Pink Slime...what's in your burger?
tashjs21
Posts: 4,584 Member
This is absolutely disgusting. :sick:
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-01-05-cheap-food-ammonia-burgers
Lessons on the food system from the ammonia-hamburger fiasco
by Tom Philpott
How much "pink slime" was in your last burger?
In case you missed it last week, The New York Times ran an excellent article on a South Dakota company called Beef Products Inc., which makes a hamburger filler product that ends up in 70 percent of burgers in the United States.
To make a long story short: Beef Products buys the cheapest, least desirable beef on offer--fatty sweepings from the slaughterhouse floor, which are notoriously rife with pathogens like E. coli 0157 and antibiotic-resistant salmonella. It sends the scraps through a series of machines, grinds them into a paste, separates out the fat, and laces the substance with ammonia to kill pathogens.
The result, known by some in the industry as "pink slime," is marketed widely to hamburger makers. The product has three selling points, from what I can tell: 1) it's really, really cheap; 2) unlike conventional ground beef, which routinely carries E. coli, etc, pink slime is sterilized by the addition of ammonia; and 3) it's so full of ammonia that it will kill pathogens in the ground beef it's mixed with.
In short, Beef Products' is peddling a solution--and a cheap one at that--to the beef industry's embarrassing food-borne-illness problem (see my Meat Wagon series of posts for more on this topic). No wonder that burger purveyors from agribusiness giant Cargill to McDonald's, from Burger King to your kid's public-school cafeteria, snap up 60 pound blocks of pink slime and mix it into conventional ground beef at doses of up to 15 percent.
But as the Times story shows, the ammonia doesn't always kill the pathogens in pink slime. Indeed, far from sterilizing a batch of burger mix, pink slime can actually add to the pathogen cocktail:
School lunch officials said that in some years Beef Products testing results were worse than many of the program's two dozen other suppliers, which use traditional meat processing methods. From 2005 to 2009, Beef Products had a rate of 36 positive results for salmonella per 1,000 tests, compared to a rate of nine positive results per 1,000 tests for the other suppliers, according to statistics from the program.
Thus, of pink slime's three chief selling points, only one holds up to scrutiny: it's cheap.
Note that the information unearthed in this important Times is new only to the public; the fast-food industry, the USDA, and the school-lunch program have long known about pink slime's less than stellar food-safety performance. Indeed, pressure from buyers may have contributed to the pathogen load--as The Times reports, complaints about an overpowering ammonia aroma forced the company to ramp down the dose of the sterilizing agent, which may have upped its susceptibility to salmonella, etc.
The pink-slime episode teaches us hard lessons about a food system that hinges on a few big companies churning out loads of cheap food. In a brilliant chapter in his book 2007 book The End of Food, Paul Roberts demonstrates how the profitability of large food companies depends completely on keeping costs as low as possible.
As companies scramble to slash costs, you get the rise of vast environmental calamities, like massive, feces-concentrating hog factories. Yet get human atrocities, like slavery in Florida tomato fields and systematic worker abuse in factory slaughterhouses. And you get public-health nightmares, like soaring diabetes rates tied to the rise of cheap, highly subsidized sweeteners.
The National School Lunch Program, which forces cafeteria administrators to feed students lunch for $2.68 per student per day, is a microcosm of our cheap food system. Two-thirds of that outlay goes to overhead and labor, leaving much less than a buck to spend on ingredients. No wonder the lunch program is such a massive buyer of pink slime--3.5 million pounds last year alone, the Times reports.
School lunch officials said they ultimately agreed to use the treated meat because it shaved about 3 cents off the cost of making a pound of ground beef.... In 2004, lunch officials increased the amount of Beef Products meat allowed in its hamburgers to 15 percent, from 10 percent, to increase savings.
Three cents off the cost of making a pound of ground beef. Under the severe fiscal austerity that school cafeteria administrators operate under, pinching those three pennies is a rational decision, even if it means subjecting children to ammonia-ridden slime that may contain pathogens.
For its part, the fast-food industry has reacted to the Times revelations, not by renouncing the use of pink slime but rather defending it. Accroding to Associated Press, "Fast-food chains McDonald's Corp. and Burger King Holdings Inc. and agricultural conglomerate Cargill Inc. all use the [Beef Products] meat in their hamburgers. All said they'll keep using the meat and that their products are safe."
For them, billions of dollars in profits depend on pinching a few pennies per pound on inputs. As long as that economic structure remains in place, we can count on continued pathologies in the food system.
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-01-05-cheap-food-ammonia-burgers
Lessons on the food system from the ammonia-hamburger fiasco
by Tom Philpott
How much "pink slime" was in your last burger?
In case you missed it last week, The New York Times ran an excellent article on a South Dakota company called Beef Products Inc., which makes a hamburger filler product that ends up in 70 percent of burgers in the United States.
To make a long story short: Beef Products buys the cheapest, least desirable beef on offer--fatty sweepings from the slaughterhouse floor, which are notoriously rife with pathogens like E. coli 0157 and antibiotic-resistant salmonella. It sends the scraps through a series of machines, grinds them into a paste, separates out the fat, and laces the substance with ammonia to kill pathogens.
The result, known by some in the industry as "pink slime," is marketed widely to hamburger makers. The product has three selling points, from what I can tell: 1) it's really, really cheap; 2) unlike conventional ground beef, which routinely carries E. coli, etc, pink slime is sterilized by the addition of ammonia; and 3) it's so full of ammonia that it will kill pathogens in the ground beef it's mixed with.
In short, Beef Products' is peddling a solution--and a cheap one at that--to the beef industry's embarrassing food-borne-illness problem (see my Meat Wagon series of posts for more on this topic). No wonder that burger purveyors from agribusiness giant Cargill to McDonald's, from Burger King to your kid's public-school cafeteria, snap up 60 pound blocks of pink slime and mix it into conventional ground beef at doses of up to 15 percent.
But as the Times story shows, the ammonia doesn't always kill the pathogens in pink slime. Indeed, far from sterilizing a batch of burger mix, pink slime can actually add to the pathogen cocktail:
School lunch officials said that in some years Beef Products testing results were worse than many of the program's two dozen other suppliers, which use traditional meat processing methods. From 2005 to 2009, Beef Products had a rate of 36 positive results for salmonella per 1,000 tests, compared to a rate of nine positive results per 1,000 tests for the other suppliers, according to statistics from the program.
Thus, of pink slime's three chief selling points, only one holds up to scrutiny: it's cheap.
Note that the information unearthed in this important Times is new only to the public; the fast-food industry, the USDA, and the school-lunch program have long known about pink slime's less than stellar food-safety performance. Indeed, pressure from buyers may have contributed to the pathogen load--as The Times reports, complaints about an overpowering ammonia aroma forced the company to ramp down the dose of the sterilizing agent, which may have upped its susceptibility to salmonella, etc.
The pink-slime episode teaches us hard lessons about a food system that hinges on a few big companies churning out loads of cheap food. In a brilliant chapter in his book 2007 book The End of Food, Paul Roberts demonstrates how the profitability of large food companies depends completely on keeping costs as low as possible.
As companies scramble to slash costs, you get the rise of vast environmental calamities, like massive, feces-concentrating hog factories. Yet get human atrocities, like slavery in Florida tomato fields and systematic worker abuse in factory slaughterhouses. And you get public-health nightmares, like soaring diabetes rates tied to the rise of cheap, highly subsidized sweeteners.
The National School Lunch Program, which forces cafeteria administrators to feed students lunch for $2.68 per student per day, is a microcosm of our cheap food system. Two-thirds of that outlay goes to overhead and labor, leaving much less than a buck to spend on ingredients. No wonder the lunch program is such a massive buyer of pink slime--3.5 million pounds last year alone, the Times reports.
School lunch officials said they ultimately agreed to use the treated meat because it shaved about 3 cents off the cost of making a pound of ground beef.... In 2004, lunch officials increased the amount of Beef Products meat allowed in its hamburgers to 15 percent, from 10 percent, to increase savings.
Three cents off the cost of making a pound of ground beef. Under the severe fiscal austerity that school cafeteria administrators operate under, pinching those three pennies is a rational decision, even if it means subjecting children to ammonia-ridden slime that may contain pathogens.
For its part, the fast-food industry has reacted to the Times revelations, not by renouncing the use of pink slime but rather defending it. Accroding to Associated Press, "Fast-food chains McDonald's Corp. and Burger King Holdings Inc. and agricultural conglomerate Cargill Inc. all use the [Beef Products] meat in their hamburgers. All said they'll keep using the meat and that their products are safe."
For them, billions of dollars in profits depend on pinching a few pennies per pound on inputs. As long as that economic structure remains in place, we can count on continued pathologies in the food system.
0
Replies
-
I saw Jamie Oliver taking about this on his TV show. It is appalling what really goes into our food. There is a series of books by David Pollan that are a great read.0
-
Thanks for sharing. :sick: :sick:0
-
If/when I have kids, they are NOT eating school food. Or fast food. Or processed "hamburgers". What the hell ever happened to shaping your own patties out of beef from the butcher?
The state of "food" in this country really is just sick.0 -
I watched the Jamie Oliver show too ... OMG ... how disgusting!!! I am so glad I went veggie a few years back and vegan this year!!
It's appalling what the meat and dairy industry get away with ... once you start reading and learning about it, you will be scared to eat anything! :noway:0 -
I think I'm going to throw up...
This is REVOLTING!!!!!0 -
Argh... South Dakota you fail me.... Oh did I mention I live in South Dakota?? Yup.....0
-
I am glad I buy naturally raised beef from local farms. It costs me a whole lot more, so I just eat it a whole lot less.0
-
this is so freakin' disgusting. and im glad i read it. i mean i totally am proud of the fact that myself and my kids have not eaten ANY fast food since december but i shudder to thikn of the harm i caused them and myself alreayd.0
-
I'm so glad that I asked everyone for cheeseburger recipies a few days ago. I am definitely making mine at home!0
-
Oh. My. God. I love me a hamburger...and I'm not above stopping at McD's for one when I have a hankering and I'm out and about. I think you've just successfully killed my craving for life!
Do you have anything bad about fries?0 -
That right there is exactly why I'm vegan!0
-
If/when I have kids, they are NOT eating school food. Or fast food. Or processed "hamburgers". What the hell ever happened to shaping your own patties out of beef from the butcher?
The state of "food" in this country really is just sick.
I know!!! That is what I was thinking, my daughter will be brown bagging it! But then there are schools now that are "banning" sack lunches and the kids HAVE to eat at school. :noway:
Can we say major protesting?? The parents need to stand up for our babies because obviously no one is. It's all about the profit and no regard for their health.0 -
Oh. My. God. I love me a hamburger...and I'm not above stopping at McD's for one when I have a hankering and I'm out and about. I think you've just successfully killed my craving for life!
Do you have anything bad about fries?
:laugh:
Nah, nothing official. I quit eating them when I found a fry in my car that had to have been there for months and it had not changed AT ALL. That killed that for me. It isn't food if it doesn't mold and decompose. :sick:0 -
Gosh that is so horrifying! Yuck. Reminds me of a book that I read called "THE FOOD REVOLUTION" by John Robbins. If you ever get a chance to read it. It's a great book. Tells about all the crap that they lace our food with. He was the founder of JAMBA JUICE. His father was the founder of BASKIN ROBBINS and he refused to take over the family business, because of what it did to the HEALTH of his family as well as what it was doing to the health of others~! Just a thought.
THANK YOU FOR SHARING: Just one more reason that I don't eat hamburgers! Puke:bigsmile:0 -
Not really seeing the downside here. Sounds like efficiency to me. Just the modern equivlent of using the whole buffalo.
The only negative provided by your article is the following:
"School lunch officials said that in some years Beef Products testing results were worse than [/b]many[/b] of the program's two dozen other suppliers, which use traditional meat processing methods. From 2005 to 2009, Beef Products had a rate of 36 positive results for salmonella per 1,000 tests, compared to a rate of nine positive results per 1,000 tests for the other suppliers, according to statistics from the program."
Some years? Many of the other suppliers? That wording leads me to believe that overall, the Beef Products testing results are better than the standard. The negative they come up with appears to be the result of selective usage of data.
The presence of ammonia must not be shown have any negative effects either, or surely the author of the article would have brought them to the forefront.
If the thought of "pink slime" turns your stomach, well then, whatever. But without doing any research beyond reading the posted article, it seems that this is a cost saving and healthier method than traditional processing.0 -
This is beyond gross. I knew fast food was bad for you but this???? Ewww :sick:0
-
this is so gross!!! I just shared the article with all my friends who have small children...Thanks!!0
-
Not really seeing the downside here. Sounds like efficiency to me. Just the modern equivlent of using the whole buffalo.
The only negative provided by your article is the following:
"School lunch officials said that in some years Beef Products testing results were worse than [/b]many[/b] of the program's two dozen other suppliers, which use traditional meat processing methods. From 2005 to 2009, Beef Products had a rate of 36 positive results for salmonella per 1,000 tests, compared to a rate of nine positive results per 1,000 tests for the other suppliers, according to statistics from the program."
Some years? Many of the other suppliers? That wording leads me to believe that overall, the Beef Products testing results are better than the standard. The negative they come up with appears to be the result of selective usage of data.
The presence of ammonia must not be shown have any negative effects either, or surely the author of the article would have brought them to the forefront.
If the thought of "pink slime" turns your stomach, well then, whatever. But without doing any research beyond reading the posted article, it seems that this is a cost saving and healthier method than traditional processing.
If you like ammonia in your food, good for you. I would prefer my meat without it.0 -
Argh... South Dakota you fail me.... Oh did I mention I live in South Dakota?? Yup.....
My thoughts exactly Kayla........seriously South Dakota? Erg......0 -
If you want more research you could watch Food, Inc. the documentary. If I remember correctly they have a whole segment on the use of ammonia in meat processing. It's not just limited to Fast food/ Cafeterias and pink slime. Amonia is used by the large meat producers on the ground beef, pork chops and chicken breast that you buy at the grocery store too. Local meat is really the only way to go.0
-
If you like ammonia in your food, good for you. I would prefer my meat without it.
That's nice, but ALL meat has amonia in it. The good news is you can effectively remove it with cooking.
I don't have an interest one way or another, but it appears you have a choice between a more expensive beef with more e-coli (i.e., fecal matter) and less ammonia. Or a cheaper product with less e-coli and more ammonia.
Go with whichever one turns your stomach less. Pesonally, I don't find a slightly elevated pH level of ammonia off-putting. In a perfect world I'd be able to weigh the negatives of increased ammonia against the negatives of increased e-coli with a variety of scientific studies, but that's not feesable, so I'm not going to argue anyone else's choice. Efficency also plays a big role in my preferance beyond it's direct effect on my pocketboook. Really, it's an execise in conservation. Use less cows, use less energy, lessen the environmental impact. I find that appealing. But like I said, I won't argue against your choice to avoid it.
Also, the "pink slime" is also over 90% lean beef, so that may be a factor for you as well if you value protien in your diet over fat.0 -
If you like ammonia in your food, good for you. I would prefer my meat without it.
That's nice, but ALL meat has amonia in it. The good news is you can effectively remove it with cooking.
I don't have an interest one way or another, but it appears you have a choice between a more expensive beef with more e-coli (i.e., fecal matter) and less ammonia. Or a cheaper product with less e-coli and more ammonia.
Go with whichever one turns your stomach less. Pesonally, I don't find a slightly elevated pH level of ammonia off-putting. In a perfect world I'd be able to weigh the negatives of increased ammonia against the negatives of increased e-coli with a variety of scientific studies, but that's not feesable, so I'm not going to argue anyone else's choice. Efficency also plays a big role in my preferance beyond it's direct effect on my pocketboook. Really, it's an execise in conservation. Use less cows, use less energy, lessen the environmental impact. I find that appealing. But like I said, I won't argue against your choice to avoid it.
Also, the "pink slime" is also over 90% lean beef, so that may be a factor for you as well if you value protien in your diet over fat.
yes all meat and most foods have ammonia in them but when the levels are so HIGH that the workers complain about the overpowering smell...there is a serious problem.
I will take my chances with the higher priced beef and cook it accordingly.0 -
Don't even bother arguing with this guy. Elementary1, signed up today, 0 lbs to lose, and their only posts are in full defense of this disgusting process that anyone with half a brain would understand is bad for you, is obviously a shill for this "Beef Products" company.
I like how he says ammonia breaks down when you cook it- well what does he think happens to the e.coli when you cook it?0 -
Another reason why I'm glad to be a pescatarian.0
-
Don't even bother arguing with this guy. Elementary1, signed up today, 0 lbs to lose, and their only posts are in full defense of this disgusting process that anyone with half a brain would understand is bad for you, is obviously a shill for this "Beef Products" company.
I like how he says ammonia breaks down when you cook it- well what does he think happens to the e.coli when you cook it?
:laugh: My thoughts exactly! :drinker:
Food Handling 1010 -
Oh dear lord.... :sick:
There is a book out there that is along these lines that will have your skin crawling and stomach churning. You will seriously not want fast food EVER again. Called Toxin and is based on actual events and practices in the fast food world. I will try to find the name of the author and edit my post.
Author: Robin Cook.0 -
Don't even bother arguing with this guy. Elementary1, signed up today, 0 lbs to lose, and their only posts are in full defense of this disgusting process that anyone with half a brain would understand is bad for you, is obviously a shill for this "Beef Products" company.
The thought crossed my mind when I saw this thread was the first topic to be commented on. What do these companies do? Search the internet all day to go argue their toxic sludge?
And Elemntary1...I know you won't answer publicly...but do you really eat this and feed this to your family?? Since you are an insider my guess would be no.0 -
I watched the Jamie Oliver show too ... OMG ... how disgusting!!! I am so glad I went veggie a few years back and vegan this year!!
It's appalling what the meat and dairy industry get away with ... once you start reading and learning about it, you will be scared to eat anything! :noway:
the veggie/vegan isn't safe either. look at what the grain industry does to corn, soy and others to 'engineer' better food. scary and yuck! you should not be able to 'patent' a seed!!!0 -
This is why I only feed my family grass fed beef! No nasty stuff. Also glad to live in Canada cause they don't allow growth horomones in any food, so unlikely this would be permitted for use here.
Back in the day before industrialized meat processing eating beef was a treat because it was expensive, really you don't need to eat it every day.
It is the industrialized process that causes all of these meat diseases, so spend the money and just eat less beef. And for gods sake don't feed your kids fast food it is not food.0 -
Don't even bother arguing with this guy. Elementary1, signed up today, 0 lbs to lose, and their only posts are in full defense of this disgusting process that anyone with half a brain would understand is bad for you, is obviously a shill for this "Beef Products" company.
The thought crossed my mind when I saw this thread was the first topic to be commented on. What do these companies do? Search the internet all day to go argue their toxic sludge?
maybe you're right and he works for that company (doubt it), but don't assume that all people that disagree with you are shills or trolls. i hope you both apologize if he does stick around. everyone has to have a first post somewhere! plus, this is a FITNESS site, not just used for weight loss.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions