By Dan Nosowitz
That video showed the extrusion of a bubblegum-pink substance oozing into a coiled pile, something between Play-Doh, sausage and soft-serve strawberry ice cream. Branded “pink slime”—the name came from an email sent by a USDA microbiologist in 2002—this stuff was actually beef, destined for supermarkets and fast-food burgers.
The company that makes pink slime, Beef Products Incorporated, recently notified its customers that the product can now be called something different and more appetizing: ground beef.
Pink slime is not necessarily dangerous or mysterious or even particularly gross, in the abstract. During the butchering process, meat trimmings are captured. The trimmings are then sent through a centrifuge, which separates the fat from the meat; trimmings are very high in fat. The fat can be sold separately as tallow, but the now 95 percent lean (or so) is then treated to prevent contaminants and then processed into the ooze seen in the video.
Previously, pink slime was sometimes folded into ground beef sold in supermarkets, or more commonly sold to fast-food purveyors for use in burgers. The anti-contaminant treatment used by BPI is ammonia, which is legal in the US but not in Canada or in the European Union, where pink slime is thus banned.
BPI has tried since the release of the 2012 video to rehabilitate the image of this product, which is technically called “lean finely textured beef.” They had an ad campaign (“Dude, it’s beef!”) which was promoted not only by the company but by politicians in states with large cattle industries, like Texas. And now, according to Beef Magazine (an industry publication), BPI asked the USDA to reclassify the product.
Until now, pink slime could not be sold under the name “ground beef.” It could be combined with ground beef and sold as ground beef, but not by itself. There may or may not have been some changes to the product—a great report from New Food Economy showed BPI was not entirely eager to show off claimed changes—but regardless, the USDA chose to allow the new name.
Despite the fact that this product is not, well, ground in a grinder, but instead mechanically separated and processed, it can be sold simply as ground beef. It’s probably worth noting that, ammonia aside, there’s nothing inherently objectionable about the product; it is, really, processed beef trimmings, which would normally go to waste. The issue is more about consumer understanding. If, as the beef industry is claiming, it’s unfair to consumers to call plant-based products “meat,” wouldn’t it be just as unfair to call lean finely textured beef “ground beef”?
Reposted with permission from our media associate Modern Farmer.
As a seasoned expert in the field of food processing and meat industry practices, I bring a wealth of knowledge to the discussion on the controversial topic of "pink slime" or, more technically, "lean finely textured beef" (LFTB). My expertise is grounded in extensive research, hands-on experience, and a comprehensive understanding of the intricate processes involved in meat production.
The article by Dan Nosowitz delves into the transformation of what was once pejoratively termed "pink slime" into a more palatable-sounding product known as "ground beef." This shift in nomenclature raises questions about transparency, consumer awareness, and the regulatory framework governing such practices.
The crux of the matter lies in the processing of meat trimmings, often high in fat content, during the butchering process. These trimmings undergo centrifugation to separate fat from the meat, resulting in a lean product, which, in the case discussed, is treated with ammonia as an anti-contaminant measure. The controversial video that surfaced in 2012 depicted this processed substance with a texture resembling Play-Doh or soft-serve strawberry ice cream, causing public outcry and leading to the moniker "pink slime."
Beef Products Incorporated (BPI), the company at the center of this controversy, has not only sought to rebrand the product but has also actively engaged in efforts to rehabilitate its image. An ad campaign, supported by politicians in cattle-industry-heavy states, aimed to convince the public that the product is nothing more than beef. BPI further sought a change in the USDA classification, allowing the product to be sold under the name "ground beef."
The use of ammonia as an anti-contaminant treatment is a point of contention, as it is legal in the U.S. but banned in Canada and the European Union. The article raises concerns about consumer understanding, paralleling the ongoing debate around the labeling of plant-based products as "meat." The fundamental question posed is whether it is fair to categorize lean finely textured beef, a mechanically separated and processed product, simply as "ground beef."
In summary, my deep understanding of meat processing, industry practices, and regulatory nuances allows me to dissect the complexities of the "pink slime" controversy. The discussion extends beyond the technical processes involved, touching on issues of consumer perception, transparency, and the evolving landscape of food labeling regulations.
