I say this based on the reaction to what was dubbed "pink slime" and about which the media and the public flipped out. The result is that a completely safe and efficient process to increase yield came under fire because of hysteria grounded in not a whit of logic.
People are also whipping themselves into a frenzy about genetically modified organisms. They're also convincing themselves that organic food is what they should have been eating in lieu of food treated with chemicals(1).
So if a public that is generally ignorant about food production is (over)reacting to existing scientific enhancements it follows that the reaction to a completely scientificly generated product would not be met with acceptance.
Disclaimer: I'm part of a fifth generation farm family. We farm corn, soybeans, and milo. No livestock.
(1)Certified organic food is often treated with chemicals, sometimes the same chemicals as non-organic, but at different dilutions and with different application methods.
You falsely portray all opposition to industrial food production / GMO as unscientific / irrational / illogical?
It certainly seems to be a favoured industry angle (esp. in regards to Genetically Modified Organisms): portray opposition as ignorant, anti-progress, unscientifc, luddite etc
Some cursory examination into any of these issues uncovers reasoned, rational, scientific concern behind much opposition.
The 'pink slime' issue originated with a US Department of Agriculture microbiologist who was disgusted that the USDA approved it for human consumption. Hardly 'hysteria grounded in not a whit of logic'.
People want to eat meat. Pink slime is a small amount of meat with large amounts of the bits you'd normally leave behind.
I'm not against mechanically recovered meat. But I'd prefer children to get chunks of real meat cooked well than a squirt of slime and salt and flavourings in a crumb coating which is then fried and served with a sugary sauce. (ketchup, bbq, etc.) That combination of fat, salt, and sugar makes food "hyper palatable"[1] and, while much cheaper than "real" food contains little in the way of useful nutrition.
[1] Not my term. It's used to describe food where the balance of salt, sweet, and fat have been carefully balanced, and where the food is very easy to eat, because it's small or soft and easy to chew. See the progression from roast chicken, to deep fried chicken, to deep fried chicken with a salty coating and sauces, to "popcorn chicken" which are small chunks of meat, with a lot of fat-soaked salty coating.
> ...fat, salt, and sugar ... contains little in the way of useful nutrition
You're making a good point here, but I'd watch out for this weasely use of "nutrition". Fats and sugars are where energy comes from. Food is made of nutrition. (Otherwise we call it fiber... or Olestra.)
What you mean, I think, is that these foods are designed for their macronutrient content, with a poor selection of micronutrients[0], which could lead to a deficiency if it were all you ate. Which is definitely still a big issue with pre-prepared foods, but it's a lot easier to talk about in an intellectually honest way.
Also a big part of the objection is that pink slime is soaked in an ammonia bath. I don't think it is ignorant to question whether an ammonia bath might have consequences health-wise.
1. There is no soaking. The product is exposed to ammonia gas.
2. If we don't trust the FDA to regulate based on health consequences, what the hell do we pay them for?
3. It is, in strict terms, ignorant to not know that ammonia is a component of animal metabolism which we produce and excrete naturally. Ground beef always has ammonia in it (albeit about a quarter as much as in treated meat).
2 - Straw man. We pay them for being better than the alternative. I don't trust them because, like most of our government, they are ultimately beholden to lobbying and special interest money.
3 - 4x the ammonia is not really a selling point, and in fact makes the case that rejecting this food out of caution is not ignorant.
Further, I don't think you can call it ignorant for people to reject eating foods that make them go "ick!" I could eat maggots. Is it ignorance that makes me choose not to, or personal taste?
1. I imagine USA Today uses the term "bath" to refer to any number of things. Here's the Washington Post: "...the lean beef passes through a tube the size of a pencil, where it is exposed for less than a second to a tiny amount of ammonia gas."[0]
2. Be that as it may, they are the people in charge of telling us whether or not food is safe to eat, and they said this was safe to eat. They also happen to know a lot more about this stuff than we do, which brings us to...
3. It is quite literal ignorance to say "Ammonia? I have a bottle of that under my sink! And they feed this to children?!" while ignorant of the fact that you exhale ammonia with every breath, and could eat the same amount of ammonia by simply making a bigger burger.
Not that that gives it an automatic pass, but it sets the bar for someone saying, "Yeah, we tested this and it's completely safe to eat" a hell of a lot lower.
The unwitting coiner of the term was a US Department of Agriculture microbiologist who was disgusted the USDA approved the product for human consumption, stating: "Nobody did anything (about pink slime). USDA dropped the ball again. The meat industry soft sold it,"[1]
I don't doubt a sizable chunk of public opinion originated 'from the gut' but characterising all concern over the product as illogical / irrational is completely disingenuous.
Even assuming that allowing the unlabeled sale of ground beef containing some quantity of LFTB was an inside deal, ammonium hydroxide in general is classified as GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe)[0]. In the opinion of the FDA, it's as safe to put on food as anything else.
> characterising all concern over the product as illogical / irrational is completely disingenuous.
Frankly... no, I don't think it is. In absence of any documented health issues, in absence of any reason to suspect danger, what is the logical, rational reason for concern?
You may not like it[1], and if enough people don't like the idea that may be cause to stop selling it, but calling it unsafe is definitely both ignorant and irrational.
Well if that's your position there's not much chance of reasoned debate really.
I simply highlighted that concern over the product originated from a USDA microbiologist. That fact refutes your characterisation of all opposition as entirely 'hysterical'.
At no point have I said ammonium hydroxide is unsafe, or that the product is unsafe. I simply pointed out that a qualified scientist raised concerns very early on with the product being approved for human consumption.
> a qualified scientist raised concerns very early on with the product being approved for human consumption.
He did not. I don't think you read that article very closely.
"It looks like pink slime. That is what I said." Asked if he and his family still eat hamburgers, Zirnstein sighed. "The labels aren't clear, so we don't eat it. That's the thing," he said. "It isn't freaking labeled."
He never said it wasn't fit for human consumption, because it was and is. He just thought it was gross. His issue, which is a reasonable criticism, is that the product was being sold as plain ground beef despite having undergone additional processing.
I'm sorry if my tone is very absolute, but that's because this is a very clear-cut, black and white issue. Ammonium hydroxide is a GRAS chemical which is harmless to put on meat and renders it safe for consumption. You may want to not eat overly-processed beef, and you may rightly argue you have a right to know, but any health or safety concerns are absolutely specious.
Ah, you're quite right, I made a completely false interpretation of his position. Apologies!
However my position has simply been that the response to pink slime was not entirely irrational / hysterical, considering it originated in the private communication of a Government Microbiologist.
I'd also refute your assertion that any health or safety concerns are absolutely specious. It's a very low-quality meat product that is otherwise not fit for human consumption, so on an industrial scale any rational consumer could see that there are potential negative health consequences from some failure in the production line. Approved industrial procedures like feeding cows MBM have triggered BSE in the past, so a natural wariness is entirely reasonable and rational.
The emotional response might certainly outweigh the actual risk, but some of the responses in this thread seem to cast concern / opposition in the same light as tribal people scared that photographs steal souls.
Definitely a good point. I think the thing I'm trying to get at is that those concerns apply to processed foods in general, as you point out; you take the same risk every time you eat a hot dog, or frankly any commercial meat which comes off an assembly line.
I'm not saying that's not worthy of concern-- of course, it is. It's just the hysteria surrounding this processed food in particular, especially the "ammonia bath" meme which even made its way to HN, that really irritated me (as has probably been obvious :)
Ah sure - I see your point. Yes on the whole it was a bit of emotional hysteria driving reaction to this particular product when the same point could be made regarding all commercial meat production.
I suppose it became the perfect poster child to represent the general issue some groups have with modern food production in general (which I'm partly sympathetic to) but I'd agree that making false claims about food safety helps nobody.
Pink slime is gross. A once-bacteria-laden mush of animal leftovers? No thanks. I don't eat food purely for nutrition (it's easy to get enough nutrition) but because it is appetizing too. Pink slime sounds tasteless and textureless. Health wise am not too worried about the ammonia itself, but by the implication that the meat is so full of bacteria that it requires a relatively large dose of ammonia to make it edible.
On the other hand, I have no problem eating lab meat, 'chemically treated' and genetically modified food in principle, depending on the exact chemicals used. For example, I would like to avoid food coated with dangerous pesticides (including if the plant was GM'd to produce the pesticide). Benign pesticides are fine.
I imagine lab meat could be even cleaner and more appetizing than normal meat, once the process has developed enough.
> Certified organic food is often treated with chemicals, sometimes the same chemicals as non-organic, but at different dilutions and with different application methods.
This would be considered non-sense where I live (Belgium). Could you provide american examples of well-known certified organic food that is often treated with chemicals ?
"Chemicals" make no sense. Water is a chemical. The potassium, nitrogen and oxygen found in organic fertilizer can't be distinguised from their non-organic counterparts.
Chemicals is rarely used by the media or in casual conversation with its original and intended meaning (chemistry lexical field) but I believe nonetheless it always refers to "synthetic" pesticides.
So for the sake of the conversation: I am curious about american certified organic food known for being often treated with synthetic pesticides.
Note: is there really some confusion with the word "chemicals" in this context ? Wouldn't anybody understand it in its intended meaning (synthetic) or is it an american thing ? I think organic food has even a worse reputation in the US than in WE.
> Wouldn't anybody understand it in its intended meaning (synthetic)
My point was that there isn't necessarily any difference between "synthetic" and natural.
This organic vs. synthetic is largely a media/propaganda driven misconception. What is important is caring for the plants and animals, and not abusing pesticides, fertilizers and medication.
It's the same thing in herbal medicine and health food. Just because a product comes from a plant it isn't necessarily good for you or risk free.
Aside from that, I feel "chemicals" in farming more often refer to fertilizers than pesticides, here in Sweden.
I say this based on the reaction to what was dubbed "pink slime" and about which the media and the public flipped out. The result is that a completely safe and efficient process to increase yield came under fire because of hysteria grounded in not a whit of logic.
People are also whipping themselves into a frenzy about genetically modified organisms. They're also convincing themselves that organic food is what they should have been eating in lieu of food treated with chemicals(1).
So if a public that is generally ignorant about food production is (over)reacting to existing scientific enhancements it follows that the reaction to a completely scientificly generated product would not be met with acceptance.
Disclaimer: I'm part of a fifth generation farm family. We farm corn, soybeans, and milo. No livestock.
(1)Certified organic food is often treated with chemicals, sometimes the same chemicals as non-organic, but at different dilutions and with different application methods.