Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

That's because they skip straight to stuff that's even cheaper - pink slime is half assing your cost cutting, they just don't bother with meat at all. I'm honestly not seeing any evidence that they skip it out of health concerns or quality concerns, which leads me to believe the only difference is they have found a way to pull their stuff off for cheaper. (which seems to be the case)

[Capntastic]

Or because the loss of customers from gross chemical tasting meat that gives you diarrhea offsets the 3 cents per pound saved.  Reminder that the 30% of meat or whatever is in Taco Bell's mixture could very easily be the sort of meat that is adulterated with pink slime but it is not.  If they were interested purely in lowering as costs as much as possible, that would be an avenue for them.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/taco-buns-fast-food-meat-cook-home/story?id=12826571#.T1xXwPVKV8F (I ignored the video) Here's a decent article from a year ago that mentions pink slime, fast food, and even hints at the pink-slime-pressed-steak method I mentioned upthread.  The core of it is abotu how adulterants are pretty commonly used- but even then, a lot of fast food doesn't use them right now.  And any adulterant that quadruples the rate of salmonella or e.coli is pretty obviously worse than, say, soy filler.

Regardless, there's still a huge, huge, huge, difference between ordering fast food junk and getting mystery trash and buying something at a supermarket and getting misleading mystery trash.

[Bauglir]

Bad publicity plays a bigger role in corporate decisionmaking than in school board decisionmaking when it comes to meals, mostly because people give surprisingly few shits about what's in a school lunch as long as it's cheap. As long as it's not poisonous, you'll get more buzz with the major corporation story, as a general rule. If it is poisonous, then the school one is gonna get more attention. You can blame the media, society, or a self-sustaining feedback loop, but that is the perspective I've picked up. Part of it is probably also that students often don't have much of an option for alternatives if the school food just isn't very good, while with fast food you actually have competition. Competition for school food markets exist only at the level of schools as decision-makers, and they are primarily focused purely on money (at least partly) because of how little funding they get.

What I'm saying is, you'll get a much more rapid feedback in a fast food joint than you will in the other places they're being compared to, which kind of undermines the point you're going for (that of the stereotypical fast food giant that doesn't care about customers; which they don't, but they have to at least look like they do lest their profit margins suffer).

[Capntastic]

I don't see how you're conflating "corporations will tend to shy away from bad publicity, which is why they're avoiding the pink slime" as undermining the point I'm trying to make, which is literally that pink slime would cause bad enough publicity to render any cost benefits null.  You're really coming off as adversarial for basically no reason.

[Bauglir]

Ah, well. The point I'm trying to make is that distaste creates bad publicity whether it's rational or not. It's not necessarily that the stuff in question is actually that bad, but it's certainly being popularized that way. When the usual term is "pink slime", you know there's some loaded language being used. So questions like, "If it's so bad that McDonald's won't use it, how can it possibly be good?" aren't really well-constructed. Sorry that wasn't clear.

[TychoTheDwarf]

Government: use as much food as possible, try to waste as little as possible!
Public: I can go with that

Government: we'll now use bits of beef that aren't normally used and are instead thrown away!
Public: WHAT!? THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!

that's how it seems to me

People are being misled and/or being "left in the dark".  Deception and lack of information to cover asses and protect profit margins.

[Mr. Palau]

tbh most people would probably still buy the beef.

[Valid_Dark]

I think the name pink slime is just to make people be like "wtf slime?" but really it's still beef,
When I hear pink slime, I think like.... soap, or Ectoplasmic residue of some sort,
The last thing I think when I hear pink slime is meat...

[Capntastic]

Government: use as much food as possible, try to waste as little as possible!
Public: I can go with that

Government: we'll now use bits of beef that aren't normally used and are instead thrown away!
Public: WHAT!? THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!

that's how it seems to me

Beef tailings weren't thrown away beforehand though, so it "seems to me" that you're incorrect in making assumptions like that.  The only new thing with this pink slime is that it's been doctored to make it sort of fit for human consumption, though the process is very obviously iffy.

tbh most people would probably still buy the beef.

That has no bearing on if it's right or wrong to sell it without labelling it as what it is, which is what the discussion is about.  People buy all sorts of stuff that's bad for them if they're not made aware of the health risks.  And even if they are.

I think the name pink slime is just to make people be like "wtf slime?" but really it's still beef,
When I hear pink slime, I think like.... soap, or Ectoplasmic residue of some sort,
The last thing I think when I hear pink slime is meat...

Hey it's not like ammonia-treated beef tailing slurry sounds more appetizing.

I mean, we've established that it is not what people expect ground beef to be, due to consistency, increased PH, ammonia flavor and odor, and increased probability of disease.  We've established earlier in the thread that it should be labelled as what it is.  It's cool that you guys want to speak your piece, but at least read the thread before posting arguments that have already been shut down; or if you have new evidence, post it, and stake your claim in the discussion.

[Mr. Palau]

snip

tbh most people would probably still buy the beef.

That has no bearing on if it's right or wrong to sell it without labelling it as what it is, which is what the discussion is about.  People buy all sorts of stuff that's bad for them if they're not made aware of the health risks.  And even if they are.
snip
[/quote]
I know, I was responging to Tychothedwarf, who said it would hurt profit margins, but it wouldn't 'cus they would buy it anyway.

[RobRawrful]

Sounds delicious.

[lordcooper]

Yet one more reason being a veggie rocks

[Shinziril]

Yeah, the name "pink slime" seems like it's deliberately loaded.  I think a more appropriate phrase would be something like "fat and gristle", which is what the substance seems to be after I read the article (and people already know what you're talking about with that, unlike with "pink slime").  It's certainly not utterly inedible, but it's less nutritious and has a higher risk of salmonella contamination than standard ground beef meat.  If we're going with "informed freedom of choice" here, the meat companies should thus still be allowed to sell such (presumably at a slightly lower price), but have to label it as what it is (and possibly a label indicating the increased rate of salmonella contamination). 

[Valid_Dark]

(flaming removed)

[Capntastic]

Yeah, the name "pink slime" seems like it's deliberately loaded.  I think a more appropriate phrase would be something like "fat and gristle", which is what the substance seems to be after I read the article

Don't forget the ammonia-blasted part.