BEEF Daily

End The Hysteria! Pink Slime Is A Myth!

RSS

Media hype has created another wave of hysteria among American consumers. The latest rumor targets beef, with journalists accusing food chains like McDonald’s of using "pink slime" in their hamburger patties.
 
ABC News reported on this topic, spurring a frenzy of related articles, blogs, tweets and Facebook posts all related to the scary ground beef debacle. Here's an excerpt:
 
“Gerald Zirnstein grinds his own hamburger these days. Why? Because this former USDA scientist and, now, whistleblower, knows that 70% of the ground beef we buy at the supermarket contains something he calls ‘pink slime.’ Pink slime is beef trimmings. Once only used in dog food and cooking oil, the trimmings are now sprayed with ammonia so they are safe to eat and added to most ground beef as a cheaper filler.”
 
However, beef experts are working hard to keep the rumor mill from scaring consumers from enjoying a great-tasting burger. Last week, beef supplier Beef Products Inc. (BPI), and the American Meat Institute (AMI) shared the facts about beef.
 
BPI has launched an educational consumer-friendly website called, “Pink Slime Is A Myth,” which aims to debunk the myths spread by the sensational coverage.
 
Meanwhile, AMI explains the science behind it all, stressing the safety and wholesomeness of ground beef and its production. Here is part of a statement.
 
“Boneless lean beef trimmings (BLBT) is a safe, wholesome and nutritious form of beef that is made by separating lean beef from fat. To make the product, beef companies use beef trimmings, the small cuts of beef that remain when larger cuts are trimmed down.
 
“These trimmings are USDA-inspected, wholesome cuts of beef that contain both fat and lean and are nearly impossible to separate using a knife. When these trimmings are processed, the process separates the fat away and the end result is nutritious, lean beef. It’s a process similar to separating cream from milk.
 
“One process uses food grade ammonium hydroxide gas, something commonly used in the production of many foods, to destroy bacteria. Whatever process is used, it is all done under the watchful eye of USDA inspectors and according to strict federal rules.  Lean finely textured beef is blended into foods like ground beef. Producing BLBT ensures that lean, nutritious, safe beef is not wasted in a world where red meat protein supplies are decreasing while global demand is increasing as population and income increases.
 
“Some recent media reports created a troubling and inaccurate picture, particularly in their use of the colloquial term 'pink slime.' The fact is, BLBT is beef. The beef trimmings that are used to make BLBT are absolutely edible. In fact, no process can somehow make an inedible meat edible; it’s impossible. In reality, the BLBT production process simply removes fat and makes the remaining beef more lean and suited to a variety of beef products that satisfy consumers’ desire for leaner foods.”
 
Please, help spread the word about the safety and wholesome of ground beef. Consumers should be able to enjoy America’s favorite protein without feeling scared, worried or guilty about it.

Discuss this Blog Entry 48

Anonymous (not verified)
on Mar 12, 2012

Doesn't sound like it's a myth at all -- it's pink, it's slimy, it's treated with ammonia. Frankly, it sounds pretty bad to almost everyone who doesn't make money off of it. Instead of trying to convince the public that this product is good, and not "pink, slimy, and treated with ammonia", when it is just that, wouldn't it be better to just go back to putting the pink slime in dog food?

Whether it's healthy or nutritious is irrelevant. If it's offensive and unappealing, maybe we should just stop?

We kill a steer every year for our family freezer-- we never put pink slime in it before we wrap it. Do any of you?

Finally, do farmers and anchors make money ff of the slime product? I doubt it. Why can't we recognize that this is just another example of a situation in which meat processors and cattle producers interests are in conflict, and stop carrying water for those folks?

on Mar 13, 2012

I don't doubt that the USDA has approved this process as safe just as the government regulators approve many unsafe practices, not only in the food industry but mining, oil drilling, timber, fishing, etc. because as we all know the regulators end up working for the big industry intrests and not the "people" due to the revolving door that allows regulators to cash in by eventually going to work for the industry they regulated. I raise and sell locker beef that is healthy and unadulterated and yet I am constrained by an abundance of laws designed to make it difficult and insinuate that there is a real danger to the public if they go outside the mainstream industry for their beef. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is all designed to limit peoples' choices so they have no choice but to eat the adulterated food that comes from big industry. Another thing that should concern everyone is that big business funds most of the research done in universities. But the big point is that no one wants this stuff added to the food we eat but it is there anyway and we eat it anyway. How does that happen except that the system has been manipulated in favor of the industry?

Anonymous (not verified)
on Mar 16, 2012

I dunno, I've seen pictures of it and it doesn't look slimy to me.

Mark (not verified)
on Apr 3, 2012

sounds like you're a victim of the hysteria. How do you know it's slimy? It's just called slimy by the people who invented this term, but is no more slimy than any other meat. it isn't slime, it is pink, but so is any fine ground beef mixed with fat. As for the ammonia, there is less in this than is produced in your own body from the digestion of proteins in your digestive tract. Ammonia is a naturally occuring chemical! So bottom line, it has been called slime, and everybody's scared, but it's not any worse for you than the meat you process for yourself every year. I'm not affiliated with the food industry in any way, just recognize how the media likes to create hype to drive their ratings. Remember the summer of sharks hysteria? Another non-event, media-created hype worry.

Anonymous (not verified)
on May 5, 2012

why was it used in dog food up till about 10 years ago.

Anonymous (not verified)
on May 5, 2012

If it is so wonderful and safe, why was it only used in Dog Food up until the year 2000.

Joe Eisenmenger (not verified)
on May 24, 2012

Come on "get real", if you are in the beef production business you are benefitting in the technology of FTLB. Anything that produces more ground beef from an animal carcass helps us all. It helps the consumer, the ranchers, and the feedlot operators. It is all a trickle down system. As far as the pink,slimmy comment, take the leanest ground beef you can find, put it in your hand, squeeze it slightly. Now does your hand feel slimmy? Sure it does. Raw ground beef is slimmy. If you are truly a producer, shame on you agreeing with the hysteria. Stand up for the efficiencies in the system. There is nothing in LFTB that isn't in the regular ground beef, except for the shot of ammonia that kills the bacteria that is possible during the process. The same shot of ammonia that is applied to the loaf of bread you ate a slice of this morning.
Its through technology such as this that the beef industry has become as efficient as it is. Sure the easy comment is to feed it to the dogs, but then the consumers will grip at the added methane production produced from the added production needed annually to replace the product. There is a reason the beef industry has become as GREEN as it has. It was green before green was the thing to be. It was forced to be green to survive. That is what all beef producers need to tell the general public. That goes for the organic, natural, and conventional producers. Lets quit bad mouthing each other and start telling the facts. LFTB I agree should be labelled as such, but to call it anything but lean ground beef is just wrong. There I've stepped down from my soapbox now.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Jun 14, 2012

Actually, it's a really good product. It's treated with ammonium hydroxide which is an extremely concentrated form of ammonium, but it by no way harmful. It just eliminates the fear of getting E.coli and Salmonella. Studies have shown a 73% decrease of samples having E.coli and a 55% decrease of cases in America, of people getting the bacteria. You don't have to eat it, but don't degrade it a good, healthy product.

T Martin (not verified)
on Mar 12, 2012

Why are we defending this product?

Safety issues aside it is anything but a quality product that is suitable for anything but dog food.

This is a packer issue; my family stopped buying prepackaged ground beef years ago because of the questionable quality and poor flavor.

Beef producers should not be defending this product. We should be leading the charge to provide the best quality product and practices if we want the public to look to us as for guidance and expertise.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Mar 12, 2012

Correct, I am a cattle veterinarian and beef rancher, I have yet to have a need to add BLBT to any of the beef I sell to my customers. The packers don't care about anything but short sighted profit.

The consumer got it right on this one for a change.

robertworstell (not verified)
on Mar 12, 2012

In KC, it's the recent news. Apparently the Fed has decided to incorporate something like it into school lunches.

http://www.kmbc.com/health/30649411/detail.html

I'd heard that the fast food chains tried something like it years ago, but quit. There was an FDA-approved product a couple years back which was taking the backbone and grinding it, then treating it with ammonia to kill all possible pathogens. Unfortunately, it tasted like ammonia. And yes, it was pink and slimy.

Nikki Allen (not verified)
on Mar 12, 2012

I agree with the poster above. We are a small family-run beef operation. I guarantee the only folks prospering from this are the processors. Just another way to cut cattle demand - squeeze as much as they can out of each head. Come on, who are you writing these blogs for anyway. You say you're a 5th gen rancher - seems like you've forgotten where you come from.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Mar 12, 2012

End the hysteria. Just put it on the label and let consumers make their own choices.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Mar 22, 2012

Good Call!!! That is really the true test of whether or not it should be added to ground beef by allowing consumers to decide whether they want it or not. Because overall, its the consumers that keep the beef industry going.

Tiffany Hayes (not verified)
on Mar 12, 2012

I think it's essential to remember as an agriculture community we must stand together. It's much easier to destroy a nation when it's divided.

When you look at the facts and don't allow the media induced hysteria to provide your information, it's a pretty simple matter. We are all concerned with our environment and how we use it. Doesn't it make sense, when considering the land, water and fuel used, to be as efficient as possible when it comes to our cattle harvesting efforts?

Why not step away from the negative, sensational view point, and see this method for whats it's worth? It provides us a way to be extremely efficient with our product, while also supplying one of the safest, not to mention extremely affordable, products available for ourselves and consumers.

Daren Williams (not verified)
on Mar 12, 2012

Excellent point, Tiffany. This process yields an additional 10-12 lbs. of lean protein from each beef animal, thereby reducing the amount of resources like land, water, feed and fuel to provide nutrient-rich beef.

W Freeman (not verified)
on Mar 12, 2012

Amanda, I appreciate all that you do at Beef Mag., but I
think you are on the wrong side of this issue. I am a commercial beef producer and eat my fair share of steak and hamburger. We all can, and do eat a lot of stuff that doesn't "hurt" us, but given a choice at a reasonable price I think most folks would opt for better quality in their beef consumption. After I read ( http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail6162.cfm?Id=96157 ) this article which was referenced through a beef publication, I became much more selective in my choice of hamburger and passed the info on to my kids and grand kids. Bottom line for me is, if it's so contaminated with bacteria in the first place that it requires special treatment with ammonia, neither I, nor my family want to consume it. Additionally, all beef should be labeled as to whether it has been ammonia treated or not.

on Apr 3, 2012

Who says it's contaminated? The reason for the ammonia treatment is to raise the ph of the product thus combating microbial action so it's not so susceptible to contamination.

tm
on Mar 12, 2012

I am tired of being told that certain ill -begotten food production practices and processes are safe, healthy, or necessary. When In fact, many such practices are a crummy idea. Otherwise healthy foods are being tainted. I am a lifetime rancher that says, "Ick! Stop it already."
China insists on poisoning their people's food supply for whatever economic or ignorant reasons that can be conjured up. Still, that doesn't make it right that nearly 2/3 of the products on their grocery shelves are not fit for human consumption
As far as this pink product being in dog food, dogs have a much short life expectation than we humans. They are less likely to suffer from the crappy consequences of this ammoniated process but there is no guarantee.

Packer (not verified)
on May 24, 2012

And I say "cruel" to your production practices which cause unnecessary pain to the animals you produce. You need to immediately stop the practice of dehorning/castrating and/or earmarking cattle without the application of anasthesia by a practicing veterinarian. Are you too cheap to use the skills of a professional ...how dare you try to be a least-cost producer. Tell me, "Why do you find it necessary to inflict a third-degree burn (brand) to the hide of a defenseless baby calf"?

If you feed a supplement to your cows, unless it is 100% natural plant-based protein (soy/cottonseed), please defend for me the parcitce of feeding a commercial fertilizer (urea) to cattle.

My point ...be careful when casting stones!

Anonymous (not verified)
on Mar 12, 2012

Funny that the industry, which fights government oversight tooth and nail, wants to reassure us by way of government oversight that all is safe. Anyone in the industry knows that the number of USDA inspectors and therefore the thoroughness of their inspections has dropped through the floor over the last three decades. It's almost a joke to have a USDA inspector "on site" when he has to watch hundreds of cattle or thousands of chickens every minute. What is he supposed to see? I agree with other posters - trying to defend this is absurd. Own up to the fact of what you're doing and let consumers decide if they'd rather pay more for safer beef - like those of us who know our farmers do - and if they would, then give them that option. Oh you can't do that...because then you'd be admitting the rest of your products aren't safe...what a pickle.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Mar 12, 2012

Flashes me back to the book "The Jungle" by Upton Sincliar. The only difference now is we have "regulations" to keep us "safe".

nightnurse (not verified)
on Mar 12, 2012

Frankly, if it's not good enough for me, I don't want my dog eating it, either. I want a healthy dog, thanks.

Daren Williams (not verified)
on Mar 12, 2012

I am a disappointed to see farmers and ranchers buying into the media hysteria around the use of lean beef trimmings to produce ground beef. This product does not go into dog food. It is 100% beef that is 90-95% lean. Before the process to seperate this lean beef from fat trim was discovered the trim did go into pets foods because there was no economical way to separate the lean from the fat by hand. The use of hydrolized ammonia to ensure the lean beef is free of bacteria is a process used on many foods, not just this product.

I hope all consumers, especially those within agriculture, will take time to learn the facts like California rancher Jeff Fowle did before writing his blog post on Commonsense Agriculture. If nothing else, please take time to read Jeff's post...

http://commonsenseagriculture.com/2012/03/12/pink-shirts-pink-ties-and-p...

on Mar 12, 2012

The Native Americans of the Dakotas were known to use everything from the nose to the tail of the buffalo. They never let anything go to waste. Hide, bones, meat, fat and organs were used, preserved, eaten or made into something.

As a beef producer, I'm proud our industry has this same philosophy. 90-95% lean beef isn't pink slime; it's food! We are able to use 99% of the beef animal, everything except for the moo! Beef by-products such as insulin for diabetics, stearic acid in our tires, makeup, deodorants, and more, are often overlooked as benefits of our industry.

I haven't forgotten where I have come from, and my career is based on feeding the world. I don't fear buying my meat from the grocery store or from a fast-food chain or a restaurant because I do know it's safe and wholesome.

The best thing about America is we have choices. Sure, if things are added to our meat, labels should reflect that, and consumers can vote for their preferences with their dollars. So, whether it's locally-grown grass-fed beef or conventional Walmart beef, the choice is ours. Just note, that whatever the choice, safety is never sacrificed when consuming U.S. beef.

And, that's something I'm proud to back. I hope ranchers who have bought into the activist scare tactics of pink slime in the media will do a little bit more research before they get lost in the mania!

Thanks to all of you for a great discussion today.

on Mar 12, 2012

Statement From H. Russell Cross, Ph.D.
Professor and Head of Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University

"As Administrator of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) in the early 90s, I and my staff evaluated numerous research projects before approving lean, finely textured beef as a safe source of high-quality protein. The FSIS safety review process was and is an in-depth, science-based process that spans years, many research projects and involves many experts across all levels of the agency-and in this case, the process proved the product is safe."

"Approving lean finely textured beef as safe was the right decision, and today, it remains a safe way to meet the nutritional needs of a growing population. All beef is a good or excellent source of 10 essential nutrients including protein, iron, zinc and B-vitamins.

"Finely textured lean beef helps us meet consumer demand for safe, affordable and nutritious food."

on Mar 12, 2012

Comments from Facebook:

From Rod Thorson: I ask the butcher at the supermarket to grind it, or buy fresh ground. Would go veg before I bought meat in a tube. mainly because I'm familiar with "Advanced Meat Recovery".

From Natalie Sturdevant:
I don't know? I'm still really skeptical. I just read an article that quoted Gerald Zirnstein, microbiologist for the US Department of Ag, and he said (in reference to the pink slime), "Not only is this product a potential source of killer ...pathogens if the ammonia levels are not controlled properly, but that the overall protein quality of the beef hamburger is compromised by the inclusion of LFTB."

As a teacher, I think our school children deserve real, whole food, not the trimmings of beef, mixed with other stuff, and then doused in ammonia. Further, my students (97% get their lunches paid for by the Federal government) have no option besides eating the food (or food-like substances) given to them by the school. By preventing access to pure food, I think we're ladening them with more burdens than they already experience growing up on the border in one of America's poorest counties.

on Mar 12, 2012

I think everybody should read the links posted by Daren Williams and Amanda, above.They are short and factual. There's no need to get wrapped around the axle on this issue.

JD Golonka (not verified)
on Mar 12, 2012

I sell a portion of my beef on the local markets, things like this help me a little, short term, long term they get more people eating chicken or pork. If the public does not want pink slime take it out! If its so good sell it labeled as pink slime. As far as the fast food places I heard or read that to be considered beef it only needs to contain 36% real beef under the watchfull eye of the USDA, whats the rest of a Mcdonalds Angus burger made of? So if a burger at Mcdonalds only contains 36% beef and they quit using it (pink slime or whatever you want to call it) How great can it be?

Terry Church (not verified)
on Mar 12, 2012

The Media always seems to be one sided on certain issues. They blow things out of proportion that gets the public upset.The networks are not as honest with the people as they need to be. They are more interested in ratings,[ to bring in more money]. When they show and tell both sides of an issue, they still seem to short side the one their not the most in favor of. The networks covering the so called " Pink Slime" should have to give all the facts and information. This should be a requirement for the Media on all issues. If the networks can't give equal and unbias facts and information on any subject, they shouldn't broadcast it I believe that we the public don't always get all the facts that we deserve and should get from the Media. I personally don't see anything wrong with using all usable lean meat products. On my job I'm on the road 5 days a week and I eat a lot of beef. I feel the food I eat is safe, and will continue to eat beef from resturants and fast food chains.

E.TihsFeeb (not verified)
on Mar 13, 2012

This is the Beef industries version of the TRUTH. IE what they want us to know and what they don't want us to know.
I wouldn't trust the beef industry as far as I could throw em.

Brian Bruner (not verified)
on Mar 13, 2012

I have no doubt that this "pink slime" is safe to eat and it may even be healthy. But it clearly is not necessary and consumers dispise this kind of thing. I don't want to eat it and I can't imagine that anyone would knowingly choose to eat it. Why are farmers & ranchers defending this practice? It does nothing to help us.

A Former Sioux Citian (not verified)
on Mar 13, 2012

I support the use of everthing we can of an animal that we have slaughtered. Its saying that we respected you and not just going to eat your good parts and throw the rest away.

However, the errors have been in not telling the consumers what they are buying! It also sounds like some collusion between the USDA and and BPI. Not of this is good for the food industry.,

Bryan in Minneapolis (not verified)
on Mar 13, 2012

The bun has more ammonia than the burger. How come when provincial French or native Americans eat the whole animal, we get misty-eyed and the yuppies buy artisinal cookbooks? But when a machine does it, food snobs throw up their arms in disgust. It's OK for a Mexican soup cook to make menudo, but if McD's runs pig tissue through a big scary version of your home grinder then suddenly McRibs are disgusting.

What makes the food factory's machine and its chemical processes different from your home KitchenAid mixer and the millions of chemical reactions that happen in your saute pan? The universe is made of chemistry. FDA and USDA make sure the chemistry is safe. I challenge someone to conclusively PROVE (not just insinuate) problems with ammonia gas treatment.

Don't you think the term "pink slime" tainted the conversation just a little bit? Maybe primed the pump a little bit, hmm?

I for one enjoy the antimold agents that keep my bread fresh. I like the naturally occuring chemicals that "cook" my ceviche. I like the diacetyl in chardonnay that give it a buttery taste, and don't freak out when the same chemical is isolated for my popcorn.

Gabriel Brooks (not verified)
on Mar 14, 2012

In other news the Vegetables at your local grocer where grown in dirt!
Is this a public health risk?
How is this allowed?
Think of the children!

Anonymous (not verified)
on Mar 15, 2012

And I thought that the law was that any product that was adulterated and processed and then reintroduced into the final product needed to be labeled as a separate ingredient if not actually produced during processing.such as meat grinding.

Based upon my suspicions many years ago, I have always ground my own beef. My suspicions have been true.

Also, why is my email necessary if it claims to be optional?

Anonymous (not verified)
on Mar 16, 2012

As someone that was in the restaurant business for 14 years and has been currently running a school lunch program for the last 22 years. I have been researching this for the last several weeks. I understand the need to be effeciant in processes, the science and safety issues involved (I have been teaching food safety classes for 15 years).

What I don't understand and what the majority of public doesn't understand why this is not labled. People deserve the opportunity to make choices and to be allowed to spend more for making those choices.

The beef industy just shot themselves in the foot. They need to decide where they are going in the future. Or are they going to stand around and shoot themselves in the other foot and loose all credibilty in the public eye to stand up for your products.

The USDA almost effectly banned (regulated) potatoes out of the school lunch program last month. (Congress had to override them)

A couple of more blunders like this and meat will be next on the chopping block. Please!!! move this product back to dog food use only.

tm
on Mar 18, 2012

It is a cheap shot to discount the opinions being expressed here by referring to the heartfelt “ammoniating” objections as a folding to the media hype. On our ranch we produce a pure and healthy product. It takes forethought and dedication to do so. Yet other entities have taken control before our beef reaches the consumer.. I believe that our ranching future is dependent on listening to the consumer and responding in all ways that are reasonable. There may have been a time in history when every part of an animal, except the hide and hair, had to go into the stew pot. Is that still necessary or desirable when the dinner plate is so far from the field?

Anonymous (not verified)
on Mar 26, 2012

It amazes me that people still get worked up over the ammonium hydroxide issue. It's used to produce many baked goods, cheeses, and chocolate. Are you folks going to give those products up, as well? Oh, you're gonna grow and thresh your own wheat to make your own bread, right?

And as far as 'pink slime' being unnecessary, its use saves 1.5 million cattle per year. When you think of all the environmental issues that would come with producing another 1.5 million cattle every year, most likely in CAFOs, I think it's absolutely necessary that the meat industry continues to get the most out of every animal.

We need a more efficient food production system...not less efficient. If someone objects to eating this stuff, they can always grind their own beef, or buy it from a butcher that doesn't use BLBT.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Apr 4, 2012

There are many economical downfalls that will occur if this product is not utilized.
1) more cows will have to killed each year.
2) over 3,000 jobs will be lost. It effects the trucking industry, beef plants, beef suppliers, etc.
3) more people on welfare, so taxes will have to increase
4) meat prices will be more expensive and not just hamburger.
5) people are having a hard time feeding their families now - how will they with higher prices.

People talk about sustainability. Beef Products should be a poster child.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Apr 27, 2012

Hey I'm doing some research on this whole "pink slime" topic, and I'm torn between whether I should believe the media hype, or the scientists. I don't want to choose a side without Knowing enough information on a subject. In this case I need more information about packaging, the products that include pink slime, how in general ALL of the effects that pink slime has on the consumer. Please provide me with some information as soon as possible :)

Diana (not verified)
on Sep 13, 2012

Reading your post makes me shake my head. I love the fact that you are trying to make yourself aware. But you can't decided between "media hype or the scientists." I don't understand how you can refer to media hype and still feel that it is trustworthy source of information. This product is just beef that has been separated from fat using centrifugal force. The more a product (any product) is handled and the longer it is left unfrozen, the higher likelihood pathogens will be present. When meat is ground it allows pathogens to move from the exterior of the product to the entire product. As there are few factories that do this it must be shipped and it is ground. Chemical treatment is needed to kill any potential pathogens. Just a note, much of the beef on store shelves have been treated to keep it's bright red color and to kill bacteria, not just LFTB.

on Nov 26, 2012

Don't believe BPI's propaganda

Pink slime has almost no nutritional value, and is mostly pulled from the vertebrae where if the cow is diseased, that is the most likely area of the diseased tissue.

Its whole purpose is monetary, what you may think is 80/20 beef, is nearer 45/55 with the pink slim filler. On top of that don't believe the scare tactics by BPI that if they stop using it beef prices for the consumer will skyrocket...pure beef with no non-nutritional, potentially diseased filler only costs a few cents more per pound.

Don't even get me started on BPI's inadequate testing for the deadly E-Coli strain in the pink slim...

on Nov 26, 2012

Here is something else
Ask yourself why for the longest time pink slime was considered unfit for human consumption (up until 2001), and as a result was only used in dog foods, cooking oil.

Then low and behold in 2001 it is then deemed 'safe' for human consumption by the USDA. The USDA official who approved pink slime for human consumption, then goes on to sit on the BPI board.

food editor and cookbook author J.M. Hirsh described pink slime as highly mealy with bits and studs of cartilage-like matter, and a USDA microbiologist claims the product does contain connective tissue "instead of muscle" and thus it is "not meat" and is "not nutritionally equivalent" to ground beef.

on May 5, 2013

Yeah I don't know how I feel about this, I can tell you me and my husband ranch (cattle) and I won't eat meat from the grocery store. After eating fresh, there's just no going back!! Just doesn't taste the same, sorry, but true. I don't really see how this helps the rancher out, he has already been paid by the pound for the calf before this process happens.It's not like their going to sent him a bonus check if they can make more useable meat from the carcass.

vivienne westwood sale (not verified)
on Aug 31, 2013

Prepared to be part of all factors meals and kitchen area? Then pull up a chair and be part of us inside the Kitchen!

Anonymous (not verified)
on Sep 17, 2013

Can't possibly be any worse to eat than the chicken or turkey who has eaten it's own feces can it?

Post new comment
or to use your BEEF Magazine ID
What's BEEF Daily?

BEEF Daily Blog is produced by rancher Amanda Radke, one of the U.S. beef industry’s top social media “agvocates.”

Contributors

Amanda Radke

A fifth-generation rancher from Mitchell, SD, Amanda grew up on a purebred Limousin cattle operation in which she and husband Tyler are active. She graduated with a degree in agriculture journalism...

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×