meat, or not, and why in either case.

As you can see, I do feel it is a valuable asset to ALL segments of the cattle/beef industry, as well as making raising cattle even more environmentally viable.

I have no problem if someone doesn't like the product. Just hope it is based on fact, or personal preference of anyone not liking it.

mrj
 
mrj said:
Silver, I'm not sure what you mean by "champion", in this case.

Do you favor the recovered meat, or not, and why in either case.

As you can see, I do feel it is a valuable asset to ALL segments of the cattle/beef industry, as well as making raising cattle even more environmentally viable.

I have no problem if someone doesn't like the product. Just hope it is based on fact, or personal preference of anyone not liking it.

mrj
Click to expand...

I feel that if RCalf is actually looking out for the producers best interests they would have these greenies and the guilty media in court (we all know how rcalf loves to be in court), and doing what they can to restore the good reputation that the beef industry has earned over the years marketing safe, affordable and appealing products.
Rather than running around trying to slam borders shut on any excuse imaginable and jousting with windmills they could be defending this product and it's safety while dispelling these unfounded fears surrounding it that some even on this board seem to have fallen victim to.
Just my two cents,
 

Latest posts

Back
Top