Thread: Pink Slime, Inc. Sues ABC News

Like the Church of Scientology, pink slime company
sues journalists for exposing them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202754

On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:41:36 -0800, Mark Thorson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Like the Church of Scientology, pink slime company
>sues journalists for exposing them.
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202754

GOOD for them, and I hope they win!!

'expose' IS NOT the proper word to use.








To reply by email, lose the Ks...

On 13/09/2012 6:54 PM, The Other Guy wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:41:36 -0800, Mark Thorson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Like the Church of Scientology, pink slime company
>> sues journalists for exposing them.
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202754
>
> GOOD for them, and I hope they win!!
>
> 'expose' IS NOT the proper word to use.
>




"Expose" is IMO the appropriate word. It is a type of filler and poses
something of a risk to the consumer.

It is my hope that they do not win. I do not want investigative
reporters to be afraid to report the truth for fear that they will be
harassed in the courts for telling the truth.

On Sep 13, 5:54*pm, The Other Guy <KnewsKg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:41:36 -0800, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Like the Church of Scientology, pink slime company
> >sues journalists for exposing them.
>
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202754
>
> GOOD for them, and I hope they win!!
>
> 'expose' IS NOT the proper word to use.
>
> To reply by email, lose the Ks...

Just because the lobbyists for the pink slime industry were able to
convince the government to let them just call it beef. It should have
been labeled something like "mechanically separated beef," just as the
analogous chicken product MUST be labeled, "mechanically separated
chicken." The chicken processors must have hired the wrong lobbyists
or *bribed* (read, contributed campaign dollars to) the wrong elected
officials.

I don't argue that it's unhealthful, but that consumers should know
when it is added to *ground* beef. It has uses that are appropriate,
such as in canned ravioli, or tamales, beef lunch meat, and in those
big chubs of "beef pattie mix." You know, the stuff that contains
hearts and such. "Mechanically separated beef," is not unhealthful,
but it is not ground beef. The industry gambled and lost on being
sneaky. Their loss. The truth is a defense, and if ABC did not
outright lie, they should be held harmless.

--Bryan

Bryan <[email protected]> wrote:

>Just because the lobbyists for the pink slime industry were able to
>convince the government to let them just call it beef. It should have
>been labeled something like "mechanically separated beef," just as the
>analogous chicken product MUST be labeled, "mechanically separated
>chicken." The chicken processors must have hired the wrong lobbyists
>or *bribed* (read, contributed campaign dollars to) the wrong elected
>officials.

>I don't argue that it's unhealthful, but that consumers should know
>when it is added to *ground* beef. It has uses that are appropriate,
>such as in canned ravioli, or tamales, beef lunch meat, and in those
>big chubs of "beef pattie mix." You know, the stuff that contains
>hearts and such. "Mechanically separated beef," is not unhealthful,
>but it is not ground beef.

Actually, the pink slime material is only used in relative low
fat products, such as ground beef. Something like lunchmeat or
hot dogs does not need to contain pink slime, since it can contain
more fat.

Steve

On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 19:16:21 -0400, Dave Smith
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Expose" is IMO the appropriate word. It is a type of filler and poses
>something of a risk to the consumer.

WHAT risk? Please, POINT OUT exactly what risk it poses!!!








To reply by email, lose the Ks...

On Sep 13, 7:22*pm, spop...@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> Bryan *<bryangsimm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Just because the lobbyists for the pink slime industry were able to
> >convince the government to let them just call it beef. *It should have
> >been labeled something like "mechanically separated beef," just as the
> >analogous chicken product MUST be labeled, "mechanically separated
> >chicken." *The chicken processors must have hired the wrong lobbyists
> >or *bribed* (read, contributed campaign dollars to) the wrong elected
> >officials.
> >I don't argue that it's unhealthful, but that consumers should know
> >when it is added to *ground* beef. *It has uses that are appropriate,
> >such as in canned ravioli, or tamales, beef lunch meat, and in those
> >big chubs of "beef pattie mix." *You know, the stuff that contains
> >hearts and such. *"Mechanically separated beef," is not unhealthful,
> >but it is not ground beef.
>
> Actually, the pink slime material is only used in relative low
> fat products, such as ground beef. *Something like lunchmeat or
> hot dogs does not need to contain pink slime, since it can contain
> more fat.

But texture is also a factor. "Lean finely textured beef" (LFTB) can
be blended with very fatty beef for hot dogs or bologna with no
noticeable difference. I don't want it in the raw ground beef I buy.
Heck, I grill burgers medium rare, and there is no question in my mind
that there is a taste difference between LFTB and freshly ground
beef. Sheldon, who exaggerates to the point of absurdity, calls all
ground beef that he doesn't grind himself, "mystery meat." The
revelation of pink slime is one of his broken clock moments.
>
> Steve

--Bryan

"Dave Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:gPt4s.15839$[email protected]..
> On 13/09/2012 6:54 PM, The Other Guy wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:41:36 -0800, Mark Thorson <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Like the Church of Scientology, pink slime company
>>> sues journalists for exposing them.
>>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202754
>>
>> GOOD for them, and I hope they win!!
>>
>> 'expose' IS NOT the proper word to use.
>>
>
>
>
>
> "Expose" is IMO the appropriate word. It is a type of filler and poses
> something of a risk to the consumer.
>
> It is my hope that they do not win. I do not want investigative reporters
> to be afraid to report the truth for fear that they will be harassed in
> the courts for telling the truth.

Yes, it is the appropriate word. And I don't want to be eating pink slime
or other stuff like that. I read the labels on everything I buy. That
should have to be disclosed. But it's not. Why is it that some meats say
stuff like "chopped and formed" but they don't have to disclose the pink
slime?

Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "Dave Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:gPt4s.15839$[email protected]..
> > On 13/09/2012 6:54 PM, The Other Guy wrote:
> >> On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:41:36 -0800, Mark Thorson <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Like the Church of Scientology, pink slime company
> >>> sues journalists for exposing them.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202754
> >>
> >> GOOD for them, and I hope they win!!
> >>
> >> 'expose' IS NOT the proper word to use.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Expose" is IMO the appropriate word. It is a type of filler and poses
> > something of a risk to the consumer.
> >
> > It is my hope that they do not win. I do not want investigative reporters
> > to be afraid to report the truth for fear that they will be harassed in
> > the courts for telling the truth.
>
> Yes, it is the appropriate word. And I don't want to be eating pink slime
> or other stuff like that. I read the labels on everything I buy. That
> should have to be disclosed. But it's not. Why is it that some meats say
> stuff like "chopped and formed" but they don't have to disclose the pink
> slime?

The product in question is not a filler, it is meat. If you want to
delude yourself into believing that somehow tiny bits of meat that have
been separated from fat are no longer meat, that is your issue.
Hopefully the sad excuse for a legal system recognizes this fact and
holds the media accountable for their defamation.

On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 16:42:28 -0700 (PDT), Bryan wrote:

> Just because the lobbyists for the pink slime industry were able to
> convince the government to let them just call it beef. It should have
> been labeled something like "mechanically separated beef," just as the
> analogous chicken product MUST be labeled, "mechanically separated
> chicken."

Totally different process for making mechanically separated chicken
than how they make pink beef slime. And mechanically separated beef
is already illegal - has been since mad cow. They don't want
processors scraping down spinal cords. Kinda ironic considering they
claim that mad cow has been eliminated.

> The chicken processors must have hired the wrong lobbyists
> or *bribed* (read, contributed campaign dollars to) the wrong elected
> officials.

Tyson is the largest beef producer in the world. Second in chicken
and pork in the United States. They're all in it just he same.

-sw

"Pete C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:50528c6a$0$9115$[email protected]..
>
> Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> "Dave Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:gPt4s.15839$[email protected]..
>> > On 13/09/2012 6:54 PM, The Other Guy wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:41:36 -0800, Mark Thorson <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Like the Church of Scientology, pink slime company
>> >>> sues journalists for exposing them.
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202754
>> >>
>> >> GOOD for them, and I hope they win!!
>> >>
>> >> 'expose' IS NOT the proper word to use.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Expose" is IMO the appropriate word. It is a type of filler and poses
>> > something of a risk to the consumer.
>> >
>> > It is my hope that they do not win. I do not want investigative
>> > reporters
>> > to be afraid to report the truth for fear that they will be harassed in
>> > the courts for telling the truth.
>>
>> Yes, it is the appropriate word. And I don't want to be eating pink
>> slime
>> or other stuff like that. I read the labels on everything I buy. That
>> should have to be disclosed. But it's not. Why is it that some meats
>> say
>> stuff like "chopped and formed" but they don't have to disclose the pink
>> slime?
>
> The product in question is not a filler, it is meat. If you want to
> delude yourself into believing that somehow tiny bits of meat that have
> been separated from fat are no longer meat, that is your issue.
> Hopefully the sad excuse for a legal system recognizes this fact and
> holds the media accountable for their defamation.

I know it is meat. But it has been processed otherwise beyond just ground
beef. I feel they should be telling us that.

Ever tried to cook the stuff? It doesn't cook up like ground beef does and
it certainly doesn't taste the same. I made the mistake of buying a chub of
the stuff at Winco before it was splashed all over the news. I now know
that the Winco brand of ground beef is fine but the chubs are not. I only
bought a chub because I needed just a small amount and I didn't feel like
going to another store. Somehow I thought that maybe it didn't seem right
because it wasn't grass fed organic (like I usually buy) and it was a higher
fat content than I usually buy. But even the feel of the package didn't
seem right. And it was worse when I took it out. The texture and color
were strange.

I noticed right away that it didn't appear right as I was cooking it. And
the finished taste/texture was so off that I threw away the leftovers of the
Spanish Rice I had made. Nobody liked it at all.

I think I bought it at some other store too but I can't remember where. It
wasn't in a chub there but was packaged like the other meats. I noticed
right away that it wasn't cooking up right. I think I put it in a pasta
sauce then and again we didn't like it! I don't think we had any leftovers
then because I think my husband was home.

After that I decided to buy all of my ground beef at Costco. But then they
fouled me up on that one! Switched to a different company. I think the
meat is much higher in fat. At least it seems to be when you cook it up. I
never had to drain/blot the meat before. And even when I did that, cooked
it up the day before and refrigerated it, there was still excess fat left in
the meat! Quite a lot of fat was clinging to the plastic bag I had put it
in. Not only that but they are selling it in a larger amount and it just
doesn't work for me.

So now we are just simply eating far less ground beef. When I do buy it, I
get it from the health food store, Central Market, Whole Foods or if I have
to, Winco but only their stuff. I will never again buy a chub of anything.
Ick.

On 13/09/2 i012 8:42 PM, The Other Guy wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 19:16:21 -0400, Dave Smith
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Expose" is IMO the appropriate word. It is a type of filler and poses
>> something of a risk to the consumer.
>
> WHAT risk? Please, POINT OUT exactly what risk it poses!!!
>
>

It is bits of connective tissue and does not have the nutritional value
of actual meat. Due to risk of salmonella and e-coli, the stuff is
treated with ammonia hydroxide. The USDA limited it to 15% of the meat
product is is added to. It is interesting to read that the company that
produces the stuff is claiming that the network knowingly misled
consumers. One has to wonder if failing to disclose that pink slime has
been added to meat products, or how much pink slime it contains, is not
also misleading. It sure seems that way to me.

It is also misleading to claim that pink slime is beef. When used to
describe food, beef is the meat from bovines. When meat is butchered the
connective tissue is removed and sent to a rendering plant and/or used
in pet food. To call this stuff beef is the same as pulverizing the
skin, hair and bones and calling it beef.

On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 23:00:51 -0400, Dave Smith
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 13/09/2 i012 8:42 PM, The Other Guy wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 19:16:21 -0400, Dave Smith
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "Expose" is IMO the appropriate word. It is a type of filler and poses
>>> something of a risk to the consumer.
>>
>> WHAT risk? Please, POINT OUT exactly what risk it poses!!!
>>
>>
>
>It is bits of connective tissue and does not have the nutritional value
>of actual meat. Due to risk of salmonella and e-coli, the stuff is
>treated with ammonia hydroxide. The USDA limited it to 15% of the meat
>product is is added to.

ALL meat can be treated with ammonia, and is!

And IF it weren't safe, they wouldn't allow 15% now, WOULD THEY??!!??




To reply by email, lose the Ks...

"Pete C." <[email protected]> wrote:

-snip-
>The product in question is not a filler, it is meat. If you want to
>delude yourself into believing that somehow tiny bits of meat that have
>been separated from fat are no longer meat, that is your issue.
>Hopefully the sad excuse for a legal system recognizes this fact and
>holds the media accountable for their defamation.

If my meat gets swept off the floor, and needs a chemical bath to make
it safe to eat, I'd prefer being told that I'm buying not just your
run-of-the-mill meat that gets cut off a bone and trimmed with a
knife.

Just my opinion-- ABC was sensational about it. That's what they
do. Blame 24 hour news. Our meat industry needs some *real*
supervision.

If the judge sides with ABC will you agree, or blame the legal system
for the ills of the world?

Jim

On 14/09/2012 1:09 AM, The Other Guy wrote:

>> It is bits of connective tissue and does not have the nutritional value
>> of actual meat. Due to risk of salmonella and e-coli, the stuff is
>> treated with ammonia hydroxide. The USDA limited it to 15% of the meat
>> product is is added to.
>
> ALL meat can be treated with ammonia, and is!
>
> And IF it weren't safe, they wouldn't allow 15% now, WOULD THEY??!!??


Yet, it is not *meat*, and there is a 15% content limit.

On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:09:27 -0700, The Other Guy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 23:00:51 -0400, Dave Smith
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 13/09/2 i012 8:42 PM, The Other Guy wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 19:16:21 -0400, Dave Smith
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Expose" is IMO the appropriate word. It is a type of filler and poses
>>>> something of a risk to the consumer.
>>>
>>> WHAT risk? Please, POINT OUT exactly what risk it poses!!!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It is bits of connective tissue and does not have the nutritional value
>>of actual meat. Due to risk of salmonella and e-coli, the stuff is
>>treated with ammonia hydroxide. The USDA limited it to 15% of the meat
>>product is is added to.
>
>ALL meat can be treated with ammonia, and is!

*can be*, yes. *IS*? Not!

Jim

On 2012-09-14, Pete C. <[email protected]> wrote:

> The product in question is not a filler, it is meat. If you want to
> delude yourself into believing that somehow tiny bits of meat that have
> been separated from fat are no longer meat, that is your issue.
> Hopefully the sad excuse for a legal system recognizes this fact and
> holds the media accountable for their defamation.

meat > flesh > muscle/fat
collegen > striated connective tissue

Whether pink slime is actually edible meat or not is really not the
issue. For all practical purposes, it is, but only if we agree all
connective tissue can NOT be removed. Sure, we spend extra time
removing silverskin, but like fat, there is plenty of connective
tissue remaining in most cuts of meat. A leg of lamb, a pork
shoulder, or a rack of ribs is proof positive of that.

The question is, do we want to eat it. We expect the largest and most
obvious pieces of connective tissue to be removed. That's what
butchers do. Remove the parts of the animal we don't want.
Otherwise, jes whack that cow up with a chain/bandsaw into 1lb chunks
and wrap 'er up!

Once again, the meat industry has figured out a way to repackage what
the consumer would typically prefer to not eat and sell it back
to us. That is deception, plain and simple. We don't want bovine
assholes and sheep scrotums in our food, despite po' folk proving over
and over again that it's not only good protien, but can taste good,
too. Again, not the point. The point is, the food industry is
reprocessing that very silverskin we spend so much time removing back
into a food product they can charge us $$$ for. Screw that it's very
high source of protein, we DON'T want it!! End of freaking story. If
ABC wants to call it "slime", so be it. Is that any more misleading
or deceptive than the meat industry trying to sell us waste material
we don't want? No.


nb

--
Definition of objectivism:
"Eff you! I got mine."
http://www.nongmoproject.org/

Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "Pete C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:50528c6a$0$9115$[email protected]..
> >
> > Julie Bove wrote:
> >>
> >> "Dave Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:gPt4s.15839$[email protected]..
> >> > On 13/09/2012 6:54 PM, The Other Guy wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:41:36 -0800, Mark Thorson <[email protected]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Like the Church of Scientology, pink slime company
> >> >>> sues journalists for exposing them.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202754
> >> >>
> >> >> GOOD for them, and I hope they win!!
> >> >>
> >> >> 'expose' IS NOT the proper word to use.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Expose" is IMO the appropriate word. It is a type of filler and poses
> >> > something of a risk to the consumer.
> >> >
> >> > It is my hope that they do not win. I do not want investigative
> >> > reporters
> >> > to be afraid to report the truth for fear that they will be harassed in
> >> > the courts for telling the truth.
> >>
> >> Yes, it is the appropriate word. And I don't want to be eating pink
> >> slime
> >> or other stuff like that. I read the labels on everything I buy. That
> >> should have to be disclosed. But it's not. Why is it that some meats
> >> say
> >> stuff like "chopped and formed" but they don't have to disclose the pink
> >> slime?
> >
> > The product in question is not a filler, it is meat. If you want to
> > delude yourself into believing that somehow tiny bits of meat that have
> > been separated from fat are no longer meat, that is your issue.
> > Hopefully the sad excuse for a legal system recognizes this fact and
> > holds the media accountable for their defamation.
>
> I know it is meat. But it has been processed otherwise beyond just ground
> beef. I feel they should be telling us that.
>
> Ever tried to cook the stuff? It doesn't cook up like ground beef does and
> it certainly doesn't taste the same. I made the mistake of buying a chub of
> the stuff at Winco before it was splashed all over the news. I now know
> that the Winco brand of ground beef is fine but the chubs are not. I only
> bought a chub because I needed just a small amount and I didn't feel like
> going to another store. Somehow I thought that maybe it didn't seem right
> because it wasn't grass fed organic (like I usually buy) and it was a higher
> fat content than I usually buy. But even the feel of the package didn't
> seem right. And it was worse when I took it out. The texture and color
> were strange.
>
> I noticed right away that it didn't appear right as I was cooking it. And
> the finished taste/texture was so off that I threw away the leftovers of the
> Spanish Rice I had made. Nobody liked it at all.
>
> I think I bought it at some other store too but I can't remember where. It
> wasn't in a chub there but was packaged like the other meats. I noticed
> right away that it wasn't cooking up right. I think I put it in a pasta
> sauce then and again we didn't like it! I don't think we had any leftovers
> then because I think my husband was home.
>
> After that I decided to buy all of my ground beef at Costco. But then they
> fouled me up on that one! Switched to a different company. I think the
> meat is much higher in fat. At least it seems to be when you cook it up. I
> never had to drain/blot the meat before. And even when I did that, cooked
> it up the day before and refrigerated it, there was still excess fat left in
> the meat! Quite a lot of fat was clinging to the plastic bag I had put it
> in. Not only that but they are selling it in a larger amount and it just
> doesn't work for me.
>
> So now we are just simply eating far less ground beef. When I do buy it, I
> get it from the health food store, Central Market, Whole Foods or if I have
> to, Winco but only their stuff. I will never again buy a chub of anything.
> Ick.

All pre-ground meats are sub-par and a health risk since they spend a
significant amount of time in the ground state exposed to air and any
potential contaminants. At the very least they end up heavily oxidized
and as a result have a metallic taste. If you want quality ground meats
you have to buy whole cuts of meat and grind it yourself right before
use so it doesn't have time to oxidize.

Jim Elbrecht wrote:
>
> "Pete C." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> -snip-
> >The product in question is not a filler, it is meat. If you want to
> >delude yourself into believing that somehow tiny bits of meat that have
> >been separated from fat are no longer meat, that is your issue.
> >Hopefully the sad excuse for a legal system recognizes this fact and
> >holds the media accountable for their defamation.
>
> If my meat gets swept off the floor, and needs a chemical bath to make
> it safe to eat, I'd prefer being told that I'm buying not just your
> run-of-the-mill meat that gets cut off a bone and trimmed with a
> knife.
>
> Just my opinion-- ABC was sensational about it. That's what they
> do. Blame 24 hour news. Our meat industry needs some *real*
> supervision.
>
> If the judge sides with ABC will you agree, or blame the legal system
> for the ills of the world?

One would hope a jury would decide and one would hope they recognize the
facts and not the hype. If somehow like many other cases they fail to
reach the correct verdict based on the facts and law, then yes I will
indeed blame the sad excuse for a legal system that is so corrupted.