Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 49

Thread: Pink Slime, Inc. Sues ABC News

  1. #1
    Nunya Bidnits Guest

    Default Re: Pink Slime, Inc. Sues ABC News

    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


    Exposing what? Nobody has shown the stuff does any harm to anyone. All the
    criticism is BS foisted by people looking for attention, ratings, and
    advertisers.

    But hey, if you can show me specific, direct, cause and effect evidence that
    this stuff is harmful I will listen. That does not include feeding me crap
    about how it is processed, since there are a number of chemicals used safely
    in food processing which one would never directly ingest, and which are not
    ingested with the products they are used to produce. And that does not
    include any "evidence" which does not directly show a detrimental cause and
    effect from eating the stuff. I won't hold my breath.

    The comparsion to Scientology is particularly ridiculous.

    Just sayin'.

    MartyB



  2. #2
    Mark Thorson Guest

    Default 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

  3. #3
    The Other Guy Guest

    Default Re: Pink Slime, Inc. Sues ABC News

    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...


  4. #4
    Dave Smith Guest

    Default Re: Pink Slime, Inc. Sues ABC News

    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.




  5. #5
    Bryan Guest

    Default Re: Pink Slime, Inc. Sues ABC News

    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

  6. #6
    Steve Pope Guest

    Default Re: Pink Slime, Inc. Sues ABC News

    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

  7. #7
    The Other Guy Guest

    Default Re: Pink Slime, Inc. Sues ABC News

    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...


  8. #8
    Bryan Guest

    Default Re: Pink Slime, Inc. Sues ABC News

    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

  9. #9
    Julie Bove Guest

    Default Re: Pink Slime, Inc. Sues ABC News


    "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?



  10. #10
    Pete C. Guest

    Default Re: Pink Slime, Inc. Sues ABC News


    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.

  11. #11
    Sqwertz Guest

    Default Re: Pink Slime, Inc. Sues ABC News

    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

  12. #12
    Julie Bove Guest

    Default Re: Pink Slime, Inc. Sues ABC News


    "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.



  13. #13
    Dave Smith Guest

    Default Re: Pink Slime, Inc. Sues ABC News

    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.


  14. #14
    The Other Guy Guest

    Default Re: Pink Slime, Inc. Sues ABC News

    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...


  15. #15
    Jim Elbrecht Guest

    Default Re: Pink Slime, Inc. Sues ABC News

    "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

  16. #16
    Dave Smith Guest

    Default Re: Pink Slime, Inc. Sues ABC News

    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.



  17. #17
    Jim Elbrecht Guest

    Default Re: Pink Slime, Inc. Sues ABC News

    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

  18. #18
    notbob Guest

    Default Re: Pink Slime, Inc. Sues ABC News

    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/

  19. #19
    Pete C. Guest

    Default Re: Pink Slime, Inc. Sues ABC News


    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.

  20. #20
    Pete C. Guest

    Default Re: Pink Slime, Inc. Sues ABC News


    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.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32