Pink Slime

Pink slime - Democrat cause dejour.

All the libs need to do is come up with a derogatory term for something and all the uninformed will jump right on the band wagon.

Pink slime is not made of slaughter house garbage. It is made of the lean trimmings of regular beef cuts.

Truly some people are such lemmings.

 

Ain't it the truth.

 

Do you know what lean trimmings are?

I was very surprised when researching treats for my dog. I found ones that advertised "lean cuts of beef" as the ingredient. In my mind, I pictured a nice, red slice of meat being used in the product.

I found out that when a product just says "beef" and doesn't say what part of the cow it come from, it is perfectly legal to label it as beef, but that beef may come from the nose, carcass scrapings, pretty much all the parts one doesn't think are used in something advertised as lean beef. The term lean comes in because those parts get put together, then are spun out to separate the fat, thus making it "lean." Some brands of rawhide and meat sticks for dogs advertise themselves as all natural prime beef, yet they don't contain anything we would recognize as beef if we saw it.

Since regulations on pet medications and food are quite strict, (in fact, I knew a vet who said he only would take pet meds because the regulations are so strict on them that he trusts them more than those made for humans) it really does make me think that yes, we're probably getting tricked the same way at the grocery store when we buy food for us as when we're buying food for our pets.

And if it's coming from any meat we would recognize, why would they need to treat it with ammonia to make it safe? I don't get it. If it's the trimmings from the same cuts we're eating, why are they considered so unsafe that they must be chemically sanitized in a special way that the other meat isn't?

It doesn't add up.

But as long as they're putting it in our meat, I'm glad they're making it safe first.

Main issue for me is not so much that they're doing this, but that the issue is so cloudy. Why don't we know this stuff? Why does it feel like we're misled about what we buy? Why would anyone want to be misleading about their product if there is nothing wrong with the product?

"Don't ask don't tell" is a concept that never seems to work out well for anyone.

 

We've been "slimed?"

Thanks for the info Gina. Years ago, I read an article about the by-product fillers that went into hot dogs, and when I read that the lips, EYES, etc., are used, I quit eating hot dogs for years.

Don't ask, don't tell may work out well for some, but, I wish I'd never read that article. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Years ago my brother worked at a meat packing plant. Since then he has not and will not eat a hot dog. His words when ask about this are:

You don't know what goes in those things!

 

Growing up on a working farm and consuming the rewards of successful hunting and fishing trips, it's interesting, IMHO, how culture forms people's reactions to foods.

What people will and won't eat sometimes leads to laughter and sometimes to sadness, too. One thing I've observed is the further a person is away from hands-on production (grow it or shoot it) the more narrow their viewpoint of what is acceptable and what isn't.

By the same token, often, the less people know about some "chemicals" the stronger their negative reaction to them, if not used as they preceive them to be used.

In this case, it's ammonia. A MILD disinfectant when compared to chlorine bleach. A solvent of fats. A naturally occuring compound found in the environment and excreted by people in their own urine. Say "solvent" and some folks raise their voices in horror that a solvent is being used in food preparation. Plain old H2O is a "solvent"!

That said, back to foods. Properly (safely) prepared there's nothing wrong with foods that revolt some people, based primarily on "cultural" preferences. There's nothing wrong with pork lips, ears, stomach, kidneys, gristle, skin, jowls, feet, etc. (Fat and cholestrol issues aside for a moment.) It's pork even if it isn't the prime cuts promoted in supermarkets.

If the fat is removed, by whatever means, the meat is "lean". Percentage of fat depends on the content of the original cut plus the method used to remove most of it. Put a fatty Boston Butt in a smoker and leave it for hours with a low heat. Much of the fat will be renderd, thus making it a "leaner" cut of meat. Another example. Remove all visible fat from a chicken. Then, boil it until done. Chill in the liquid. Remove the congealed fat. Even the thighs will have much less fat than they originally contained.

Oh, and while I'm on chicken, how many people throw away the neck and what's in that bag in the chicken? How many people know how to cut up a chicken to get two pieces from the back? Yes, it's bony. And, it contains, IMHO, the best part of a chicken -- the two "oysters". Instead of tossing the gizzard, boil it in salted water, when done add pepper for a cook's treat!

I'm rambling and gotta close, soon. There's nothing wrong with using cow's tongue, pig's tail, beaver tail, bear paws and "mountain oysters". The scriptures teach that it isn't what we put into our mouth that defiles us.

Want lean meat? If so, eat venison. Want better joint health? Instead of taking a pill, eat the gristle & naw those pork, beef, and chicken bones. Leaving nothing except a clean bone. Need more calcium? Eat sardines and other fish with fully cooked (softened) bones.

A final thought. Since the original sin, and after Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice for us, isn't it a sin to waste the less savory (to some) parts of animals that we slaughter to feed ourselves? Because xyz no longer appears in supermarket meat counters, does that mean, we should cast it aside as something not fit for consumption by people or their pets? How humble are we if we refuse to eat anything that isn't "high on the hog", regardless of which animal was killed to provide norishment for our bodies?

 

A good sensible post, Oldtimer.

I've heard that the method used to get differing fat content for ground beef, i.e. 72% lean, 80% lean, 85% lean, 90% lean, etc. is simply to grind up chuck steak and then add fat to achieve the desired fat content. Is that correct?

In other words, here is a bucket of ground up steak, and here is a bucket of fat. Grab some ground up steak, weigh it, then grab a glob of fat, weigh it and mix to desired proportions. Voila!

 

ITL, generally, that's correct. Each cut of meat has an average % of fat associated with it. When grinding to achieve a "moist" burger, x% of fat may have to be added to make it that way, if the cut doesn't already have enough. I'd have to look up the normal fat content of chuck to see if any fat has to be added to achieve 80% lean / 20% fat. It's been a while since I've read the numbers.

FWIW.......

This morning I helped prepare some venison that was frozen (last fall) as full cuts ie hams, loins, neck, etc. After trimming out the steaks and roasts the trimmings (scraps) were ground. Because vension is so lean, we added about 25% pork fat. Roughly 1/4 lb of pork fat to 1 lb of ground venison. With the next batch, we'll be making bulk sausage and using approximately the same ratio of pork fat to the ground venison.

When either of those (burgers are grilled or the sausage patties are fried), a portion of the fat will be rendered out of the meat, as it cooks. This process will keep the meat moist and tender.

For those who haven't eaten deer meat, the flavor is very similar to beef. In a stew for example, many people won't notice enough flavor difference to comment. They assume they are eating a beef stew or vegetable beef soup, unless someone tells them. No additional fat is needed in these dishes because moist heat is used to cook them. Dry heat, as in grilling is a different story with extra lean meat.

Ya'll are making me hungry talking about this.

Oh...... as a side note: We used Dawn dish detergent plus ammonia for all pre/post cleaning of everything used to cut, tenderize, grind, and contain the meat processed this morning.

 

Good stuff. I made some Tacos and burritos out of it the other day. Mmmm, tasty.

 

I see that grocery chains are jumping on the anti-pink slime bandwagon and won't be selling hamburger with that in it.

1) How many jobs will be lost as a result of this food processing technique is unoffically being banned? (It hasn't been proved to be unsafe.)

2) How much higher will hamburger prices go, as a result? Many people can barely afford hamburger as it is, now. While the hamburger with the filler may not be as nutritious, isn't that better than not being able to buy meat, at all?

3) What's next? How many other business operations are waiting for the other shoe to drop, as the food police continue making their rounds? Other operations use ammonia. Other operations have similar disgusting sounding processes needed to bring safe food to the table. Also, remember, too --

Most places ban the sale of raw milk. (Drank raw milk all my life.)

NYC is regulating soup kitchens for the homeless to death. Who's going to feed the hungry, when they close up shop?

It is illegal for hunters to sell deer meat (venison) in NC. The end result is much of the meat ends up in ditches along sides of the road in rural areas for the buzzards. This past hunting season I saw, perhaps a dozen deer dumped. All that meat wasted and there's a market for it. Yes, it can be donated, but few will drive all the way across the county to the "approved" processing agent.

Many folks, far removed from hands-on processing their own food, don't have a clue, as to what's actually right and wrong, with regards to what is safe. Or, how to be safe, with what sounds disgusting to them. There are countless stories of city folk coming to the farm and refusing to eat wholesome food after seeing the process. In one instance, learning that potatoes are actually dug from the DIRT!

Don't get me wrong. I get mad about practices and additives that pose health risks. For example, sneaking "manufactured" MSG (under many different names) into products that shouldn't need that type of addition. Cornmeal is one such product. Packages claiming there's zero trans-fat, while reading the label confirms the addition of same. (Loophole in the transfat reg.)

Again, how many jobs will be lost after this uproar over "pink slime" -- a term probably coined to achieve the reaction we're seeing today.

Disclaimer: I am in no way associated with any commercial food processing operation. Just grew up on a farm and have had to become somewhat knowledgable about the food industry due to health problems.

 

If as many people knew how beef was raised as know about "pink slime" they'd give up red meat altogether. Or demand a better safer and healthier product.

Here's a real eye opener for those who haven't seen it yet.

Food Inc. http://www.movie2k.to/movie-993914-Food,+Inc..html

 

Ponco, do you eat red meat?

If you are concerned about red meat for food safety reasons you should be equally worried about chicken and turkey.

Do you eat those products?

With mercury and other toxins in the water, do you question the wisdom of eating fish?

You can talk yourself out of eating just about anything.

 

I've heard that the Kroger grocery chain is discontinuing selling ground beef with pink slime. It's been reported that ground beef without pink slime will probably not taste as good or lean as that which has it.

I'm really going to miss that good, down-home taste if ground beef without pink slime!! :thumbsup::thumbsup:

So far, I haven't heard of any fast food chains dropping pink slime yet. I wonder if any of them will.

 

McDonald's, Taco Bell, and Burger King quit using it in January.

 

Where I live we have farmer's markets. And yes I filter all my drinking/cooking water. Flouride is known to reduce IQ. I suspect that's why people keep voting for globalists. :smilewinkgrin:

 

No wonder my Big Macs have been tasting funny!! :smilewinkgrin: