USDA Whistleblower: 70% of Supermarket Ground Beef Contains 'Pink Slime'

Paulie

Diamond Member
May 19, 2007
40,769
6,382
1,830
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/70-percent-of-ground-beef-at-supermarkets-contains-pink-slime/

Zirnstein and his fellow USDA scientist, Carl Custer, both warned against using what the industry calls “lean finely textured beef,” widely known now as “pink slime,” but their government bosses overruled them.

...

The “pink slime” is made by gathering waste trimmings, simmering them*at*low heat so the fat separates easily from the muscle, and spinning the trimmings using a centrifuge to complete the separation. Next, the mixture is sent through pipes where it is sprayed with ammonia gas to kill bacteria. The process is completed by packaging the meat into bricks. Then, it is frozen and shipped to grocery stores and meat packers, where it is added to most ground beef.

...

“The under*secretary*said, ‘it’s pink, therefore it’s meat,’” Custer told ABC News.
ABC News has learned the woman who made the decision to*OK the mix is a former undersecretary of agriculture, Joann Smith. It was a call that led to hundred of millions of dollars for Beef Products Inc., the makers of pink slime.
When Smith stepped down from the USDA in 1993, BPI’s principal major supplier appointed her to its board of directors, where she made at least $1.2 million over 17 years.

Smith did not return ABC News’ calls for comment and BPI said it had nothing to do with her appointment. The USDA said while her appointment was*legal at the time, under current ethics rules*Smith could not have immediately joined the board.

Yes I'm sure it had NOTHING to do with the appointment at all.

Is everyone else as pleased as I am with how the government looks out for our best interests?
 
Yeah. Seriously.:cool:
 

Attachments

  • $ballardogrind.JPG
    $ballardogrind.JPG
    148.5 KB · Views: 68
This has been known for years.
I haven't bought a single ounce of any meat from grocery stores for years.
You think this is bad...Chicken is far worse...and even WORSE is shrimp.
 
This would not be a problem if conservatives ruled,

because there would be no USDA, no FDA,

because federal inspection and regulation of the food industry is not an 'enumerated' power.

:lol:
 
This would not be a problem if conservatives ruled,

because there would be no USDA, no FDA,

because federal inspection and regulation of the food industry is not an 'enumerated' power.

:lol:

This would clearly fall under interstate commerce. There's certainly a good reason for having an FDA, but when the government does nothing about the corruption and ineptness of the agency then it flies in the face of the very idea of regulating the commerce to begin with.

What good is a regulatory agency that ultimately looks out for the interests of big business over the consumer it's supposed to be PROTECTING from big business?
 
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/70-percent-of-ground-beef-at-supermarkets-contains-pink-slime/

Zirnstein and his fellow USDA scientist, Carl Custer, both warned against using what the industry calls “lean finely textured beef,” widely known now as “pink slime,” but their government bosses overruled them.

...

The “pink slime” is made by gathering waste trimmings, simmering them*at*low heat so the fat separates easily from the muscle, and spinning the trimmings using a centrifuge to complete the separation. Next, the mixture is sent through pipes where it is sprayed with ammonia gas to kill bacteria. The process is completed by packaging the meat into bricks. Then, it is frozen and shipped to grocery stores and meat packers, where it is added to most ground beef.

...

“The under*secretary*said, ‘it’s pink, therefore it’s meat,’” Custer told ABC News.
ABC News has learned the woman who made the decision to*OK the mix is a former undersecretary of agriculture, Joann Smith. It was a call that led to hundred of millions of dollars for Beef Products Inc., the makers of pink slime.
When Smith stepped down from the USDA in 1993, BPI’s principal major supplier appointed her to its board of directors, where she made at least $1.2 million over 17 years.

Smith did not return ABC News’ calls for comment and BPI said it had nothing to do with her appointment. The USDA said while her appointment was*legal at the time, under current ethics rules*Smith could not have immediately joined the board.

Yes I'm sure it had NOTHING to do with the appointment at all.

Is everyone else as pleased as I am with how the government looks out for our best interests?

I thought you righties were all about self responsibility? Grow your own damn cows, slaughter them, and grind up the beef. Why are you looking for a government handout?
 



Yes I'm sure it had NOTHING to do with the appointment at all.

Is everyone else as pleased as I am with how the government looks out for our best interests?


I thought you righties were all about self responsibility? Grow your own damn cows, slaughter them, and grind up the beef. Why are you looking for a government handout?

When beef is sold between states, it becomes a matter of interstate commerce, which the constitution clearly authorizes the regulation of.

So when that regulation comes up short you better believe I'm going to call it out.
 
This would not be a problem if conservatives ruled,

because there would be no USDA, no FDA,

because federal inspection and regulation of the food industry is not an 'enumerated' power.

:lol:

This would clearly fall under interstate commerce. There's certainly a good reason for having an FDA, but when the government does nothing about the corruption and ineptness of the agency then it flies in the face of the very idea of regulating the commerce to begin with.

What good is a regulatory agency that ultimately looks out for the interests of big business over the consumer it's supposed to be PROTECTING from big business?
Ok, now ask yourself, seriously, why is this happening?
Maybe the real answer is somewhere inside the ideology of less government.
:cuckoo:
 
All we have to do is throw money at the problem. If we make the department bigger, it'll be less likely that the cronies calling the shots will be bought off by special interests.


That makes sense to everyone, right?
 
This would not be a problem if conservatives ruled,

because there would be no USDA, no FDA,

because federal inspection and regulation of the food industry is not an 'enumerated' power.

:lol:

This would clearly fall under interstate commerce. There's certainly a good reason for having an FDA, but when the government does nothing about the corruption and ineptness of the agency then it flies in the face of the very idea of regulating the commerce to begin with.

What good is a regulatory agency that ultimately looks out for the interests of big business over the consumer it's supposed to be PROTECTING from big business?
Ok, now ask yourself, seriously, why is this happening?
Maybe the real answer is somewhere inside the ideology of less government.
:cuckoo:

Right, while the government grows leaps and bounds this is just the USDA doing their part to make it smaller. :rolleyes:

This isn't how I envision smaller government. Regulating interstate commerce is well within the constitutional limits on government. Proper regulation in this regard is to let companies use this pink slime but to require a label placed on any package of beef that contains it, indicating it's presence. I can't as a consumer make an informed choice in my beef purchasing if I don't even know everything about what's in my choices.
 
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...und-beef-at-supermarkets-contains-pink-slime/

Zirnstein and his fellow USDA scientist, Carl Custer, both warned against using what the industry calls “lean finely textured beef,” widely known now as “pink slime,” but their government bosses overruled them.

...

The “pink slime” is made by gathering waste trimmings, simmering them*at*low heat so the fat separates easily from the muscle, and spinning the trimmings using a centrifuge to complete the separation. Next, the mixture is sent through pipes where it is sprayed with ammonia gas to kill bacteria. The process is completed by packaging the meat into bricks. Then, it is frozen and shipped to grocery stores and meat packers, where it is added to most ground beef.

...

“The under*secretary*said, ‘it’s pink, therefore it’s meat,’” Custer told ABC News.
ABC News has learned the woman who made the decision to*OK the mix is a former undersecretary of agriculture, Joann Smith. It was a call that led to hundred of millions of dollars for Beef Products Inc., the makers of pink slime.
When Smith stepped down from the USDA in 1993, BPI’s principal major supplier appointed her to its board of directors, where she made at least $1.2 million over 17 years.

Smith did not return ABC News’ calls for comment and BPI said it had nothing to do with her appointment. The USDA said while her appointment was*legal at the time, under current ethics rules*Smith could not have immediately joined the board.
Yes I'm sure it had NOTHING to do with the appointment at all.

Is everyone else as pleased as I am with how the government looks out for our best interests?

A gift to business from conservative gov't. Given a chance, conservatives would turn the USA into another Saipan.
 
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/70-percent-of-ground-beef-at-supermarkets-contains-pink-slime/

Zirnstein and his fellow USDA scientist, Carl Custer, both warned against using what the industry calls “lean finely textured beef,” widely known now as “pink slime,” but their government bosses overruled them.

...

The “pink slime” is made by gathering waste trimmings, simmering them*at*low heat so the fat separates easily from the muscle, and spinning the trimmings using a centrifuge to complete the separation. Next, the mixture is sent through pipes where it is sprayed with ammonia gas to kill bacteria. The process is completed by packaging the meat into bricks. Then, it is frozen and shipped to grocery stores and meat packers, where it is added to most ground beef.

...

“The under*secretary*said, ‘it’s pink, therefore it’s meat,’” Custer told ABC News.
ABC News has learned the woman who made the decision to*OK the mix is a former undersecretary of agriculture, Joann Smith. It was a call that led to hundred of millions of dollars for Beef Products Inc., the makers of pink slime.
When Smith stepped down from the USDA in 1993, BPI’s principal major supplier appointed her to its board of directors, where she made at least $1.2 million over 17 years.

Smith did not return ABC News’ calls for comment and BPI said it had nothing to do with her appointment. The USDA said while her appointment was*legal at the time, under current ethics rules*Smith could not have immediately joined the board.

Yes I'm sure it had NOTHING to do with the appointment at all.

Is everyone else as pleased as I am with how the government looks out for our best interests?

I thought you righties were all about self responsibility? Grow your own damn cows, slaughter them, and grind up the beef. Why are you looking for a government handout?

Because government has made that all but impossible, that's why. Even if you live in an area that's zoned for agriculture, thanks to new USAID regulations it is financially difficult to comply. When you've got to RFID chip EVERY ANIMAL it gets a little cost prohibitive.

More big government at work.... (for Cargill and Monsanto)...
 
This would clearly fall under interstate commerce. There's certainly a good reason for having an FDA, but when the government does nothing about the corruption and ineptness of the agency then it flies in the face of the very idea of regulating the commerce to begin with.

What good is a regulatory agency that ultimately looks out for the interests of big business over the consumer it's supposed to be PROTECTING from big business?
Ok, now ask yourself, seriously, why is this happening?
Maybe the real answer is somewhere inside the ideology of less government.
:cuckoo:

Right, while the government grows leaps and bounds this is just the USDA doing their part to make it smaller. :rolleyes:

This isn't how I envision smaller government. Regulating interstate commerce is well within the constitutional limits on government. Proper regulation in this regard is to let companies use this pink slime but to require a label placed on any package of beef that contains it, indicating it's presence. I can't as a consumer make an informed choice in my beef purchasing if I don't even know everything about what's in my choices.

You sure need to do some more investigation. Believing that corporate america is looking out for your welfare seems to be a distant dream.
 
Ok, now ask yourself, seriously, why is this happening?
Maybe the real answer is somewhere inside the ideology of less government.
:cuckoo:

Right, while the government grows leaps and bounds this is just the USDA doing their part to make it smaller. :rolleyes:

This isn't how I envision smaller government. Regulating interstate commerce is well within the constitutional limits on government. Proper regulation in this regard is to let companies use this pink slime but to require a label placed on any package of beef that contains it, indicating it's presence. I can't as a consumer make an informed choice in my beef purchasing if I don't even know everything about what's in my choices.

You sure need to do some more investigation. Believing that corporate america is looking out for your welfare seems to be a distant dream.

That's exactly what he's saying.................corporate america has bought off gov't, hence why this bs always happens.

Big oil, big banks and insurance companies, certain green tech companies, certain farming-related companies buy off gov't because they know they'll get a good return on their investment, the story the OP presented being one fine example.
 
Ok, now ask yourself, seriously, why is this happening?
Maybe the real answer is somewhere inside the ideology of less government.
:cuckoo:

Right, while the government grows leaps and bounds this is just the USDA doing their part to make it smaller. :rolleyes:

This isn't how I envision smaller government. Regulating interstate commerce is well within the constitutional limits on government. Proper regulation in this regard is to let companies use this pink slime but to require a label placed on any package of beef that contains it, indicating it's presence. I can't as a consumer make an informed choice in my beef purchasing if I don't even know everything about what's in my choices.

You sure need to do some more investigation. Believing that corporate america is looking out for your welfare seems to be a distant dream.

This doesn't even make any sense. I just said that proper regulation would be to require a label indicating the presence of the additive.

The whole point is that these regulatory agencies DON't look out for the consumer.
 
It's COMMON SENSE regulation. It doesn't cost but a few pennies to require a business to add a few more words of text to a label they're already putting on their meat packaging.

But of course the USDA knows that it would hurt the revenue stream to these businesses by informing consumers that a disgusting additive is in the beef they're buying.
 
This would not be a problem if conservatives ruled,

because there would be no USDA, no FDA,

because federal inspection and regulation of the food industry is not an 'enumerated' power.

:lol:

This would clearly fall under interstate commerce. There's certainly a good reason for having an FDA, but when the government does nothing about the corruption and ineptness of the agency then it flies in the face of the very idea of regulating the commerce to begin with.

What good is a regulatory agency that ultimately looks out for the interests of big business over the consumer it's supposed to be PROTECTING from big business?

So you admit that LACK of regulation is the problem. fine.

The EPA is justified under interstate commerce as well. How many conservatives acknowledge that????
 

Forum List

Back
Top