Beef processor files for bankruptcy over 'pink slime' uproar.

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 15 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 


Reply to slightlyskectical - I wonder if you had a budget of $100.00 to feed 4 people for a month, if the burgers wouldn't have tasted better. You have the money to buy the quality of food that you want. Some people don't!

Tired of Control Freaks




posted on May, 15 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


popsmayhen

The buyers didn't decide. The product was taken out of the stores because of a media campaign by a hysterical chef trying to make a name for himself.


Tired of Control Freaks



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


While Oliver's piece did cause a rapid eruption of "converts" to the ranks of conscious/considerate consumers, the rationalization of the related facts does warrant such changes in human conduct. Maybe not so rapid or striking, but more targeted and graceful. For instance, in the case of continuing the unhealthful manufacture of this product, since many people are content eating "whatever," why shouldn't the price of this particular food reduce to a level which satisfies such non-thinkers while being economically fair (instead of restrictively rewarding only those who abuse their bodies and the bankers/power-men that deal to them)? Alternately, in the case that the bones and "leftover meat" are given the better and more nourishing end of being used for stock (etc.), the price of meat may need to rise in order to give an economic platform for the ethical and healthy consumption of a living creature. Sadly, so long as we organize ourselves against each other, the suffering will continue on all sides.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Dasher
 


Thank you Dasher - you are at least putting some real thought into your posts.

I can't understand your reply though. You think it was wrong to cause an abrupt change and that the change should have been more graceful.

Either, if pink slime is not suitable for human consumption, then the change must be abrupt. Alternatively, pink slime is acceptable for human consumption and the change was NOT required at all.

The rejection of pink slime addition to ground beef was unnoticed by consumers until Jamie Oliver brought it to
their attention with his biased and graphic demonstration. I am confident that if people ever actually saw meat being slaughtered, that many would give up eating meat for a time.

Pink slime saves the raising of 1.5 million cows. The exclusion of pink slime and the rising of beef prices did NOTHING to provide for changes to factory farming. It did nothing whatsoever except soothe the sensibilities of people who probably have been eating pink slime for 30 years - with great satisfaction I might add.

I was always taught that those who waste not, want not. The exclusion of pink slime from the food supply is sheer, unadultered waste. I do not see the difference in adding 10 % pink slime to ground beef or in using pink slime to make soup. If its suitable to eat, then its suitable to eat.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


Thank you for your consideration.

Yes, one of the basic ideas I stated was that the change should have been more patient/wise.

Your arguments are false. Clearly the pink slime is edible. People have eaten it for quite a while. However, that does not take away from the inherent senselessness related to the procedures taken in it's production. The ideal course for this situation would have been simply decreased public consumption and decreased corporate profits along with redirected/thoughtful distribution.

I agree, most people are so disconnected from reality that they don't fully grasp the brutality of their consumption/needs/habits.

There is no need to be so polar regarding a reaction to this situation. Comparing ammonia treated food to using the same non-ammonia treated meat/bones to make stock is simply not good accounting. My family often buys the cheapest, but cleanest, meat available. That means that we take the tail, heart, bones, stomach, tongue (which is incredibly good, btw), etc. and use them. Leftover meat on the soup bones usually means that there will be wonderfully soft and tasty (and nicely gristly) morsels in the soup!

There is no need to resort to such disgusting practices such as treating meat with poison. However, I do understand that it is easier (more economically profitable) to hide this nastiness in other meat than it is to produce healthy food with it, so unless consumer demand clearly justifies it in truth/forthrightness, pink slime should be relegated to cheap eats for those who enjoy it. I am certain that, in the light of day, most people will choose healthy food, and also that there will always be a market for thoughtless products such as pink slime.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Dasher
 


Dasher

One of the things that I do is can food in jar for my family (this is about 12 people). In the process of learning how to can food, I have learned many things that if people knew about, they probably wouldn't eat.

For instance, the same Ammonia Hydroxide is used in almost all baked good. That bag of baby carrots - well that is actually very mature carrots that are rotting. The rotting parts of the carrot are ground down and the whole thing is soaked in chlorine before being rinsed off and bagged for sale. Those cute little mandarin oranges in the cups that are just perfect of a child's lunch at school - well those oranges are soaked in lye to remove the pith (the white part) before they are packed in syrup.

This is the reality of our food supply.

As you agree - pink slime is perfectly edible. The problem is that consumers want to know what they are eating and the packages should have been properly labelled so that consumers could have a choice in what they were buying.

But having to raise 1.5 million more cows - this is turning into a farce!

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


Hi, again, TCF.
Edible (healthfulness in regards to sickness or poison) is not the same as nutritious. Paper is edible, but not nutritious. Highly processed food lacks nutrition. That is why it is common to manufacturer and include synthetic nutritional content (which the body does not absorb equally as well as unprocessed food!) in the ingredient lists of highly processed/deficient food products. More so, color, flavor, and aroma must also be synthesized and added to processed foods in order to appeal to the natural inclination of our bodies. And I should say that those who desire money are masters at dangling such tempting bait. False taste, false appearance, false odor, false nutrition, false cost.

Whether it is TV, the internet, processed foods, poor education, our culture is being swallowed up by foolishness. And I am certainly an advocate of one's freedom to be foolish, but I do not advocate that anyone actually acts foolishly. Nevertheless, avoiding foolishness requires wisdom and wisdom requires diligence, humility, etc., so I do not expect that the world will be too different than it ever has been, except when/if something "big" happens...

Regarding the need to raise more cows, well, that is simply a non-sequitur. Processing the same foods differently will clearly reduce the profits of many corporations, but the same amount of food should be able to be achieved if some minor consideration is applied. More so, if stock is made with the same materials and combined with a healthy bulk food item like potatoes, bean, rice, etc., it may actually reduce the overall intake of meat while increasing the overall nutritional content being offered to the public.

And, again, if someone wants to buy highly processed meat, they should be able to do so at a price that reflects the deceptions that were orchestrated in order to produce such a thing.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Jamie Oliver is among a number of defendents getting sued for his "pink slime" campaign by a worker that was fired when the beef processing plants closed.

www.bbc.co.uk...

I am so glad. I am tired of people controlling others for fun and profit!

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


Its actually called mechanically seperated meat, and the reason its banned in the UK (and the rest of Europe), due to legislation passed in 2004, is because it was considered the main vector for BSE infections. It is also not permitted to use it in pet food, or animal feed either.

While its true that the UK was the first country to identify cases of BSE, we didn't technically "give" you BSE (mad cow disease). You got it the same way we did, re-feeding cattle with MSM's. It just took longer to identify it in your own cattle stocks, and it became politically expedient to blame the UK.

It has been of some mirth to me, that despite knowing its a major vector in BSE and CJD, you continued to produce and consume it.

I am sorry that the people working for that processor are now, basically, unemployed, and at Christmas too, but I am glad the processor has gone out of business.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by BMorris
 


I believe that you are mistaken

Special risk materials (SRM) that may carry BSE is defined as:





5 SRM is defined as the skull, brain, nerves attached to the brain, eyes, tonsils, spinal cord and nerves attached to the spinal cord of cattle aged 30 months or older, and the distal ileum (portion of the small intestine) of cattle of all ages. (Health Canada, 2004). SRM according to Regulation No.1774/2002 of the European Parliament: i) Cattle more than 12 months of age: the skull including the brain and eyes; the tonsils; the spinal cord; and the vertebral column except the vertebrae of the tail and the transverse processes of the lumbar vertebrae, but including dorsal root ganglia. Ii) Cattle of all ages: the intestines from the duodenum to the rectum.


quote is found at the bottom of page 2 of this paper www1.ifc.org...

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


Wikipedia defines the "pink slime" that is the subject of this thread:




The product is used as a filler or to reduce the overall fat content of ground beef.[12][13] It is produced by processing low-grade beef trimmings and other meat by-products such as cartilage, connective tissue and sinew,[14][15] which contain fat and small amounts of lean beef, and mechanically separating the lean beef from the fat through the use of a centrifuge heated to approximately 100°F (38°C).[16][dead link] The heating process liquefies the fat and facilitates the separation of lean beef from the fat[16][dead link] and other meat by-products.[17] The recovered beef material is then processed, heated, and treated with gaseous ammonia[1] or citric acid to kill E. coli, salmonella, and other bacteria. When gaseous ammonia is used, after coming in contact with water in the meat, it forms into ammonium hydroxide.[1] The product is finely ground, compressed into pellets[18] or blocks, flash frozen and then shipped for use as an additive.[19][20]


Pink slime is the lean meat that is separated from cartilage, connective tissue and sinew and has nothing to do with BSE.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by BMorris
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


Its actually called mechanically seperated meat, and the reason its banned in the UK (and the rest of Europe), due to legislation passed in 2004, is because it was considered the main vector for BSE infections. It is also not permitted to use it in pet food, or animal feed either.

While its true that the UK was the first country to identify cases of BSE, we didn't technically "give" you BSE (mad cow disease). You got it the same way we did, re-feeding cattle with MSM's. It just took longer to identify it in your own cattle stocks, and it became politically expedient to blame the UK.

It has been of some mirth to me, that despite knowing its a major vector in BSE and CJD, you continued to produce and consume it.

I am sorry that the people working for that processor are now, basically, unemployed, and at Christmas too, but I am glad the processor has gone out of business.


I can't be sorry for people losing jobs involved with animal cruelty, disease and bad quality "products" but ymmv. BTW, it's separated not seperated.
While I appreciate that industry tries not to waste, there is a limit to what we can technically define as food. Pink slime does not, imho, fit in this category. Even at Xmas, let it snow, freeze, deteriorate... or crash and burn. Nature will rectify our meddling... eventually. Either that or we'll poison ourselves after it's too late. The arrogance of man is equalled only by our ignorance.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


And here is the unintended consequences of James Oliver and his control freaks.

Pink slime was banned. Manufacturers of cheap meat products (like frozen foods) turned to other sources to obtain cheaper ground beef....and ended up with horse meat, possibly contaminated with bunk

www.bbc.co.uk...




An EU decision to reclassify a type of minced meat widely used in the UK played a significant part in creating the horsemeat crisis, a former Food Standards Agency senior scientist says. Desinewed meat was a key ingredient in value items such as pies, lasagne and other processed beef products. Dr Mark Woolfe said the decision to ban it last year had prompted producers to go outside the UK to source supplies of cheap mince.


This is always the kind of things that happen when those who only think they know better, insist that they are are right at all costs.!


Tired of Control Freaks





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join