Slime time at AMI: expo panel on rehabbing LFTB

 Resize text        

DALLAS -- As the beef industry recovers from the recent media-driven uproar over "pink slime," beef producers and marketers are assessing how the firestorm over lean finely textured beef happened and what they can do to prevent it from recurring.

Toward that goal, the American Meat Institute's 2012 Expo held here yesterday included a Lean Finely Textured Beef Summit Summit.

Panelist Ron Plain -- D. Howard Doane Professor of Agricultural Economics  and Extension Economist with the University of Missouri's  College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources -- summed up the damage to beef industry from the incident bluntly.

"Once 90% of consumers think of it as pink slime, you've lost," Plain said.

His comment was intended to illustrate that even though LFTB has proved to be a safe, low-fat product that has been consumed safely by millions for many years, for most consumers image often overwhelms facts.

Panelist Jim Dickson, a professor with the Iowa State University Department of Animal Science, gave a detailed rundown of the LFTB production process to dispel inaccuracies (such as LFTB being made from packinghouse floor sweepings) prevalent on the Internet and in TV news reports.

Dickson said consumers don't know the realities of food production and urged emphasizing the safety of the product.

But Plain said telling consumers about the production process for LFTB to assure them about the quality of the meat likely won't help much because the process isn't the problem; the name -- pink slime -- is.

Panel moderator Janet Riley, AMI's vice president of public affairs, cited the "sexy" moniker pink slime for taking a little-known type of beef and turning it unfairly into a supposed threat the Americans' diets and health.

Riley criticized the handling of the story in the media, particularly for their reluctance or refusal to interview industry-suggested sources -- in a Fox News interview Riley was paired opposite a medical doctor with no background in food safety -- but rather choosing to rely on sources long on inflammatory opinion but short on knowledge of food science and production.

Social media (such as the Twitter hashtag #pinkslime) played a big part the pink slime controversy reaching the level it did, and Riley urged audience members to use Twitter and other social media to get out in front of potentially damaging media reports before it's too late.

Panelist Robert Hibbert, partner in the law firm K&L Gates, also said traditional media often take their cues from social media's trending topics and are less likely to check facts and thoroughly report a story than in the past because of staffing reductions and budget constraints.

Hibbert said the views espoused by some food bloggers and activists supporting local or heirloom foods or other trends clashes with the growing global population's need for affordable, abundant and safe food.

He urged the beef industry to adopt a message of broader safety and affordability.



Comments (18) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

Tomc    
IA  |  May, 02, 2012 at 09:22 AM

Help use social media to spread the truth about Lean Finely Textured Beef. LFTB is 100% USDA inspected beef. No fillers, no additives, no bone, no tendons, no organs. Follow @ppl4truth on twitter or join the facebook group "People For The Truth".

Additional quality information about Lean Finely Textured Beef can be found at www.beefisbeef.com

Teresa    
pensacola,fl  |  May, 02, 2012 at 07:30 PM

My problem is the amonia cured process they use, amonia is poison and harmful, do not beleive me contact posoin control.

Jere White    
Kansas  |  May, 02, 2012 at 09:31 AM

Seems a little ironic that AMI would complain about the unfir use of a sexy moniker like "pink slime" when they have been a promoter of a different one..."food versus fuel".

AMI knows full well that field corn used for ethanol is not generally a source of food for the starving masses.

As a cattleman that works with the corn industry, I find both terms ignorant and offensive.

john    
Virginia  |  May, 02, 2012 at 10:35 AM

They can't be serious about "rehabbing" LFTB. That train has left the station. The only possible way to rehab it would be to offer it for sale clearly labelled as including LFTB. Of course, that invites others to sell there's as not including LFTB. Nothing wrong with that. The market should work. If the demand supports it, and people want non-LFTB beef enough, they'll pay more. If they don't care, they won't. If they find LFTB beef acceptable, they'll buy it at a certain price.

You just can't put it back in and not tell the consumers.

Jeremy Jacobsen    
Mid Westerner  |  May, 02, 2012 at 01:22 PM

Customers ate it for 30 years. If you eat burgers there's a good chance you've eaten it too. No illnesses, no blood, guts, tendons, connective tissue, not dog food, or "throw away" scraps, the media got this one wrong (big time) and social media ran with it and made it even more ridiculous. Does anyone look at the source material of what they hear, see, or read anymore?

Maxine    
SD  |  May, 02, 2012 at 01:00 PM

Part of the problem in the war against beef, using LFTB as the current 'ammunition' is that LFTB is sold very reasonably and used by the blender to bring down the cost to himself rather than the customer, IMO.

Granted, that blended mix using LFTB to bring the fat content of regular hamburger down to popular levels is better for consumers, and costs a little less than other hamburger with no LFTB, and added safety from bacterial contamination, but facts don't gain traction when media blitzes consumers with 'bad news', even if it is manufactured from hot air!

Todd    
Texas  |  May, 04, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Rober r, Did you just blame "pink slime" for a rise in heart disease. You should work for the national media. You obviously have a knack for pulling unsubstantiated claims out of your butt. I have never heard of a study that makes that connection. Also, maybe heart disease is on the rise not just because of diet, but also because people are lazy slugs that don't do manual labor anymore.

Pam    
Amarillo  |  May, 02, 2012 at 01:34 PM

The people I speak with don't have a problem with the name as much as the use of amonia - even though I tell them it is a minute amount-

Craig A. Moore    
Billings, MT  |  May, 02, 2012 at 05:48 PM

Maybe they should look into other areas that use the ammonia process. No one seems to mind it is used in some cheese making processes. And there is an organism we all know that uses it internally to stay alive and its liver is what keeps it under contol in its body. We all know that organism as the human body. The best thing about the internet is there is about all of mans knowledge out there. Unfortunatley, so is most of mans BS, without an index saying which is which.

TW    
iowa  |  May, 02, 2012 at 05:57 PM

Average person believes it is normal behavior to ingest ethyl alcohol or acetic acid, both used as industrial cleaners, solvent. degreaser, and fuel. According to Wikipedia neither is produced by the human body nor essential for life. Ammonia is produced by the human body and necessary for life, without it you die. What is the issue?

Maxine    
SD  |  May, 04, 2012 at 12:54 PM

For the record, per capita beef and animal fats consumption actually decreased during the time frame you reference, Robert r.

Physical activity and exercise has dropped dramatically, as time sitting at the computers and TV's has risen even more dramtaically during the same time frame.

And food oil consumption has increased as have sweets and grain consumption.

So why do you attribute heart health problems to eating meat, particularly beef? Isn't it because government officials, media, and medical professionals have told you it is true? Some are, at last, admitting maybe they were mistaken.

George from UC    
California  |  May, 05, 2012 at 04:00 PM

It's sad to see that Janet Riley, AMI and the rest of the panel are still clueless as to the central issue that caused this problem: the consumer felt duped, and the arrogant and condescending response from politicians and the Beef industry only confirmed the suspicion that they believe “consumers and mushrooms are best left in the dark”.

Safety was never the issue, why keep bringing it up? Every time you say it's been used for 11, 20 or 30 years the consumer hears “we've tricked and lied to you for 11, 20 or 30 years by not labeling it”.

How to prevent it from recurring? By being honest and upfront with the consumer. Label it clearly and honestly (“LFTB” is not honest, try “ammonia treated beef”).

Read http://nyshepa.blogspot.com (especially points 3 and 8) to get a clue as to how to react next time, not by “having an army of people prepared to blog, to tweet, ...” but by trusting the consumer with the truth.

The change.org petition just demonstrates how absolutely clueless AMI /BPI are about social media. Unless you can garner the same numbers as the petitions against "pink slime", it should never even go this route. (258,874 signatures vs. less than 6,000)

Maxine    
SD  |  May, 10, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Really, there is no higher level of "arrogance and condescension" than that found in the "change.org" front for liberal issues! And certainly there could hardly be more bias and deception and outright lies than any other place one might look.

SOME consumer may feel 'duped' or 'mislead' about LFTB simply due to their own ignorance AFTER learning the facts of production of the product.

It remains BEEF, nothing but BEEF, and it HAS been treated to protect consumers from dangers of bacterial contamination with a product used in dozens of other foods with NO label required because the ammoniated gas is Generally Recognized As Safe.

The GRAS designation means exactly what it says and has many uses in the food processing industries.

No one has accepted my challenge to demonstrate how or why a product that is ALL beef should be required to carry additional labelling for the finer textured, nearly fat free portion, about 15% of the total product which is the SAME product as the fatter 85% of the total product. That 85%, incidentally is probably about 80 to 90% FAT, rather than the beef muscle comprising LFTB.

For the record, I have no more connection to anyone or any part of the process of processing LFTB than any other rancher raising beef cattle.

I simply find the deception, mean spiritedness, and damage to the beef industry totally outrageous! It should be treated as yet another crime against our food production system.

Diana    
Idaho  |  May, 10, 2012 at 11:47 PM

As a consumer, I feel the LFTB should be labeled as an ingredient the same way we identify any other processes to which we subject food: Milk is all milk, but we label it as 'pasteurized' and 'homogenized' because those processing steps matters to most consumers. Raw egg versus boiled egg. Processing matters. LFTB may be all beef but it has been subjected to treatment and processing prior to addition to non-processed ground meat and, right or wrong, this matters to many consumers. Label it and let the market forces work. If the only way LFTB can survive in the marketplace is when the consumer is unaware of its existence, then there is a problem.

George from UC    
California  |  May, 15, 2012 at 03:01 AM

Excellent analogy, Diana. LFTB is mechanically separated (heated and spun in a centrifuge), finely comminuted, subjected to high mechanical shear forces, and has its pH raised from 5.7 to 10.5 and then lowered to 8.5 by pumping it full of ammonia gas at up to 4,500 PSI. So, as a consumer, I consider it to be different than a cut of beef that has just been simply put through a meat grinder.

Maxine    
SD  |  May, 19, 2012 at 01:49 PM

Is there any commercially made hamburger that has been put through the grinder ONLY one time???

Or that has had no fat added, or no lean beef added to bring down it's original high content? I do not believe there is much beef and trim that can be ground and sold at a level of fat content consumers want that has NOT been blended with meat from either fatter, or leaner carcasses.

How is that enough different from using very lean beef from the LFTB process that ALL should not be labelled as mixed sources and processes if that containing LFTB must be so labelled?

I have no problem with a label for it, and will choose such burger, if I can find it, due to the fact it is better protected from bacteria AND it is leaner than other blended burger meats.

The ammonia treatment is nothing more than excuse for some to demonize a fine product that has more health benefits than most other hamburger.