Mark Greene: Politicians think the real “bad guys” in the pink slime controversy are the people who exposed the problem?
Reuters is reporting that “ground beef processor AFA Foods filed for bankruptcy protection on Monday, citing the impact of the uproar over a meat filler dubbed ‘pink slime’ by critics.”
In case you were at McDonald’s wolfing down some ammonia-puffed slime when this story first appeared last year, let me break this whole thing down for you. AFA Foods is having some problems selling their ammonia treated beef filler, dubbed “pink slime” by people who aren’t fond of being secretly sold pureed “fat, sinew, bloody effluvia, and bits of meat” when they purchase hamburger.
Rueters reports that “Some politicians have rallied to the industry’s side, including Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, who blasted the celebrity critics (who first outed pink slime).
“This to me is outrageous,” Branstad said. “I want to expose the people who are behind this. I don’t think Americans need to be misled by a smear campaign.”
The Governor is now calling for a Congressional investigation about how this whole anti-pink slime thing got started. He seems to think it’s been drummed up by people who “don’t like meat”. Meanwhile ABC has reported the following about what’s in pink slime: “The low-grade trimmings come from the parts of the cow most susceptible to contamination, often close to the hide, which is highly exposed to fecal matter.”
So, okay Governor Branstad, I’ll tell you what. You get a big tube of pink slime, say, about the size of your head, and chow down on it on YouTube and we’ll take your comment as something other than that of a bought and paid-for political shill. (Personally, I’m seeing you as more of a filet mignon kind of guy.)
I, for one, would like to see a different Congressional investigation. I’d like to know how a cheap filler that has been widely described as “fat, sinew, bloody effluvia, and bits of meat” can be added to to my hamburger (up to 15%) without needing to be labeled as such. Bettina Siegel, a mother of two, who started an online petition to get this stuff out of school lunches, is quoted by ABC News as saying, “It disturbs me that USDA made a decision that this filler, up to 15 percent doesn’t have to be disclosed. Therefore the consumer is at the mercy of each retailer’s decision.”
Ultimately, this is not a “slime” issue. Or even an ammonia issue. At its very base, its a labeling issue. “mechanically separated beef whatever” is not listed on the label. The label is misleading, AND, it’s misleading in a very specific way. Pink slime is filler and filler is, by definition, cheap crap they use to increase profits. We’re being sold something labeled as hamburger that should be labeled hamburger and filler. Because we have the right to know the value and quality level of what we’re eating.
Bottom line. USDA? If an additive or some kind of filler is in my food. Tell me. Especially, if some asshole from the food industry is lobbying for you not to.
Photo: AP
About Mark Greene
“Shoot the messenger” is always the default reaction of business (and therefore, the politicians who are owned by that business) whenever corporate misconduct is brought to light.
More evidence about for whom society is made and designed . Guess what, it ain’t you and me. But we all knew that already.
The funny thing is, in America, it seems that politicians are so bought and paid for, that a billionaire who owns a bridge that carries $130 billion dollars worth of trade a year between the U.S. and Canada can hold up and hold hostage trade between our two countries due to his influence.
It’s so bad that the Prime Minister of Canada called him out on it personally.
That is totally weird, but anything to protect the billionaire’s monolopy on the toll bridge he owns. I wonder what cut of that $130 billion in trade he’s getting personally? I wonder how much he SHOULD BE getting?
Guess what said billionaire is trying to block? Yeah, that’s right. Building another bridge that he doesn’t own.
Totally effing bizzaro world stuff.
Now wait a minute.
AFA Foods is just doing what everyone wants you to do when using biological resources: use every part and don’t waste anything. AFA is just doing what environmentalist stereotyping says about aboriginal hunters: “they use every part of the animal, and nothing goes to waste.” I’ve always heard that it’s more okay to kill an animal as long as you use every part of it, right? Nothing is more wasteful than eating ONLY the skeletal muscles of a cow. That cow died so you could have meat. It’s disrespectful to eat only some parts and not others. Theoretically, the more of a single cow that you eat, the fewer cows have to die. C’mon, glass half full, people. : – )
Hilarious that society is “discovering,” as if for the first time, that our hamburgers may not be the purest sort of food. How could anyone not know this?
Yeah, I’ll be honest…I don’t know why it’s so disturbing to people to find out that we’re eating bits that aren’t just muscle. I find the way that they labelled it so that it seems like it’s all muscle a problem, but other then that it’s whatever. The U.S. needs to chill the heck out when it comes to the parts of an animal we eat.
In the U.S., hamburger is as much like sausage as it is like steak.
Besides, we are supposed to be celebrating diversity and protecting biodiversity. That hamburger patty you’re eating may have the meat from up to 1000 different cows in it, from many parts of the world. That’s what I call (bio)diversity! It’s a Small World, After All….
If it was nutrient rich animal parts then it wouldn’t be an issue, but its not, its all the bits that really really shouldn’t be eaten. CJD happened for a reason, and it wasn’t because people were eating the odd bit of heart or liver.
Right I’ll give you that. I just can’t help but think that even if it were proper organs that were going into burgers, people’d still get all weird about it.
You make a valid point on one level, but I’m not sure the aboriginal people had a five million RPM industrial centrifuge that would spin the juice out of a wart. The fact is, we live in a society that is besieged with processed foods. This is one process people would like to have been notified of.
Mark, I can’t even believe you made the argument about the centrifuge. The reality is that the aboriginal people probably just wolfed down parts that came in direct contact with fecal matter, and didn’t really bother with taking steps against contamination by bacteria.
Personally, I’ll take the centrifuge over that reality any day.
The real issue is: who cares if the food is processed? I never had any illusion that that meat was just ground steak (the first clue should have been that un-ground steak was sold for a much higher price in an adjacent package…). Did others really labor under this illusion?
Or is this just another public showing of the Offense Olympics, where everyone piles onto a chance to be “offended” as quickly as they can?
I can. The more you process food the more it sucks, nutritionally, flavor wise, and in terms of negative environmental impacts.
True, and that part is worrying. But I think it’s interesting that the part that everyone’s freaking out over isn’t that it’s processed, and it isn’t that they label in a misleading way…it’s that OMG we’re eating non-muscle! Which, to me, is like the least problematic aspect of this whole thing.
“The reality is that the aboriginal people probably just wolfed down parts that came in direct contact with fecal matter, and didn’t really bother with taking steps against contamination by bacteria.”
Er, I don’t think that’s true. Backwoods hunters who don’t know how to slaughter an animal properly wouldn’t have a promising life-span.
Plus, if you eat something immediately after the animal has died then its sterile. If you store it for months and months then your slaughtering or preservation practice has to be a little more refined. If you grind it up with all kinds of crap in a liquid medium and then store it for months and months… be prepared for disease. No hunter gatherer culture I’m aware of does this.
Ok, to be fair, I think they were referring to things like the heart, brain, kidneys, liver, etc. Not random bits of stuff, processed with heavy chemicals. I don’t really want to get into a diet debate, let’s just say I’m not vegan lol. But the problem for me is not using every part, or eating “non-muscle” I eat organ meats frequently. It’s the exposure to powerful and toxic chemicals. That comes from this bizaar process.
Organs are AOK (well, most of them), but its not the organs that go into mechanically separated meat, its the stuff you’d usually use to make stock.
Sorry, I was referring to the fact that aboriginal people at organs, and did not know about centrifugal meat separation. Therefore the comparison between pink slime and aboriginal people using all parts of the meat wasn’t valid.
Some bits aren’t meant to be eaten… seriously. If it has to be scrubbed with ammonia in order to be safe for human consumption then there’s something wrong. But even if it were being done on an efficiency basis then there’s still no reason not to inform consumers.
Hah! Humorously insightful, my friend. You’ve exposed the paradox we now live in. I hope when the cows take over, they wash my anus meat with ammonia and enjoy.
Hilarious! Tasty and ammonia puffed!
Awesome point. I would just prefer that those “parts” of the cow go into my dog’s food, and not my kid’s food.
So, what part of a cow, chicken or fruit for that matter is made out of ammonia, or growth hormones…? Just curious.
The part that stopped starvation from being a widespread problem. You’re welcome.
Okay, now you’re just making shit up. LOL
Are you claiming that factory farming doesn’t reduce the costs of food to consumers and dramatically increase food yields (both of which serve to reduce starvation)?
Or did you just buy into the fantasy that the average American could actually afford to subsist on a diet made up entirely of organic locally produced food?
Like it or not, pesticides, fertilizers, hormones, and antibiotics all drive up food yields and bring down food prices. Until the “slow food movement” can demonstrate an ability to produce the same amount of food for the same cost, there’s little reason to take it seriously in terms of national policy.
You do realize that we all subsidize “corporate farming” with massive agriculture subsidies? Right? If Organics and local produce were competing on a level playing field pricing would be much more equal. Also, factory farms are degrading biodiversity and producing crops that are designed to last until they can be trucked cross country and still look fresh, but their flavor is terrible. Compare a hot house tomato to one grown in your own yard. The difference is night and day.
As for factory farms being efficient:
http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/economics/
http://beyondfactoryfarming.org/get-informed/economics
But, today, we’re really kind of talking about PINK SLIME….right?
PINK SLIME PINK SLIME PINK SLIME PINK SLIME
I really can’t get enough of that phrase.
Well, if growth hormones from one species is put into another, at least we’re keeping it in the biological realm.
Actually, animal urine and feces have ammonia in them. Ammonia is quite natural.
Now I’ve lost the point I’m trying to make….
Go out to a bar, have couple of shots of ammonia, and get back to us… By the way. You realize that animal feces are toxic, right?
Plenty of “natural” things should not be in your food period. E-coli is natural, so is the BSE prion.
If the fact that it’s pink is the problem, then it’s really no problem. It’s pink because it’s uncooked. Throw it on the grill and it won’t be pink anymore. It’s not rocket science.
So, it must be the “slime” part that people object to.
Right? Can we just find someone to spin this stuff as “the commoner’s steak tartare”?