Pink Slime 

takes 

center stage

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”

Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

Shakespeare knew what he was talking about when he wrote those lines over 400 years ago. A name is everything. Take for example the debate over lean finely textured beef, better known lately as “Pink Slime.” It’s an argument that depends almost entirely on a disgusting name and not so much on facts.

So what is this stuff? It’s a processed beef product that has inflamed celebrity chefs, bloggers and others demanding that the product be pulled. The campaign has already resulted in the closure of three processing plants and the loss of over 600 jobs. Governors in Iowa, Kansas and Texas are calling for a national investigation into the “scandal.”

It is made through a process in which the fat is cooked off and the lean meat is separated in some sort of giant spinning contraption. The result is either “lean finely textured beef,” or “pink slime” depending on your point of view. The beef that is used in the process is either, again depending on your perspective, bits of left-over scraps from the trimming process or garbage meat that was destined for pet food. The product is up to 97 percent lean and mixed with ground beef and other products. 

Once separated, the meat is given a squirt of ammonia gas to kill bacteria such as E. Coli, a process that the FDA has signed off on and is used in the production of other foods including  baked goods, cheeses, sauces and a bunch of other stuff. 

(For a list check out this site http://www.codexalimentarius.net/gsfaonline/additives/details.html?id=380)

So what are the objections, other than it has an icky sounding name? Well that’s about it, really. It seems most agree that the product is safe to eat.

 “The primary objection to pink slime has nothing to do with food safety; it has to do with the revolting production practices behind this product. When you start with a pile of meat scraps that are inordinately likely to contain dangerous fecal bacteria, then use a centrifuge to wring out bits of muscle from these scraps, and finally treat the tainted output with ammonia to kill off pathogens, you end up with a product that repels informed consumers.”

So says Vegan.com

The Omaha World Hearld ran a FAQ about the issue and came up with this:

Q: So what’s the big deal?

A: Consumer petitions and advocacy groups have voiced three main concerns:

>> The USDA considers it beef and doesn’t require it to be listed as an ingredient on packages of ground beef, and people think it’s been slipped to them or schoolchildren on the sly and question why. Some beef industry advocates have suggested labels or signage could help with this.

>> Some consumers believe they have been paying too much for scraps or lower-quality ground beef.

>> Debate about the product has been an unappetizing reminder of how meat gets to store shelves, underscoring what one ag economist called a disconnect between the practice of making food in factory settings and consumers’ understanding of that.

Once summer I worked in a fish cannery in Petersburg Alaska. I worked in the cold storage side of the operation, which basically involves cleaning fish and freezing them whole. But I had friends and occasionally visited the cannery side of the operation. It’s because of what I saw there that I rarely eat canned salmon.  But it’s not because I think it’s unsafe or harmful in any way. 

Let’s put it this way, for a guy who doesn’t like the food on his plate to touch, visiting a fish cannery is not a good idea. That doesn’t make the product unhealthy or dangerous. Gross… maybe. 

Modern processing plants are generally clean and inspected regularly by the government but I think we all know, deep down inside, that there are things that happen in slaughter houses and canning factories that we’d rather not see. 

And it’s true, at least from the animals perspective - and those that would rather think of animals in terms of pets or cute wise-cracking characters on TV - that a happy ending isn’t awaiting them when they arrive.

How much you want to dwell on that is up to you. I’ve butchered animals for food and know how the line of succession works. But I don’t enjoy it and am thankful that I don’t have to do it regularly in order to feed my family.

And along those lines I don’t obsess over food additives, especially those that are there to make food safer.

Each year about 70,000 people get sick from E. Coli and around 60 of them die. I couldn’t find a single instance of a person who had gotten ill, much less died from eating finely textured beef. But never mind that, the bloggers say, it’s just a matter of time.

Deborah Dunham writes on her blog “Blisstree.com”:

“NPR just reported on the “economic impact of killing pink slime” stating that the fear over this “meat” product made by processing leftover beef trimmings has led to the closing of three meat processing plants in Kansas, Texas and Iowa.

Iowa Public Radio host, Sandhya Dirks explained that it’s the ammonia additive that is fueling the uproar:

Then they add ammonia, and that has freaked out a lot of consumers. The USDA says that it’s actually a pretty foolproof way to kill bacteria, like E. coli and salmonella. But many consumers can’t stomach the idea of eating leftover meat that’s been treated with a solvent even if they’ve been doing so for 20 years. Facebook and Twitter campaigns have put pressure on grocery chains and school boards, and it’s worked. BPI orders have slowed to a crawl. That frustrates Texas Governor Rick Perry.

To which Perry responded that it’s unfair so many people are losing their jobs over this:

I have to go back to Texas and explain to people in Amarillo why they may not have a job. And I’m telling you I don’t know the answer to that. Has there been one individual in this country that has been poisoned or has been sick or has died from a product that came out of this company?

Maybe not yet. But to be honest, no one really understands the long-term impact of eating this pink slime. It certainly can’t be good for us.

Sure, there are plenty of other unhealthy “foods” out there too that also need to be addressed. But if we are ever going to win this war against obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer, we have to start somewhere. There are plenty of healthier options that schools, in particular, could be feeding kids, and it’s unfair that they don’t really have a choice in what is served to them.”

Notice she states that “no one understands the long-term impact of eating this pink slime,” but still manages to conclude that “It certainly can’t be good for us.”

It’s clear this is an argument that is not fact-based but emotionally based - centered mostly around a name.

The celebrity chefs, bloggers and others who are championing this cause are, I think, more concerned about headlines rather than the safety of our food supply. It’s simply irresponsible on their part. Over 600 people have lost their jobs for an argument that is over-blown at best. At worst it’s fraudulent.

On Monday Iowa Governor Terry Branstad called for a congressional investigation into what he characterized as a “smear campaign” meant to discredit the product. He was joined by the Governors of Texas and Kansas.

At this point their actions are probably too late, Pink Slime has left the barn so to speak, it has entered our national lexicon. 

But I think it’s important that they act. There have been food scares in the past and will be in the future.  When appropriate the government must act to ensure we have a safe food supply but at the same time they must stand against those that would like to use our food supply to manipulate emotions for … well who knows what purpose. 

Better labeling might help and better education about our food supply would certainly help. But is all this really worth it?

In the end we all must confront Juliet’s question, “What’s in a name?”

The answer is, everything.