Growing Outrage Over “Pink Slime” in School Lunches

I believe that consumers have a right to be able to choose what to eat based on full knowledge of what it is.
So you're here, advocating that the government force food manufacturers put labels on their food.

where did I call for government intervention?
I didn't so quit putting words into my mouth.
COMPANIES should post the information on the product, or at least online. Should Government force them? No, I never said that. I would choose to business with such a business over one that did not.

To be fair, you made it a "right", not a choice. It appears you realized your mistake after angela called you out on it, thats why you switched it to "companies should post the information". Making it "should" means it isn't a "right".


edit: and mind you, i would support a govt mandate forcing labeling of food ingredients. it is ok if that is your position, don't get scared off of it.
 
Last edited:
"Pink Slime" manufacturer turns out to be a major Romney donor
http://www.nerve.com/news/politics/pink-slime-manufacturer-turns-out-to-be-a-major-romney-donor


Inevitably, appropriately, the corporation behind much-hyped and much-maligned "pink slime" is run by a key Mitt Romney donor. Eldon Roth, the founder of Beef Products, is such a big Romney supporter that he's even cited in the candidate's 2010 book, No Apology, as a paragon of the American dream:

"America's industries and domestic markets are, in fact, breeding grounds for innovation. A young Eldon Roth held a blue-collar job in a cold-storage plant where beef was frozen soon after it was butchered. His idea: Instead of slowly freezing the meat in walk-in freezers, why not place the beef on conveys and pass it between two supercold drums, instantly freezing it to lock in flavor? Eldon now owns a very large jet. Far more important than that, he has created hundreds of jobs."

This adulation most likely relates to the $190,000 of beef money Roth donated to Romney's campaign in 2010, or the fundraiser he threw for him last year. Then again, it's in keeping with everything we already know about Mitt Romney that he'd be more impressed by jet ownership than, say, concern for protecting the public from ingesting disgusting chemicals in their food.

Romney has yet to comment on his connection to Roth, but I have to assume a painfully misguided sound-bite ("I'm not concerned with the very fat...") is just around the corner for Slimegate 2012.
 
Meat Industry to Retaliate for Pink Slime Exposure with Higher Prices; USDA and FDA Escape Scrutiny
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/04/meat-industry-to-retaliate-for-pink.html

eather Callaghan and Michael Edwards
Activist Post

Beef Products International (BPI) is facing their biggest public relations disaster yet.

The people have spoken and want nothing to do with their flowery sounding "lean finely textured beef." Kroger Co. chain has added itself to the growing "We do not carry Pink Slime" list as well as countless delis reassuring customers on their signs.

BPI is closing three out of their four branches in Amarillo, Texas; Garden City, Kansas; and Waterloo, Iowa -- South Sioux City, Nebraska will remain open. BPI has one month to placate customers or possibly vanish forever. One month to undue 20 years of silent profit. Profit from supermarkets, fast food chains, and school cafeterias.

But what about the real foxes in the hen house -- the USDA and FDA? And what will happen to the price of "healthy" meat?

America's food regulatory agencies approved, as safe, meat trimmings not fit for animal feed that will only preclude death by food poisoning if first soaked in ammonia -- which is poisonous and not effective against all pathogens, especially newer resistant ones.

Robert Menendez told Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, "The leftover scraps...come from parts of the cow with high exposure to fecal matter."

So the USDA graciously gives school lunch programs the option of not buying meat with filler that literally is not considered fit to feed dogs only after petitions with hundreds of thousands of signatures begged them to remove it. Unlike the producers of pink slime, the regulatory agencies themselves have escaped media scrutiny -- they aren't closing any branches. No PR disaster for them, even though they waved it in for school children as adequate for their nutritional guidelines.

But the truth is, it is not meant for human consumption. Period. And no amount of PR painting can undue the damage of people's trust in the current food industry.

The Threat

This exposure is already leading to higher meat prices, and there are signs that the beef industry is set to retaliate against an awakening public. A piece in USA Today entitled, "Beef Industry Braces for Loss of 'Pink Slime' Filler" reads more like a beef industry press release as it refers to the hazardous material as a "low-fat beef product" that has been essentially victimized by social media, as if there is not ample evidence to back up the public outcry. An inset image of a BPI worker and his family reads:

The Licons are just one of many families who face an uncertain future after Beef Products International suspended operations at its Holcomb, Kan., plant.

While this outcome is unfortunate, it is quite a bit more unfortunate that the product itself was ever allowed onto the table of countless millions without their knowledge about what they were actually eating.

The USA Today report goes on to emphasize that social media is the culprit in all of this, adding nothing factual to refute what the public has come to understand:

'This shows the impact of the social media,' said Kevin Concannon, former director of the Iowa Department of Human Services and now Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services. 'There is absolutely no evidence that this product is unsafe, and it is low-fat.'

Those comments are nothing more than a desperate attempt to redirect the argument as an appeal to people's programmed positive response toward anything deemed "low-fat," as if the poisonous ammonia bath it receives should be dismissed as a natural consequence of offering something that is ultimately healthy. Moreover, this refrain was echoed by the industry itself, giving further credence to "fat free" being a propaganda point:

'It’s crazy,' said Des Moines meat wholesale Phil Barber of Brewer Meats, which he said has not knowingly used meat with the filler. Barber nonetheless said of the fillings, 'they’re free of E. coli, and they’re 95 percent fat free.' (Source)

Beef prices are just coming off all-time highs, and it appears that the industry will use this scandal as justification for surging prices in its wake. According to a spokesperson for the Hy-Vee supermarket chain:

'The industry is telling us that the removal of this filler is the equivalent of losing 1.5 million head of cattle, and cattle already are in tight supply,' said Hy-Vee spokeswoman Ruth Comer. Hy-Vee is pulling ground beef with the 'lean finely textured trimmings,' also referred pejoratively as pink slime, from its shelves.

And, again, there is a thinly veiled condemnation of the now-educated consumer. But it certainly sounds like something positive for commodity traders such as Dennis Smith of Archer Financial Services in Chicago:

'Long term the refusal by consumers to use this product (lean finely textured beef) will make less beef available and force prices higher. If that’s what the consumer wants, that’s what they’ll get,' Smith said.

So, how many schools will actually opt out of buying pink slime in the face of rising prices? My best guess based on having worked in the public school system and viewing how schools go for the lowest bid on lunch foods -- most schools will not opt out if they have to pay one penny more for slimeless meat. Food quality is one of the first casualties of budget issues.

For the first year of this scandal, they will tell concerned parents that they've already ordered next year's food based on their allotted budget. The next year, if the buzz hasn't died down, they will wait until there is an outcry and then bemoan the higher meat prices.

A similar scenario played out in last season's Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution after he tirelessly overhauled a cafeteria with healthy fresh foods for the same price. He came back to find them serving garbage again. A school lunch program minion also forced him to serve french fries because his seven-veggie pasta only counted as one vegetable according to their guidelines!

Why We Should Laugh At Price Threats

Here's a thought: higher meat prices will put typical staph-infected, radiated hormone-pumped beef neck in neck with grass-fed organic beef prices -- that, amazingly, for all the care that goes into the real happy cows, has only cost a few dollars more per pound this whole time. Grass-fed producers will not be affected by these price hikes -- they've never used filler and their prices are based on the care that goes into their stock. So why pay more for less when the same dollar amount can bring real nutrition?

Our current food mafia is losing ground as the ugly truth continues to spread. If you watched, read, researched, talked about, signed petitions, or shared this food fiasco with anyone -- you're an activist, not a wet blanket! The agencies that take our money to give us poison and call it nutrition should be ashamed, not us.

We vote with our forks -- Decentralize!
 
To be fair, you made it a "right", not a choice. It appears you realized your mistake after angela called you out on it, thats why you switched it to "companies should post the information". Making it "should" means it isn't a "right".


edit: and mind you, i would support a govt mandate forcing labeling of food ingredients. it is ok if that is your position, don't get scared off of it
.
Corporations will find a way around it or manipulate it to dupe folks and/or bribe the "watchers" to look the other way. Waste of time. Government regs don't work. ETA: the cost of compliance will also force out small businesses.
 
Last edited:
Corporations will find a way around it or manipulate it to dupe folks. Waste of time.

Meh, you mean the ones with the most to lose? I doubt it. I have no problem mandating the listing of ingredients and putting in harsh fines and castration for those violating it on purpose.
 
"They" (you mean the state) don't need to do anything. The government is not your protector, you are. Stop buying it, stop allowing your kids to buy it in their school lunches, and complain to the school administration about putting it into your childrens food. This isn't the only meat filler/waste product on the market, and many of the fast food places use this stuff as well

Trouble is, when you do that, you get in trouble with the state, and they force your child to eat what they determine to be wholesome.
 
Corporations will find a way around it or manipulate it to dupe folks and/or bribe the "watchers" to look the other way. Waste of time. Government regs don't work. ETA: the cost of compliance will also force out small businesses.

pfft. I can go to the grocery store or even farmers market and get thousands of goods with the ingredients listed. it seems this regulation is working. and as far as putting small businesses out of business with compliance costs, dont be effing silly. its a one time cost to list the ingredients and work it into the packaging. that isn't putting them out of business.
 
So this stuff has been served for over 20years and eaten by millions and now its an issue? If it is truly unfit for consumption there must be tens of millions of cases of people getting sick off it. Where can i find a listing of these incidents?

So what you are saying is, because government said it was safe to eat, it must be? They wouldn't lie to you, now would they?


Have you not noticed the cancer rates are up? Especially in children?

Cancer Rates: Adults Down, Kids Up
http://www.realnatural.org/2012/03/30/cancer-rates-adults-down-kids-up/
 
So what you are saying is, because government said it was safe to eat, it must be? They wouldn't lie to you, now would they?
There is nothing about government written or implied in my comment you quoted. It wasn't even a thought in my mind when I wrote it. I'm saying thousands of people have eaten it and they aren't dropping around like flies.
 
Meh, you mean the ones with the most to lose? I doubt it. I have no problem mandating the listing of ingredients and putting in harsh fines and castration for those violating it on purpose.


I am not for government to tell any business what to do. If the people want labels then they should be the ones to demand it not government. If a business wants to stay in business then they can comply or simply go out of business.

A good portion of the organic community is willing to do it, but government is preventing them. See it is all about what the government wants, not the people.
 
pfft. I can go to the grocery store or even farmers market and get thousands of goods with the ingredients listed. it seems this regulation is working. and as far as putting small businesses out of business with compliance costs, dont be effing silly. its a one time cost to list the ingredients and work it into the packaging. that isn't putting them out of business.
No, it's not a one time cost. It costs money to print things. (no joke-one of the requirements for my certification was printing and I studied with a prepress operator, so I know a bit about this kind of thing.) Then there's printing all the stuff on the FDA label (% of fat, calories, etc) plus mandated logos/marks and doing that to standard. If you aren't printing on a really large scale, costs add up pretty quickly. Plus, if they can mandate that, they have the power to come up with much harsher regs. Further, if customers really want an ingredients list, a company (even a company of one employee) can post it online for almost nothing.
 
Last edited:
I am not for government to tell any business what to do. If the people want labels then they should be the ones to demand it not government. If a business wants to stay in business then they can comply or simply go out of business.

A good portion of the organic community is willing to do it, but government is preventing them. See it is all about what the government wants, not the people.

I get the principle of what you are saying. But the pragmatist in me says thats pie in the sky idea and that required food labeling isn't even close to my biggest worry.

The organic community is way stricter. I have family in the food business. They had to undergo a complete audit by whole foods of their entire supply chain in order to sell to them. Then when they started selling gluten-free stuff they had to undergo another audit by some gluten free group. They compared both audits as something similar to something a proctologist might perform. :)
 
There is nothing about government written or implied in my comment you quoted. It wasn't even a thought in my mind when I wrote it. I'm saying thousands of people have eaten it and they aren't dropping around like flies.

Well it would be quite obvious that if someone ate the pink slime and instantaneously died, then more attention would have been brought to the peoples attention in the last twenty years.

However, we are seeing more and more cases of E-coli in the last twenty years too.
 
No, it's not a one time cost. It costs money to print things. Then there's printing all the stuff on the FDA label (% of fat, calories, etc) and doing that to standard. If you aren't printing on a really large scale, costs add up pretty quickly. Plus, if they can mandate that, they have the power to come up with much harsher regs. Further, if customers really want an ingredients list, a company (even a company of one employee) can post it online for almost nothing.

please. those costs are negligible considered to everything else. of all the requirements to negate, this is probably the least beneficial to the companies and one of the most beneficial to the public. pick your battles.
 
However, we are seeing more and more cases of E-coli in the last twenty years too.
Or just more national media attention. Heck, you probably see more e-coli cases from non-meat. Most of the ones i recall are from vegetables.
 
please. those costs are negligible considered to everything else. of all the requirements to negate, this is probably the least beneficial to the companies and one of the most beneficial to the public. pick your battles.
As I said, it's very cheap to big companies. Small firms, not necessarily. Let people decide, not political bodies. The latter is not a rational means of decision-making.
 
As I said, it's very cheap to big companies. Small firms, not necessarily. Let people decide, not political bodies. The latter is not a rational means of decision-making.

You speak from experience? You think they are paying a lot more for a few bits of text? I think not. Political bodies are people; unless you think they are run by robots.
 
Back
Top