Hey folks,
I just re-posted a post I originally posted on the old Blog on March 28th. It was the last of the Pink Slime updates. At least so far. Scott, left a message on the original post that begs a response from me. So instead of posting a response in a jumbled one paragraph mess, and because I really hope he is not a hit and run poster, I figured why not bring the conversation here. So I just posted the original post, complete with the link to the original comment, and now will respond to Scott in a proper fashion.Scott has left a new comment on your post "Pink Slime Update, Plants Close, Company Blames YO...":
Honestly, your view on this is pretty sad. My mindset on the pink slime case comes pretty close to the BPI company line. Beef is beef, meat is meat, and pink slime is both. But that's not the point up for debate.
The ABC reports--hell, all reporting on this, including yours--have stilted the issue to make it sound like BPI was intending to scam us. Like ANY company, they needed to be profitable, and using these scraps meant more profit. It also meant cheaper meat, more jobs, etc.Here is my problem with this Scott. It's NOT beef is beef. It's NOT meat is meat. It IS scraps, tendons, and garbage, that by all rights should be thrown out. Or, as we learned, has been used for years in the making of dog food. As a matter of fact, it is the same process that they use to make dog food, to make the Pink Slime for beef extensions.
I also have no problem with the company attempting to increase profitability. But if they believe in the product so much, then why not simply tell us. Why not label the product? Educate the public in the benefits of the product. "Healthier than pure beef" ETC? Why label it 90 percent lean beef? Now we know why. It's not beef. It's Pink Slime processed garbage. Why do you think that the public was so outraged when they actually learned this?
The ABC report calls the former USDA officials whistle blowers, but I don't think that term applies when what BPI was doing was completely legal, completely within the constraints of the USDA and FDA and, finally, completely safe.Which only really means that they can get away with it. Doesn't mean it is true or right. You know as well as I do, just how little the USDA and the FDA ACTUALLY inspect. We are learning even more about that with all the salmonella outbreaks. Nothing to do with Pink Slime. Please do not mis-interpret what I'm saying.
There is no adverse health effect to pink slime--it is SAFER than regular ground beef. The food tastes no different or it wouldn't have taken an news report to tell us about it. And if you think pink slime is disgusting, consider reading the ingredients of many of the foods americans love. Anything containing "mechanically separated meat" is the same thing as pink slime. Hot dogs, bologna, etc, all use this mechanically separated meat.Oh I know. Chicken Nuggets as well. That was also big news for a time.I do understand what you are saying though. Most people do NOT take the time to check out the facts about what they are eating. They assume the label "90 percent lean beef" or "Organic" or "Free Range" is better, and they are willing to pay more. Again, it doesn't mean it's the truth. I'm with ya on this one. It truly is amazing how processed our food really is. More on this in a second.
So ABC presents the public with a news report that could have done NOTHING but cause an uproar. Their report was the beginning of a targeted campaign to cause a public uproar and slander a company. The american public, apparently unaware of how processed their food is in general, bites and goes into an uproar.So do you actually believe that ABC, and the others that followed up on ABC's report, did so with the sole intent of attacking and the slander of BPI? That there is no other reason why they did this? Why? What does ABC have against BPI? What would be their motive or reasoning. What did BPI do to ABC? I never heard of them until this whole Pink Slime thing. I couldn't care less if they exist or not. They are just like any company out there. They make a product, if the product sells, they make profit and hire people, if not, they go away.
So yes, it is OUR fault that those factories are going out of business. Instead of doing research, reading unbiased sources and thinking for ourselves, we let Diane Sawyer and ABC tell us what we don't like. Now hundreds of people are out of a job.
Seriously, if pink slime bothers you, read into how the ingredients in 90% of the food in our supermarkets end up at your table. You won't be able to eat again.OK. I have a company that sells something. I make say a million units. I put it out there. People buy it. I make more. People buy the more, I grow, hire more people, make more units. If it doesn't sell, I go out of business. Problem is, if I lie to the public, and tell them my product is something it's not, and people find out about it, then people have a right to get mad, and stop buying it.Say I have a Tobacco Company. I lie to the public for years that my product is safe. Someone tells the truth and over night, people quit smoking and stop buying my product. Is it the public, or the one that said it's not safe, to blame? Or is it my fault for lying about my product?
P.S. I will laugh so hard if you moderate this.Not only did I not moderate this, I made it a main article and a big part of the Sunday Edition. So what say you? Do you really want to have a conversation about this? Here you go. If YOU folks want to have an opportunity to insert your two cents, feel free to comment here, or as always, the Email is opntalk@gmail.com. Am I wrong here? Or is this simply the free market at work?
Peter
Here I was enjoying some sweet sweet grilled cheese when I saw you decided to turn my argument into some cheap talking points. You wanna play that way, I'll play that way.
ReplyDeleteSide note, before we go any further, I do massively respect you for not moderating the comment. Though making it a post is about the same as making the kid who talks in class stand up in front of the whole school. Acting like that is somehow heroic of you is some straight hilarity.
Nonetheless here goes:
Beef is defined by the webster dictionary as:
"the flesh of an adult domestic bovine used as food"
Link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/beef
Beef has a pretty simple definition, and people like you are redefining it because you don't like what it entails. It all came from a cow, it all qualifies in the simplest terms as beef. It is flesh used as meat. You can argue that all you want, but then you're going into the territory where you need to take your gripes up with the English language and the FDA/USDA, etc. If beef is redefined in some other fashion, then more power to you.
Your argument in terms of them "hiding" it is kind of a lose-lose situation. You see, because the product is beef, they had no need to label it. Additionally, when it is included in other foods (i.e. processed beef beyond ground beef) it's usually labeled slightly differently. Nonetheless, mechanically separated chicken is the same thing, and nobody throws a fit that you don't see that on every package of Oscar Mayer.
Your point about the inspection process is fine. And I don't disagree at the heart of this issue is that the FDA and USDA might need to change the way they handle things. But within the constraints of the current system, pink slime is absolutely fine.
I do, honestly, believe that ABC slandered BPI. There was no attempt on their part to present a fair story. If you think that ABC didn't slander BPI then you're pretty naive in the ways of news. Slow news days equal boring stories. It doesn't mean that BPI somehow pissed off ABC, it means that ABC knew they could make big news out of it.
By breaking the story first ABC got the world on their side. The way the presented the information glossed over some of the most important details and only showed people who think differently than them in the situation where a woman was basically yelling at the newscaster. This was straight propaganda.
I'll link you to a blog post I wrote about this issue, which is of course how I stumbled upon your post in my research. My post is concerned less with the issue we're discussing (i.e. is it okay) and more with the way that ABC news presented a stitled story. Keep in mind, as well, that my typical fare (as some browsing will show you) isn't stuff like this. So forgive me if it's a little irreverent. Nonetheless, read my post here:
http://scottjen.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/when-beef-isnt-beef-but-it-really-is-everybody-loses-or-abc-news-wikipedias-no-true-scotsman-misses-point-slanders-big-meat/
Scott Continued in the Emails...
ReplyDeleteYour last point is an issue that I did not touch on much in my post, mostly due to length. So here are the problems with your example:
1. BPI never lied to the public. They never hid anything. There was no covert scheme. They sold a product to major manufacturers. If you should be mad at anybody, it's not BPI (who managed to make a food safer than the regular ground beef through their process), it's the companies who snuck it in.
2. Again, the heart of this matter is that you're changing beef to fit your definition. You never explain what beef is and isn't. You kind of go there, but the moment you state your definition your argument falls apart because it would be at odds with the medical dictionary definition and the standards of the USDA and FDA. Also, you might be familiar with the concept of no true scotsman. If not, wikipedia it. Because that's what you're doing and it's a logical fallacy.
3. The tobacco company example is cute, but completely irrelevant (as are most metaphoric examples). Tobacco isn't safe and those companies lied. BPI and the food production companies using pink slime never lied, and they never hid this. They went through an approval process, etc.
Pink slime is totally safe, and there has never been a case of illness caused by ground beef that the removal of pink slime would have prevented. The ammonium hydroxide in it is perfectly safe and is a GRAS chemical by FDA standards. People just hear ammonia and link "omg bad". Well yes, if you sit there inhaling it it wreaks havoc with your lungs. But read any medical article about ammonia and you'll have it pointed out to you that there are many ways the body removes ammonia if it is ingested. Beyond that, this ammonium hydroxide makes the food safer than regular beef, which still contains e. coli and other diseases because the ground beef that you define as "real" is not treated in similar manners.
The heart of your argument is that BPI deserves what it got. You're coming from a capitalist standpoint and the concept of the free market. Cool. The problem is, when you have outside forces (i.e. the media) who for whatever reason desire to influence that free market, the market becomes less free and more directed.
You see if BPI were going out of business because ABC aired a factual, unbiased news story about this product and the American people decided they'd prefer food without pink slime, then fine. That would be, as you claim, a free market.
But the moment ABC News fed a propagandized news story to the general public they created an uproar. That uproar was NOT concerned with fact, it was concerned with doing what ABC news wanted them to. This uproar happened so quickly that people were taking action days later without ever being truly informed on the issue. People at home just heard "ammonia" and "scraps" and assumed it was unsafe.
Read most of the information and opinion out there about pink slime. You'll see the words "unsafe" and whatnot coming out all the time. I don't know that you'll just accept my point, but pink slime is perfectly safe in every way.........
And continued.....
ReplyDeleteIs it, perhaps, a bit unsavory? To some, yes. Personally, I don't give a good god damn how many cow ligaments are in my ground beef (which is fine, since it's capped at 15% anyway) as long as it tastes the exact same. I understand that not everybody views it this way, and that is their opinion.
But when ABC news unleashes propaganda aimed at creating a fictional health scare simply to boost ratings, they've done us all a disservice.
And, also, even in a free market if a company closes it is because of choices the consumers make. The companies took X action, maybe the consumers didn't like it, but the consumers still acted and caused that company to closed. In the simplest terms, in every term, WE the consumers are responsible for BPI closing down.
More than that, we have proven to newsmakers like ABC that we will lap up whatever it is they have to say about everything without putting an ounce of critical thought into it. ABC News' report on pink slime exposed one other thing to america: how cognitively bankrupt we all are that we let a single news story start a media frenzy that had no basis.
I would happily continue to discuss this with you. I apologize if things seem a little disjointed or out of sorts, but the reply window on this is pretty darn small and annoying.
Hey Scott,
ReplyDeleteWelcome back. Don't be so angry. I didn't turn your argument into "some cheap talking points." I responded to you. Sorry about the limit space. I actually had no idea the limit. You, like me, being long winded, it really IS annoying. Not sure why the folks at Blogspot limited the space the way they did. But at least we have more than 140 characters. (Smile)
I read you response. I checked out your blog post. Loved it by the way. However, there is still one point I can't get passed. I'll give you the ABC News thing.
"I do, honestly, believe that ABC slandered BPI. There was no attempt on their part to present a fair story. If you think that ABC didn't slander BPI then you're pretty naive in the ways of news. Slow news days equal boring stories. It doesn't mean that BPI somehow pissed off ABC, it means that ABC knew they could make big news out of it."
News organizations do this sort of thing all the time. They most likely had this story sitting on a shelve somewhere and looked around, saw nothing really happening, OR, needed a distraction from something else, Pink Slime hits the airwaves.
More and more, news organizations are getting away from actually reporting FACTS, and letting the people decide. They are now about MAKING the News and leading people to the conclusions that they want them to get to.
People were, and are still, mad at the major manufacturers, and the outlets the sell it. No one would have ever heard of BPI, most still have no idea who they are, had ABC not named them. People are still protesting Wal-Mart that is still selling it.
However, the end result would be the same. Had ABC simply reported on the Pink Slime and the process to make it, and what it is in, people would still refuse to buy it. This of course would lead BPI to close, even if no one knew they existed. In other words. I can not tell you the name of the people that make Dinky Dongs. But if everyone stopped buying Dinky Dongs, the Dinky Dong makers would close.
I also understand, and agree with you, that if people knew the process of how most of their food is made, they would never eat again. I have done many articles on healthy eating and using more natural stuff. Like with restaurants. If you saw the kitchen, you most likely never eat out again. Most people simply do not think about it. If it tastes good, they eat it. Which is probably the best thing to do. Eat what you want, everything in moderation. Continued,,,,,
Here is the point just can't get past. It's NOT beef. To say it comes from a cow, therefore it's beef, is patently absurd. The hoofs come from the same cow, does that make them beef? No.
ReplyDeleteSinew - A piece of tough fibrous tissue uniting muscle to bone or bone to bone; a tendon or ligament. Connective tissue - is a fibrous tissue. As you even said...
Some of the scraps aren’t usable because they come from near the surface of the skin or near various…orifices…of the cow that aren’t clean.
Well? I do not want to eat them. Telling me it's beef, doesn't persuade me otherwise. There is a reason it was never used before. It was never meant to be used.
In the rare occasions that I eat beef, I want to eat beef. Beef is the flesh of the animal. A steak is from the muscle. The flesh. Not the stuff that attaches it to the bone. Not the dirty parts that should be thrown out.
I understand that 650 people are most likely out of a job. Once the public gets set against something like this, they rarely change their minds. But that is not really those who simply told the truth's fault. It is the free market at work.
I get it Scott. I really do. Someone came to the big Beef people, and the Chicken people, and said, hey, we found a way to extend your product, increasing your profit, and cutting down on waste. They said GREAT. Win win for everyone. Problem is, no one told the consumer. As a matter of fact, they spun it in a way, to make it sound better. "90 percent lean beef." Which I guess is technically true. Since it is not beef. Then they charge more for it to boot.
I would have no problem , if someone came out with this sort of thing, and total me about it. "We have a new process that makes water out of thin air." Real product by the way. "It also doubles as a dehumidifier for your home. It takes the moisture out of the air, runs it through a filter, and tada, you have up to ten gallons of water a day, for about ten cents a gallon." What about all the pollutants in the air? How does it work? What is the process? ETC? They go into great detail explaining this. If, I think it's a great idea, and I'm cool with the process, I may buy one. If not, I won't. If enough people are cool with it, company makes Billions. If not, company goes bye, bye.
If the beef industry came out and said, "Hey, we have a new process to make beef leaner, healthier, and more abundant, {Which should have lowered the cost not increased it by the way} here it is. People would either accept it or not. There would have been no need to report on it or call it "Pink Slime." Everyone would know what was going on and wouldn't care. If they did care, the beef industry could have abandoned the process, and all would still be fine today. That is not what happened.
For pure profit reasons, they went with it, and misled the public, calling it "90 percent lean beef." Now they are dealing with the fallout.
You see Scott, we really do not disagree that much here. It's just the one point we do disagree on is the "meat" of the argument. I say it's not, you say it is. {Smile} Have a great day Scott, feel free to respond. If you want, just do it in the Emails and I will attempt to make it fit, like I did this go around. Stop by anytime you want. You really never know what you may see here.. I'll be checking your Blog out as well. I really did enjoy your article on this.
Peter
I think I agree with Scott, here. I'm not a fan of seeing pink slime images (or really any food processing for that matter), but I accept that it's just a part mass production. To me, all that matters is that the food is safe for consumption.
ReplyDelete"However, the end result would be the same. Had ABC simply reported on the Pink Slime and the process to make it, and what it is in, people would still refuse to buy it."
This is an absurd statement. I hope you understand that upon review. You're making an assumption about public opinion based on a combination of your personal views and your perception of the public's response after being influenced by a potentially sensationalized/contested news report.
http://www.tissuepathology.typepad.com/files/prayson_anndiagpath_dec2008.pdf
Additionally, you should know that you've probably never eaten 100% ground beef outside of high-priced "organic" packages at farmer's markets or very, very high class restaurants. According to the study above, of beef tested from eight major fast food restaurants, half contained instances of bone and/or cartilage, and of the four samples which did not, two contained significantly lower percentages of meat at 8.7% and 2.1% (see Table 1).
An argument could be made that the restaurants from this 2008 study may have all been supplied by BPI (I didn't bother looking it up) and have since found other sources. I don't think this matters. Though this study was performed with fast food products, I'm sure BPI (and other companies using similar processing methods) supply hundreds of different restaurants, big and small. The fact of the matter is, what you, I, and many other Americans eat everyday is not necessarily "beef" by your definition.
My point in all this is two fold:
1) Our societal disgust at BPI's end product is unwarranted, not because it is actually safe and FDA approved, but because that form of "beef" is actually probably the standard and not the exception.
2) From your responses, it's clear that you're not fully appreciating arguments made in this debate. I'm not sure if it's because you have an agenda you are trying to play up to potential readers (which is fine, I guess, but lame if you're trying to promote a real conversation), are emotionally invested in the issue/are pissed off at the idea of false advertising, or (at the risk of sounding like a douche) aren't capable of taking a step back and grasping the big picture.
FYI: I don't normally post on blogs and probably won't check this post/reply to it in the future.
Hey Steve,
ReplyDeleteWelcome to the OPNTalk2 Blog. Glad you stopped by. Sorry I haven't had much time to reply. Jury Duty this week has really cut my time down. Thank you for sending me the link. I checked it out. I hope others do as well.
In the sort time I have, I just wanted you to know, I agree with you. I agree with you and Scott. Most people like to think that their food comes from this magical place called a Supermarket. It's just there. They want beef, chicken, or fish, they go and pick it up. As long as they leave it at that, they are cool.
However, whenever someone, and activist group, or whatever, does a video showing a slaughter house, or the process that our food is made, some stop buying it all together. I get that. Our food is way over processed in this country, with very few TRUE regulations on doing so.
I have had the conversation many times over the years that things have changed. Our kids are becoming fully developed earlier and earlier. When I was in school, little girls looked like little girls. Now we have ten years olds that get off the bus looking 16 to 20. Our boys are growing facial hair earlier. My hypothesis is all the hormones and all the stuff that is being used in our Milk and food. But I guess that is another topic.
My issue with, and continues to be with, Pink Slime, is not just that they didn't tell us, but that they portrayed it for something it is not. Then they charged us more for less actual product. In the false name of being healthier.
Lets say people click your link and see what you are talking about. I have no problem if these people decided to no longer buy beef all together. It is their right to buy or not, anything. If you do not like the way hot dogs are made, don't eat a hot dog. If you do not like slaughter houses, go Vegan. People have a right to do whatever they chose to do. Just do not lie to them.
Many people will still not even think about it. They will chose to say to themselves, "Tastes great. I love it. I will keep eating it. Leave me alone." Great. Some will most likely clink your link and never eat a hamburger again. Great. Their choice. But was it wrong for you to post the link?
Scott seems to think that it was wrong from ABC to do the story on Pink Slime, and BPI, because they are now going out of business. By you posting the link that you did, lets say it goes viral. Lets say ABC is reading this blog. They're not. But lets say. Then all of a sudden, people all across the country stopped eating hamburgers. Mc-Donald's, Burger King, Wendy's, all go out of business. Is it your fault? Are you to blame for posting FACTS? Or is it just the free market at work with an educated public?
I know you said you will most likely not respond. That's cool. But I hope you get my point. I do not blame ABC for doing the story. I do not blame people from seeing the story, deciding to abstain from buying the product. I feel for the people out of a job. But it is what it is. They make a product, no one knew they were buying. Now they do. They do not want it. Therefore, no one is buying it. Therefore, company goes bye bye.
If people want purity in their food, the sad truth is, the only way to ensure that, is to own your own farm. If the truth bothers you, do not seek it. Just accept that your food is at the store, waiting for you to pick it up.
Peter