What are your opinions on "pink slime"?

[Seronac]

I don't think there's anything wrong with it, nor is it unsafe, it's just not very appetizing, nor appealing. I think it should be phased out, and sold as animal feed. On the other hand, as the saying goes, "People are better off not knowing how their politics or their sausage are made." All good reason to hunt and raise one's own food, and to avoid processed foods.

 

[punk-a-doodle]

Quote: There are quite a range of reasons extending beyond those three, but one major one to cover is that family upbringing and childhood exposure has a strong role to play in later food choices and diet. This is one reason why both many health programs and corporate food ads are targeted heavily towards children.



I read about this topic on another forum, and someone's post made my day. It was something like:
"I've been honking loogies into your burgers for years. You haven't died yet, so don't make me stop now" X)

 

[chickened]

You have a point... some spend more money on pets than kids... sadly.

The company that makes it should quit whining about the smear campaign, and start selling it to animal food makers.I am sure they will still make a profit,but feeding it to people should be phased out.We eat so much junk already.

Fresh was a good movie to watch on food.

 

[chickened]

They also target social demographic groups of people that say watch a particular type of programming or income status.

There are quite a range of reasons extending beyond those three, but one major one to cover is that family upbringing and childhood exposure has a strong role to play in later food choices and diet. This is one reason why both many health programs and corporate food ads are targeted heavily towards children.



I read about this topic on another forum, and someone's post made my day. It was something like:
"I've been honking loogies into your burgers for years. You haven't died yet, so don't make me stop now" X)

 

[chickened]

I think it falls under product utilization. The orientals that I sell roosters to eat the kidney of a chicken and the "lites". I would consider that guts but they eat them.

I don't think there's anything wrong with it, nor is it unsafe, it's just not very appetizing, nor appealing. I think it should be phased out, and sold as animal feed. On the other hand, as the saying goes, "People are better off not knowing how their politics or their sausage are made." All good reason to hunt and raise one's own food, and to avoid processed foods.

 

[AquaEyes]

The issue is that while some think it's safe, others think it's garbage -- but it was allowed into food unmarked, unlabeled, and thus removing the consumers' ability to choose for themselves. What it amounts to is a form of deception -- concealing information which would otherwise affect a decision, otherwise known as lying by omission.

 

[mom'sfolly]

AquaEyes,

Exactly my point...label what is truly in food.

Give consumers a choice.

If your product is safe, wholesome and tasty, why would you be against having it proudly out there for the consumer to choose?

The people pushing these products, and the idea that they need no specific labels, know that consumers aren't interested in their products. Hence, the deception.

The reason many grocery store chains don't add this to their meat is because it does not meet their quality requirements.

This product has not been in food for decades. It hasn't even existed for decades. It has been allowed in food since 2001.

 

[bnjrob]

Exactly my point...label what is truly in food.

Give consumers a choice.

If your product is safe, wholesome and tasty, why would you be against having it proudly out there for the consumer to choose?

Even with labels, most people would not read them.

We dont' eat pork. I grew up being taught to read labels ALWAYS, to make sure that there was no pork in it - no pork in sausage or snuck into beans, no lard in baked goods or crackers, always ask people if there is pork in something if there is a potluck at work, etc.

But most people don't read food labels. They don't want to read food labels. In twenty years of nursing, doing diabetic and cardiac diet teaching and trying to get patients to read food labels, I can tell you that most people do NOT want to read food labels. If people read food labels, then they would have to be accountable for their food choices. They would see that there are sugars in their food, starches in their food, preservatives in their food, and the worst one of all - they would have to see that there are CALORIES in the food they eat and that the serving size is less than what they usually eat of a packaged product.

It doesn't matter what it is that is in the food, they don't want to know because if they don't know, they can blame it all on the manufacturers or the government or whoever - because they don't want to be held accountable for what passes their lips.

They want it cheap, they want it tasty (and to many people, veggies are not tasty unless cooked to death and drowning in butter etc), and they want it fast. And as long as they don't know what is in their food, that is ok with them as long as they can buy what they like, when they like, and have it "their way".

Yes, there are more people today that want to eat healthier and they read food labels. But by and large, the general public isn't interested in being that accountable for their decisions and reading food labels.

 

[AquaEyes]

Even with labels, most people would not read them.

We dont' eat pork. I grew up being taught to read labels ALWAYS, to make sure that there was no pork in it - no pork in sausage or snuck into beans, no lard in baked goods or crackers, always ask people if there is pork in something if there is a potluck at work, etc.

But most people don't read food labels. They don't want to read food labels. In twenty years of nursing, doing diabetic and cardiac diet teaching and trying to get patients to read food labels, I can tell you that most people do NOT want to read food labels. If people read food labels, then they would have to be accountable for their food choices. They would see that there are sugars in their food, starches in their food, preservatives in their food, and the worst one of all - they would have to see that there are CALORIES in the food they eat and that the serving size is less than what they usually eat of a packaged product.

It doesn't matter what it is that is in the food, they don't want to know because if they don't know, they can blame it all on the manufacturers or the government or whoever - because they don't want to be held accountable for what passes their lips.

They want it cheap, they want it tasty (and to many people, veggies are not tasty unless cooked to death and drowning in butter etc), and they want it fast. And as long as they don't know what is in their food, that is ok with them as long as they can buy what they like, when they like, and have it "their way".

Yes, there are more people today that want to eat healthier and they read food labels. But by and large, the general public isn't interested in being that accountable for their decisions and reading food labels.

I don't think you were seeing a representative sample of the population. If they required nursing, diabetic and cardiac diet teaching, they probably weren't reading labels to begin with. That may constitute MANY, but is it MOST?

Relating to pork, most people may not care if they eat pork, but there are some who are very strongly against it. How would things pan out if we discovered that some ambiguous ingredient contained pork by-products, but was never labeled as such? What if some of those items also carried the kosher symbol for being parve? Since the majority of this country wouldn't be concerned, should we simply ignore the issue?

The "pink slime" issue doesn't affect me directly, since I already have trust issues with conventional meat that lead me to purchase sparingly and only from farm-to-fork producers. I don't currently have a dog or a cat, but I've already researched how to make their food myself. Sammy, my parrot, eats a mostly fresh diet, but does have some pellets available for snacking between meals, and I make sure there are no animal products in them. If this stuff is considered "human-grade" imagine the stuff that doesn't meet the mark, and is relegated to "animal grade." Some think I'm being paranoid, but I think I'm being informed, and this issue in the news is a bit of an "I told you so" moment.

I mentioned this book in some other threads, but I think this group might similarly find it interesting. It's written by Harvey Blatt, a geologist, and it explores the production of food in the US and its impact. It's not an emotional rant, but a book of facts and statistics that are verifiable and undeniable -- and it's a very reasonably-priced book.

America's Food: What You Don't Know About What You Eat



ETA -- I found an online pdf for the first chapter of the book, in case anyone is interested in a preview. See below:

mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/026202652Xchap1.pdf

 

[mom'sfolly]

I find it interesting that so many free marketeers seem to be against food labeling. If the product is good, wholesome and tasty it should stand on it's own merits. Because the producers know that their product cannot stand on it's merits, they game the free market. It is not a free market if you do not know what you are buying.