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

[Paulie]

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.

Well, at least the ones headed by GOP appointees like GHW Bush appointee Joann Smith.

While you're being partisan, there STILL hasn't been a label required on beef indicating that this disgusting additive is being used. Your 2 dem presidents and your dem super majority congress didn't do a damn thing about this either.

So pull your partisan head out of your ass.

 

[Dr.Drock]

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.

Well, at least the ones headed by GOP appointees like GHW Bush appointee Joann Smith.

While you're being partisan, there STILL hasn't been a label required on beef indicating that this disgusting additive is being used. Your 2 dem presidents and your dem super majority congress didn't do a damn thing about this either.

So pull your partisan head out of your ass.

His name confuses me, he calls himself a cynic but he doens't even question anything democrats do, let alone be cynical of any of their actions.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

So 70%+ contaminated is proof to you that the USDA & FDA work?

Good Lord....

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

Well, at least the ones headed by GOP appointees like GHW Bush appointee Joann Smith.

While you're being partisan, there STILL hasn't been a label required on beef indicating that this disgusting additive is being used. Your 2 dem presidents and your dem super majority congress didn't do a damn thing about this either.

So pull your partisan head out of your ass.

Wont happen......In too deep.

 

[Newby]

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.

How would they do similar to shrimp?

 

[Dragon]

Just want to say that I, speaking as one of the furthest left-leaning posters on this board, agree with the OP 100%. In this particular case (although not in all cases), a labeling requirement, perhaps coupled with making information available about exactly what "pink slime" is, would be perfectly adequate. There isn't any real health risk from pink slime, it's just repulsive is all, and consumers should be informed about its presence in meat. Regulatory capture is what we have here and it's a very serious problem arising from the corrupting influence of money on politics.

You're welcome.

There are many cases, e.g. pollution and the EPA, in which informed consumers will not suffice at all. But I don't believe this is one of them.

 

[Paulie]

Just want to say that I, speaking as one of the furthest left-leaning posters on this board, agree with the OP 100%. In this particular case (although not in all cases), a labeling requirement, perhaps coupled with making information available about exactly what "pink slime" is, would be perfectly adequate. There isn't any real health risk from pink slime, it's just repulsive is all, and consumers should be informed about its presence in meat. Regulatory capture is what we have here and it's a very serious problem arising from the corrupting influence of money on politics.

You're welcome.

There are many cases, e.g. pollution and the EPA, in which informed consumers will not suffice at all. But I don't believe this is one of them.

The issue I have is that this additive is not something that is universal in ALL beef. Some places choose to add it, some don't. It's not something that's either 100% required or 100% banned. So if it's a choice a business is making in trying to save money, then there's a responsibility on their part to inform consumers that it's there. They're taking fat and spraying it with ammonia gas., and using it as filler to save money. That's fine if it's not deemed a health risk, but I have no way of knowing if your beef has it or not. That's something that needs to be disclaimed to consumers.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

I believe the OP clearly illustrates just how much good agencies like the USDA and the FDA do for the government officials who are rewarded for their patronage. What they do to ensure a safe, nourishing food supply...not so much.

 

[Dr.Drock]

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.

So 70%+ contaminated is proof to you that the USDA & FDA work?

Good Lord....

No, duh, it's proof they need more money.

How much? Well keep increasing it until the problem is fixed, so i can't give a real figure.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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?

[Ahem!] Some of us do. It's just too bad the government frowns on that, too. In the case of small, local producers, the government serves its big agri-business masters, whose goal is to destroy all production they cannot profit from. I thought you lefties were all about taking down big business, especially those in bed with government?

 

[Paulie]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/70-percent-of-ground-beef-at-supermarkets-contains-pink-slime/



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?

[Ahem!] Some of us do. It's just too bad the government frowns on that, too. In the case of small, local producers, the government serves its big agri-business masters, whose goal is to destroy all production they cannot profit from. I thought you lefties were all about taking down big business, especially those in bed with government?

Until the left is able to comprehend that most regulation perpetuates monopolies in big business and stifles competition, the problem will never be solved.

I mean look at how stupid they are...Obama appoints Larry Summers as one of his chief economic advisers, and he was one of the main culprits in killing Glass Steagal...and they don't even CARE!

 

[edthecynic]

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.

Well, at least the ones headed by GOP appointees like GHW Bush appointee Joann Smith.

While you're being partisan, there STILL hasn't been a label required on beef indicating that this disgusting additive is being used. Your 2 dem presidents and your dem super majority congress didn't do a damn thing about this either.

So pull your partisan head out of your ass.

Well, since the whistle-blower hadn't blown the whistle yet, only an anti-government partisan hack would blame Dems for the actions of a GOP appointee. As usual, any GOP fuck up is the fault of the Dems for not stopping them.

 

[gallantwarrior]

This is just more government corruption. This was approved under Democrat Bill Clinton's administration by undersecretary of agriculture, Joann Smith. Any fool who puts their faith in government to look after their best interest is an idiot. The Democrats truth in labeling regulation has also failed.

The consumer demand free market forced McDonalds to stop serving this pink slime a while ago. Government does not have your back. They believe you are a useless eater & would prefer to kill you off. Business believes you are a valued customer & does what it takes to keep your business.

Reasonable regulation is key in this issue. Government regulation is NOT reasonable when it comes to food production and distribution.
As far as the market determining what is wanted, imagine a small local producer of, say, potatoes. If that farmer were to sell sub-standard or poor potatoes, his customers would quickly find a better source. If a local producer got a reputation for selling food that made people sick, he's soon be out of business. Big agri-business doesn't give a fig about people getting sick or dying because of their shoddy practices. There are always plenty of people who will still buy their crap. But right now, government is firmly in the pocket of the very same producers who are responsible for almost every large, interstate outbreak of foodborne illnesses. But almost every new regulation regarding food production directly and adversely impacts the SMALL producer, large producers are usually exempted or given special compliance requirements.

 

[Paulie]

This is just more government corruption. This was approved under Democrat Bill Clinton's administration by undersecretary of agriculture, Joann Smith. Any fool who puts their faith in government to look after their best interest is an idiot. The Democrats truth in labeling regulation has also failed.

The consumer demand free market forced McDonalds to stop serving this pink slime a while ago. Government does not have your back. They believe you are a useless eater & would prefer to kill you off. Business believes you are a valued customer & does what it takes to keep your business.

Reasonable regulation is key in this issue. Government regulation is NOT reasonable when it comes to food production and distribution.
As far as the market determining what is wanted, imagine a small local producer of, say, potatoes. If that farmer were to sell sub-standard or poor potatoes, his customers would quickly find a better source. If a local producer got a reputation for selling food that made people sick, he's soon be out of business. Big agri-business doesn't give a fig about people getting sick or dying because of their shoddy practices. There are always plenty of people who will still buy their crap. But right now, government is firmly in the pocket of the very same producers who are responsible for almost every large, interstate outbreak of foodborne illnesses. But almost every new regulation regarding food production directly and adversely impacts the SMALL producer, large producers are usually exempted or given special compliance requirements.

Compliance often times prices smaller competition out of business. It doesn't cost much to add the words "pink slime" to your label. Obviously it's not going to say pink slime, but you get the point.

 

[amrchaos]

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.

Then---What the hell should I eat???

 

[amrchaos]

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?

You guys do know that this can be considered a form of bribery. IT is possible that Smith traded her power for a future reimbursement such as a comfy job and nice pay.

Just to let you know that there may be a case against her. Of course t is better to check with a lawyer on this one. I am not one.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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?

[Ahem!] Some of us do. It's just too bad the government frowns on that, too. In the case of small, local producers, the government serves its big agri-business masters, whose goal is to destroy all production they cannot profit from. I thought you lefties were all about taking down big business, especially those in bed with government?

Until the left is able to comprehend that most regulation perpetuates monopolies in big business and stifles competition, the problem will never be solved.

I mean look at how stupid they are...Obama appoints Larry Summers as one of his chief economic advisers, and he was one of the main culprits in killing Glass Steagal...and they don't even CARE!

They seem to only recognize the influence of big business on government when it serves their need to demonize the "big business - conservative government" dichotomy. Or when feeding the poor with welfare money needs a deterring argument about corporate welfare being far worse. Otherwise, they seem just fine with big business buying off liberal government...just not conservatives.

 

[gallantwarrior]

This is just more government corruption. This was approved under Democrat Bill Clinton's administration by undersecretary of agriculture, Joann Smith. Any fool who puts their faith in government to look after their best interest is an idiot. The Democrats truth in labeling regulation has also failed.

The consumer demand free market forced McDonalds to stop serving this pink slime a while ago. Government does not have your back. They believe you are a useless eater & would prefer to kill you off. Business believes you are a valued customer & does what it takes to keep your business.

Reasonable regulation is key in this issue. Government regulation is NOT reasonable when it comes to food production and distribution.
As far as the market determining what is wanted, imagine a small local producer of, say, potatoes. If that farmer were to sell sub-standard or poor potatoes, his customers would quickly find a better source. If a local producer got a reputation for selling food that made people sick, he's soon be out of business. Big agri-business doesn't give a fig about people getting sick or dying because of their shoddy practices. There are always plenty of people who will still buy their crap. But right now, government is firmly in the pocket of the very same producers who are responsible for almost every large, interstate outbreak of foodborne illnesses. But almost every new regulation regarding food production directly and adversely impacts the SMALL producer, large producers are usually exempted or given special compliance requirements.

Compliance often times prices smaller competition out of business. It doesn't cost much to add the words "pink slime" to your label. Obviously it's not going to say pink slime, but you get the point.

It wouldn't cost smaller producers anything, since I can't name one small, local producer who would find any reason to include "pink slime" in their food. I think that might be the rub here, people might just stop buying products containing "pink slime", nothing more than a filler that increases the profit margin. That's where the cost will be.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

Then---What the hell should I eat???

Tofurkey? Oh, wait! Tofurkey is made of soy. Soy is mostly GMO now. GMOs are not exactly good for you... But you know what, they aren't required to label foods with GMOs, either.

I guess you're screwed. Carrots might be a good option...

 

[Paulie]

Reasonable regulation is key in this issue. Government regulation is NOT reasonable when it comes to food production and distribution.
As far as the market determining what is wanted, imagine a small local producer of, say, potatoes. If that farmer were to sell sub-standard or poor potatoes, his customers would quickly find a better source. If a local producer got a reputation for selling food that made people sick, he's soon be out of business. Big agri-business doesn't give a fig about people getting sick or dying because of their shoddy practices. There are always plenty of people who will still buy their crap. But right now, government is firmly in the pocket of the very same producers who are responsible for almost every large, interstate outbreak of foodborne illnesses. But almost every new regulation regarding food production directly and adversely impacts the SMALL producer, large producers are usually exempted or given special compliance requirements.

Compliance often times prices smaller competition out of business. It doesn't cost much to add the words "pink slime" to your label. Obviously it's not going to say pink slime, but you get the point.

It wouldn't cost smaller producers anything, since I can't name one small, local producer who would find any reason to include "pink slime" in their food. I think that might be the rub here, people might just stop buying products containing "pink slime", nothing more than a filler that increases the profit margin. That's where the cost will be.

That's exactly the point of this thread. And it points out the failure of the regulatory policy of this government. We throw hundreds of billions of dollars at these problems when the clear solution in many cases is as simple as just adding some words to a label.