Practical Guide to Metal Detection-Food Industry
Fortress Technology
Food safety concerns surrounding the use of ‘pink slime’ in beef products have come as a result of a “gross-misunderstanding” stemming from sensationalised media coverage, a leading producer has claimed.
Beef Products Inc. (BPI) has shot down claims by two former USDA scientists, turned whistle-blowers, that ‘pink slime’ was approved for consumption for political reasons despite safety concerns.
More than 170,000 people have since signed a petition to ban the product in US schools following claims by Gerald Zirnstein and Colin Custer that they were overruled by USDA bosses after warning about the use of ‘pink slime’ – a term Zirnstein coined.
‘Pink slime’ which is referred in the meat processing industry as either lean beef trimming or finely textured beef, is made by processing beef trimmings from larger cut of meat until the lean meat is separated from the fat.
The low-fat, high protein result is then used as a filler in many products in the US including ground (minced) beef, burgers and sausages.
Media hype
“It’s 100% false. People think it makes for a good story,” BPI director of food safety and quality assurance Craig Letch told FoodQualityNews.com.
“Long-story short, the whole situation has been a gross-misunderstanding of the product and the processing measures involved with the product. It has directly stemmed from media-outlets trying to sensationalise and build up hype around the product.”
“It is specifically to do with prior measures which could not ensure the safety of the product. It is nothing to do with the raw material; it is to do with the measures to remove the lean from the fat.”
‘Pink slime’ content in meat products can range from between 10% and 30% - yet producers are not obligated to inform consumers.
Letch added that consumers do not need to be informed that the product is included in another meat product as it is “meat, 100% lean meat.”
In 1991, the US Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) developed a policy for the product. The FSIS determined that because the product was compositionally similar to beef, it may be declared as beef in the ingredients statement of any product where it is used as an ingredient.
‘Pink slime’ petition
The Tell USDA to STOP Using Pink Slime in School Fund petition,which currently has more than 170,000 signatures, cited the scientists' claims as an argument for its ban in school.
A letter attached to the petition questions the products’ suitability considering it was formerly “destined for use in pet food and rendering and were not considered fit for human consumption.”
It also cited McDonald’s and Burger King’s discontinued use of ‘pink slime’.
Despite the negative press surrounding the product, figures from across the meat processing, food safety and regulatory sectors have joined forces to support the use of ‘pink slime’ in beef products.
“There have been a lot of people who have seen what’s happening in the processing plants. We have nothing but support from them once they actually see what we do. They are vocal about it and they support us,” Letch concluded.
8 comments (Comments are now closed)
Ditto
Right on Anthony, I could swear I wrote what you said in my sleep... I thought everyone who read the Journal was 100% in support of this.
Let's just suppose that this stuff is SAFE - that's all you hear the supporters saying now. I wonder if some people are really going to change their mind after everyone says that it's SAFE 100 different times? I really could care less about that. I would suppose that eating cow brains, pig feet, etc., is also "safe."
The bottom line is that this stuff is GROSS, and indeed, mere filler to line the producers' pocket. And so we should just keep supporting it because of "the jobs."
And maybe it is 100% beef. You could pluck out a cow's eyeballs, and technically that would be "beef" as it comes from a cow. Again, beside the point...
I'm sorry, but this is big business at its worst. Nothing more than greed. It's a shame that this really didn't come to the public light for what, 30 years? Well, the fact that they got away with this for that long does not make it any better or give them some kind of grandfather rights. They should have always known that what is happening now was a possibility - that the truth would finally come out (that they were doling out low-quality, nasty meat to an unwitting public).
So yeah, they can go ahead and sell it as animal food now, or they can go out of business. But the way they are panicking I think the latter is inevitable, it's just a matter of time.
Report abuse
Posted by Ned Stevens
30 March 2012 | 08h36
I'm so sick of the "pink slime" topic
This has been active on LinkedIn Groups and all over even the news. It is hyper media making a bigger deal than what it is..
I really like your site and side of the story.
Report abuse
Posted by Ryan Lopez
25 March 2012 | 14h57
Well said
I heartily agree with everything DeRubeis said on both the subject of pink slime and irradiated foods. The only other thing I would like to add is that I take great offense in the attitude that "consumers do not need to be informed". That statement is included in the above article and I have also read the exact same thing in a statement from the FDA concerning irradiated foods. We are not children and whether the government likes it or not, we have a right to decide these things for ourselves. If a food or a process is safe, hiding it is the best way to cause suspicion. After all, we have plenty of reason not to trust the so-called experts which have been proven wrong time-after-time.
Report abuse
Posted by Sandra
22 March 2012 | 17h44
100% beef...yeah really!!!
You have no clue what you are talking about, unless you have directly seen the process, or worked for this company. I doubt you even have the facts, before you stated your opinion. B.P.I has been around for over 20 years and has been an upstanding process plant, in making pure beef, out of the pure beef scraps, we used to throw away. They have kept prices down for our families. If you don't want to buy your meat from a grocery store, than don't, but don't fill everyone's minds with your myths. This whole series of "reports" was brought on by a disgruntled ex-employee of one of our own safety organizations, who is envious of another retired employee, who now works for B.P.I Only because she believes in the place she works for, and believes they are making a substantial effort to make our food safer, and less expensive, while maintaining a quality and health orientated process, that has proved to be an essential part of our meat products. Oh, and by the way, Anthony, food process plants of all kinds, (cheese, chicken, beef, pork, and the list goes on), have been using ammonium hydroxide, since 1974.
Report abuse
Posted by John Trujillo
15 March 2012 | 19h10
Separating reality
Any people who invent or use pejorative terms are certainly experts on rhetoric and spin. We should worry more when the internet experts give opinions that drive them to say if it is bad for human consumption and then it’s good for animals.
So let me ask: Do you like a T bone steak? Do you enjoy a juicy lamb chop? What about the culinary and nutritional benefits of a beef stock or a chicken stock?
They all contain “the material that could not be separated from the bone by a knife”. Do you eat a whole roast chicken or do you carefully remove all the connective tissue, the gristle, the fat or the skin or the bone before you put it in the oven? Do you then put the carcase in the stock pot?
Whilst some may be emotionally disturbed about the methods some businesses in some countries use to insure against the risk of cross contamination the best way to decontaminate is to not let it happen in the first place …………..and then cook it.
All amateur self trained cooks know that….don’t they? Just as most of them know that almost everything we eat and drink contains or carries dead bacteria even if they are not pathogens…don’t they?
In the end it’s down to price and what consumers can afford to pay for it. If one kilo of steak costs £25 at retail that then grinds down to make eleven very nice quarter pounders @£2.27 each. Now if you are a basic pay earning family you may want to drop your sights to paying 63p each burger. That’s 85% stewing beef @£8 a kilo plus 15% of MRM @ 83p per kilo.
As the price of meat increases faster than earnings the consumer will resolve the issue. All that needs to be done is that the label states how much Mechanically Recovered Meat is in the recipe. As far as quality and safety is concerned in Europe there are clear rules and standards regarding use and hygiene.
All rich cooks need to remember is if you ban MRM every extra piece of muscle meat they buy there is more waste to deal with and waste costs to dispose of. If the price of their rump steak goes up they’ll probably not notice. For the lower paid on fixed incomes the price of the burger will go up because there’s no recovered meat AND they will have to pay more to offset the increased waste disposal cost.
Report abuse
Posted by Derrick Blunden
14 March 2012 | 13h31
100% Beef? Really?
Despite the rhetoric and spin surrounding this BPI product, consumers are right to be concerned and outraged as once again, the USDA and FDA have proven a profound disappointment.
Make no mistake, this “slime” is a by-product and I disagree that it IS beef simply because it was sourced from cows. Excuse me, but I would rather bolster my bottom line by selling it to animal feed manufacturers as opposed to offering it for human consumption. But I guess greed and corruption know no bounds.
My position is that humans should not be subjected to eating “cartilage, connective tissue and or other assorted body parts.” So far, NO ONE denies that pink slime contains these substances; they would simply state that it is “only separated meat from the fat that could not be performed with a knife.” Also, “it is nutritionally the same as beef.” Really? Nice try. Then why is it relegated to ONLY 15% as filler? Why call it “filler” if it is actually beef? Does BPI or our government contend that our burgers are now 115% Pure Beef? I think not. It is either 100% pure beef with an appropriately declared fat content or it is not. If we want “fillers,” we’ll make meatloaf.
Further and despite the aforementioned argument against this unnecessary garbage, let’s get this straight…Humans don’t want their food irradiated or treated with chemicals to MAKE it safe; we want safe food-period. In other words, we don’t want to eat DEAD bacteria and other pathogens. IF, the producers and our government insist that it be offered AS FOOD, we must insist that YOU TELL US and we will decide. And, as such, it is nothing short of ludicrous to allow these people to clandestinely feed it to our children. It is nothing short of hilarious that school children cannot have fried potatoes, but somehow this ‘filler’ is fine. As a self trained amateur chef, I have been aware that about 70% of supermarket ground beef contains pink slime so, I stopped buying and eating commercially prepared ground beef many years ago and, I suggest all consumers do the same. This will effectively stop this stupid and unnecessary profit driven practice without the government intervening or any further regulation. If there are those that continue to eat this trash, please do but stop complaining. In this instance, despite the rhetoric and PR generated spin, thankfully, the consumer is still king.
Report abuse
Posted by Anthony DeRubeis
13 March 2012 | 23h09
Ridiculous
Meat should be meat. ... Period. Not gross byproducts and ammonium hydroxide. It needs to be on the ingredient list if it is not 100% meat.
Report abuse
Posted by Salky Oater
13 March 2012 | 21h54
Yes it is "Gross"
I love the unintentional play on words there by Mr Letch, I bet he would like to have that quote back because yes Mr. Letch pink slime is in fact "gross".
You are taking portions of the cow otherwise only fit for dog food, soaking it in ammonia and serving it to us. Boy that sounds yummy...I'll take an extra order of ammonia soaked dog food with my next burger please!
Report abuse
Posted by Paul Flaherty
13 March 2012 | 16h02
Read all comments (8)