Also a big part of the objection is that pink slime is soaked in an ammonia bath. I don't think it is ignorant to question whether an ammonia bath might have consequences health-wise.
1. There is no soaking. The product is exposed to ammonia gas.
2. If we don't trust the FDA to regulate based on health consequences, what the hell do we pay them for?
3. It is, in strict terms, ignorant to not know that ammonia is a component of animal metabolism which we produce and excrete naturally. Ground beef always has ammonia in it (albeit about a quarter as much as in treated meat).
2 - Straw man. We pay them for being better than the alternative. I don't trust them because, like most of our government, they are ultimately beholden to lobbying and special interest money.
3 - 4x the ammonia is not really a selling point, and in fact makes the case that rejecting this food out of caution is not ignorant.
Further, I don't think you can call it ignorant for people to reject eating foods that make them go "ick!" I could eat maggots. Is it ignorance that makes me choose not to, or personal taste?
1. I imagine USA Today uses the term "bath" to refer to any number of things. Here's the Washington Post: "...the lean beef passes through a tube the size of a pencil, where it is exposed for less than a second to a tiny amount of ammonia gas."[0]
2. Be that as it may, they are the people in charge of telling us whether or not food is safe to eat, and they said this was safe to eat. They also happen to know a lot more about this stuff than we do, which brings us to...
3. It is quite literal ignorance to say "Ammonia? I have a bottle of that under my sink! And they feed this to children?!" while ignorant of the fact that you exhale ammonia with every breath, and could eat the same amount of ammonia by simply making a bigger burger.
Not that that gives it an automatic pass, but it sets the bar for someone saying, "Yeah, we tested this and it's completely safe to eat" a hell of a lot lower.
The unwitting coiner of the term was a US Department of Agriculture microbiologist who was disgusted the USDA approved the product for human consumption, stating: "Nobody did anything (about pink slime). USDA dropped the ball again. The meat industry soft sold it,"[1]
I don't doubt a sizable chunk of public opinion originated 'from the gut' but characterising all concern over the product as illogical / irrational is completely disingenuous.
Even assuming that allowing the unlabeled sale of ground beef containing some quantity of LFTB was an inside deal, ammonium hydroxide in general is classified as GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe)[0]. In the opinion of the FDA, it's as safe to put on food as anything else.
> characterising all concern over the product as illogical / irrational is completely disingenuous.
Frankly... no, I don't think it is. In absence of any documented health issues, in absence of any reason to suspect danger, what is the logical, rational reason for concern?
You may not like it[1], and if enough people don't like the idea that may be cause to stop selling it, but calling it unsafe is definitely both ignorant and irrational.
Well if that's your position there's not much chance of reasoned debate really.
I simply highlighted that concern over the product originated from a USDA microbiologist. That fact refutes your characterisation of all opposition as entirely 'hysterical'.
At no point have I said ammonium hydroxide is unsafe, or that the product is unsafe. I simply pointed out that a qualified scientist raised concerns very early on with the product being approved for human consumption.
> a qualified scientist raised concerns very early on with the product being approved for human consumption.
He did not. I don't think you read that article very closely.
"It looks like pink slime. That is what I said." Asked if he and his family still eat hamburgers, Zirnstein sighed. "The labels aren't clear, so we don't eat it. That's the thing," he said. "It isn't freaking labeled."
He never said it wasn't fit for human consumption, because it was and is. He just thought it was gross. His issue, which is a reasonable criticism, is that the product was being sold as plain ground beef despite having undergone additional processing.
I'm sorry if my tone is very absolute, but that's because this is a very clear-cut, black and white issue. Ammonium hydroxide is a GRAS chemical which is harmless to put on meat and renders it safe for consumption. You may want to not eat overly-processed beef, and you may rightly argue you have a right to know, but any health or safety concerns are absolutely specious.
Ah, you're quite right, I made a completely false interpretation of his position. Apologies!
However my position has simply been that the response to pink slime was not entirely irrational / hysterical, considering it originated in the private communication of a Government Microbiologist.
I'd also refute your assertion that any health or safety concerns are absolutely specious. It's a very low-quality meat product that is otherwise not fit for human consumption, so on an industrial scale any rational consumer could see that there are potential negative health consequences from some failure in the production line. Approved industrial procedures like feeding cows MBM have triggered BSE in the past, so a natural wariness is entirely reasonable and rational.
The emotional response might certainly outweigh the actual risk, but some of the responses in this thread seem to cast concern / opposition in the same light as tribal people scared that photographs steal souls.
Definitely a good point. I think the thing I'm trying to get at is that those concerns apply to processed foods in general, as you point out; you take the same risk every time you eat a hot dog, or frankly any commercial meat which comes off an assembly line.
I'm not saying that's not worthy of concern-- of course, it is. It's just the hysteria surrounding this processed food in particular, especially the "ammonia bath" meme which even made its way to HN, that really irritated me (as has probably been obvious :)
Ah sure - I see your point. Yes on the whole it was a bit of emotional hysteria driving reaction to this particular product when the same point could be made regarding all commercial meat production.
I suppose it became the perfect poster child to represent the general issue some groups have with modern food production in general (which I'm partly sympathetic to) but I'd agree that making false claims about food safety helps nobody.
