As you have probably heard by now, the food scandal "du jour" has to do with "pink slime," also known as mechanically-separated meat (or, when made by Beef Products Inc., "Boneless Beef Lean Trimmings").
This ammonia-treated scrap meat -- the same one some fast food giants recently phased out -- has been widely used since the early 1990s, is reportedly present in 70 percent of all ground beef products, and is a staple in school cafeterias (seven million pounds (!) are expected to be served in school lunches across the country over the next few months).
The story essentially writes itself. When fast food companies, infamous for cutting corners at any cost, turn their noses up at a questionably safe ingredient that ends up on the lunch trays of schoolchildren, headlines are to be expected -- and rightfully so.
The meat industry has responded via a new website: the awkwardly-titled Pink Slime Is A Myth (I have yet to comprehend how something real and tangible can be labeled a myth).
While I do not dismiss the recent grassroots efforts that have gained significant strength via a petition to get pink slime out of school cafeterias, I worry that the focus on it detracts from bigger and more important food system issues, and provides the meat industry with a convenient distraction and an easily fixable problem that can effortlessly be spun into a public-relations success.
At its core, the pink slime controversy is a case of "same script, different cast." It is no different from ingredient obsessions that led to trans-fat free chips and sugar-loaded products "free of high fructose corn syrup."
Undoubtedly, phasing out trans fats is a formidable public health step. However, the absence of trans fats does not intrinsically make chips "more nutritious" or "healthy," but simply "less worse."
In the same way that soda made with cane sugar in lieu of high fructose corn syrup is not a healthful beverage, there needs to be a clear message that "slime-free" ground beef is by no means the golden standard, especially when an ever-growing body of research continues to highlight the harmful effects of red meat consumption (the latest: it "contributes substantially to premature death").
We can't forget that the majority of ground beef in the United States, even if free of said "slime," comes from animals (35 million beef cattle, to be exact) that are treated miserably, is processed by employees under horrible working conditions, and severely damages the environment. And, of course, there are also the rampant recalls and food safety concerns.
It's also important to remember that other important puzzle piece: agricultural policy that makes ground beef cheap and, therefore, ubiquitous. The United States is the number one exporter of beef, and the average American consumes 57 pounds of it each year (a figure that has been on a steady decline, but is nevertheless one of the highest in the world).
I do not bemoan public interest in school lunch issues and sketchy additives, but it is crucial to not lose sight of the big picture -- "pink slime" is one of many symptoms of a broken food system. Even if the meat industry were to announce the end of ammonia-treated beef, they should continue to be held accountable for a multitude of atrocious practices as well as a food product that poses various health risks.
Slime or no slime, red meat should be a rarity in school cafeterias.
Cross-posted from Small Bites blog
Follow Andy Bellatti on Twitter: www.twitter.com/andybellatti
Michael Greger, M.D.: Pink Slime: All About the Green
Nancy Huehnergarth: USDA to Americans: You'll Eat Pink Slime Whether You Want It or Not
on a side not from that, isn't this pink slime what they make hot dogs with? nobody is losing their minds over that, with summer coming, and the hot dogs at the ready, we should be thinking about what exactly is it we are eating.
I love hamburgers, but I want it to be 100% beef, not mostly beef with ammonia soaked pink slime filler too.
I don't think anyone can argue that a plant-centric style of eating (which includes veganism, but can also refer to "flexitarianism" or omnivorism where animal flesh is the exception rather than the norm) isn't healthy.
I certainly will never defend the barbaric treatment of animals in CAFOs. I also fail to understand how taking an interest in a food system that is so abusive towards animals, human beings, and the environment is strictly a "liberal" issue.
I agree with you to some extent, but as the originator of the Change.org petition against pink slime in school food, I did want to share my thoughts as well.
The comparison of pink slime to an "ingredient obsession" is not quite apt. People aren't engaging in mindless "nutritionism" here; rather they are rightly quite pissed off to learn that their hamburger (and could there be a more iconic, treasured food in this country?) contains undisclosed “pink slime," and that the government, in deciding it didn't need to be disclosed, sided against consumers' interests and with a company that has earned hundreds of millions as a result.
The reason that the petition is getting so much media attention -- along with almost a quarter million signatures in a mere seven days - is that, for many Americans, this is their first real wake-up call about Big Food. You and I might be well aware of the interlocking, cozy relationship between the food industry and government, but for many less educated consumers, pink slime has done much to inform and outrage.
So rather having naively provided the beef industry with a "convenient distraction and an easily fixable problem that can effortlessly be spun into a public-relations success," (and by the way, I sure hope this is an "easily fixable" problem but am not so optimistic), I feel quite proud to have contributed in my own small way to the national conversation about food this week.
Bettina
Interesting perspective. I agree that making the general public more concerned about how their food produced is a good thing.
The thing is, though, this seems like an odd issue to go after. What exactly is the problem with taking the trimmings that inevitably result when people's steaks are cut and reclaiming them for ground beef?
Please explain exactly what you think the problem is with reclaimed beef trimmings. It's not like anyone expects their ground beef at the discount store to be cuts of filet mignon lovingly hand-ground by artisinal butchers.
I've written about this at length elsewhere but will briefly summarize my main concerns here:
1. By BPI's own admission, the scraps used to make pink slime are highly pathogenic because they are very likely to have come into contact with cow excrement in the butchering process.
2. Because the raw material is inherently dangerous, there is a heightened risk in putting it in the food supply. When BPI's ammonia process shut down accidentally for a mere SIXTY SECONDS in 2009, the use of its product resulted in 26,800 pounds of contaminated ground beef. (NY Times, Michael Moss, December 2009) I find that deeply troubling, don't you?
3. BPI admirably tests for several known pathogens. Last year in Germany, 45 people died and 3,700+ were sickened from a previously UNKNOWN strain of E. coli.
4. The American consumer has a basic understanding of what they are getting when they buy "ground beef" -- ground round, ground chuck, ground sirloin. This is an entirely different material yet its presence is not disclosed to consumers. That's economic fraud. And BPI knows full well that if it has to be disclosed on package labeling, people won't buy it, as evidenced by the outcry this week.
I'm limited by HuffPo's word limit but that's a good start.