Pink Slime - What's the big deal?

[Exorcet]

This is the first I heard of it. I don't care.

I wish the goal was to keep food testy and healthy and not make a big deal about "unnatural" things that probably make our food better anyway.

 

[Keef]

Keef, get out your lil pocket constitution and start reading.
The government's job is to get involved, at least that is what the constitution says. It is written in very clear, explicit English. Anything sold interstate is regulated by guess who.

I've posted the original meaning of the word "regulate" for your consumption before. The Constitution was written with a certain intention in 1787, not 2012, therefore we must interpret it as it was intended to be interpreted in 1787, not 2012. To change its original meanings would require amendments. Besides that, its general intention is readily identifiable throughout the document and even stated explicitly in the 10th Amendment, and that is to limit the power of the Federal government and leave most decisions to be made by the People and their State-level representations.

Allowing Congress to "regulate" as it is generally understood today would go completely against the general direction of the Constitution. That would cause conflicts with various other sections and simply wouldn't make sense in the context of everything else the stated in the document. The only logical meaning is the original meaning. Of note, Dictionary.com's fourth definition of "regulate" is "To put in good order", which is the Constitutional definition, like how eating fiber "regulates" your system by making you "regular", i.e. making sure it occurs healthily. To regulate meant to set a standard process.

 

[Danoff]

I'm pretty sure that video is read by the guy who plays the page on 30 rock.

 

[Dapper]

To regulate meant to set a standard process.

You are right, Keef. But there is no stated standard process! The people, meaning the government, determines that. That's the point. And it has to do with everything bought or sold interstate... which is essentially everything today.

 

[Borna12345]

Pink slime? Dunno.
But, on a serious note, the organic food stuff''s getting old. If it makes food better, by all means, do it!

 

[nascarlemanslmp]

I'd be more worried about the steroids they give to chicken.

 

[Keef]

You are right, Keef. But there is no stated standard process! The people, meaning the government, determines that. That's the point. And it has to do with everything bought or sold interstate... which is essentially everything today.

Simply making sure that all the States follow the same rules and don't impose tariffs or sanctions on each other is different than outlawing and banning things from being traded at all. Trade is entirely up to the States and the people therein, but when the States place trade embargoes between themselves, that's when the Federal government steps in and uses its power to regulate interstate commerce to halt that action.

Keep in mind that the United States function just as much as a group of individual nations as it does one nation, if not moreso. Generally, they're allowed to make whatever rules they want (as long as it fits the State constitution, which is based on the Constitution) and it's the job of the Feds to straighten things out when the States go full retard. That's starkly opposed to the current system of the Feds controlling everything and doling out whatever privilege to the States that they like, which usually isn't much.

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't see the problem in raising awareness of what is actually going in to food. After all, making informed choices requires having information and knowledge.

Major buyers of LFTB are dropping it in response to consumer demand - once people know what it is, they don't want it. What's wrong with that?

Because the "information" they have been given isn't accurate. Or would y?you say it is accurate to pour ammonia-based cleaner over meat and mix it in? Is it accurate to say it is made from something previous only considered safe for animal food?

Agreed. And if that was happening, I would wager that as many people would stand to lose their jobs.

It's regrettable when anyone loses their job, but it is also regrettable that this industry relies of consumer ignorance in order to create and sustain these jobs in the first place.

My wife can't eat calamari if it has tentacles, she can't eat venison if a deer carcass is hanging in the backyard (has happened at Thanksgiving at my uncle's house), and can't eat fish if it hasn't already been cleaned and cut into fillets. She actually felt sick when I told my daughter that piglets at the state fair were "baby bacon."

In short, people want to believe their food magically appears in neat packages in the grocery. If mainstream media showed videos of a slaughterhouse and presented it the way they have lean beef trimmings the entire meat industry would go under.

Why couldn't it have been presented as a more efficient use of the remnants of butchering instead of as pet food added to our food supply?


I will admit that there is a bit of justice here, considering this is the same thing the beef industry did to horse meat decades ago.

Edit- at Foolkillers assessment of that 30yr study of red meat eaters: I can't see where adding 20 to 30 years to the average age people in the study has anything to do with what was pointed out...

Because 20-30 years after the study began is when people died. It is an important detail for honest journalism. Mentioning the people in the study died at the same time most people do ruins the "Eating a Red Meat-Rich Diet Can Kill You Warn Experts" headline.

Better yet, why not mention that the study began at an average age of 50 years and does not and does not have accurate data about what kind of lifestyle the person had for those first 50 years?

Keep in mind, I am not accusing the study of presenting something falsely. They explained how the study was done and the demographics of those who participated.

That if you eat processed red meat your life may not be as long. The study doesn't say if you skip red meat you will live passed the average life expectancy! The people that ate red meat died sooner than the ones that didn't. Adding 30 to what's essentially an arbitrary number and then posting the average life expectancy is not proof the study is wrong. Find where the people who ate red meat lived as long as the others or longer or you have nothing to refute what was studied.

Oh hey, the point I was making is over there. You must have missed it.

It is the media reporting that I have issue with. The reports were presented as red meat will kill you, and even red meat will cause you to die in 20-30 years. Fact is, the people in the study died as old people, not in their 20s or 30s. A 21-year-old who likes red meat won't be dead at 41.

The published study presented all data accurately. The media did not so that they could have extreme headlines. That is my point. Ultimately the study just says that there is a correlation that suggests eating red meat every day increases your odds of dying from heart disease or cancer in your seventies or eighties. It does not say it can kill you in 20-30 years, despite your current age.



EDIT: Just for fun.

How I am at Whole Foods.


Similar to how I bought beef at Costco last night.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

You mean this study?
http://news.discovery.com/human/red-meat-diet-health-death-120313.html

Yes. I am too suspicious about this attack on food though, so I dug into some details.

...

So, if I eat red meat every day I might die at an average age?

But all those headlines about how red meat will kill you...

That's the one. I have read several pieces about it, some disregarding the whole thing as flawed science and others taking a more balanced view. My main issue is this view of increased mortality. How much bigger is the risk? Did they factor in other eating decisions?


Given the misinformation going on in the food industry, I would prefer the government not to make any decisions.

 

[Luminis]

So, from what I understand, this whole study points out that eating red meat every day will kill a 54 year old human in about 28 years? I might die at the age of 82?!

Unless they've got a control group that starts out under the exact same conditions and doesn't eat red meat, the whole thing seems pointless.

Anyways, give it four to five more years and the campaigns against various sorts of food will pile up. The moral high ground lots of vegetarians and vegans are claiming already isn't going to disappear and I suspect that, following these kinds of "studies", there'll be a whole new lobby for it.

Had this sort of debate with a few folks over the course of the last weeks. It's getting annoying, really. Wish I could do this, at times:

 

[spunwicked]

For a real eye opener, try and watch the documentary called Food Inc.

It's quite lengthy but after watching it I can almost guarantee you will re-consider your staple diet.

The food industry is becoming alarmingly self-governed and focus is too heavily dependent on efficiency/cost cutting (however you want to word it).

Totally unrelated but caused by cost cutting measures, does anybody remember the RMBK 1000 nuclear reactor? Built with cost cutting in mind, look what happened there.

I think my ambling point is that capitalism and consumerism are driving produce quality to an all time low in a search for maximum returns on investment and it's going to get a lot worse. There are already mumblings in the media of insects being a main ingredient in our diets by 2020 because the way we are farming now is totally unsustainable.

The only winner is the investor. Vote with your wallets guys 👍

 

[Dapper]

So, from what I understand, this whole study points out that eating red meat every day will kill a 54 year old human in about 28 years? I might die at the age of 82?!

Are you being serious? Please explain how you arrived at that conclusion from a study that explicitly says red meat may cause premature death, meaning one's life would simply be longer absent red meat...

And 4 out of 5 people in the study are still alive. Therefore, every claim that someone will die over a specific period of time from eating red meat based of this study is absolutely frivolous. In no way is that even implied.

Even the evil media included this in their report:

“This study provides clear evidence that regular consumption of red meat, especially processed meat, contributes substantially to premature death,” says senior author professor Frank Hu in a statement.

Foolkiller wrote-

The published study presented all data accurately. The media did not so that they could have extreme headlines. That is my point. Ultimately the study just says that there is a correlation that suggests eating red meat every day increases your odds of dying from heart disease or cancer in your seventies or eighties. It does not say it can kill you in 20-30 years, despite your current age.

The media reported what was true. You expect every detail in the headline?
It is a headline! The article said all pertinent information. "Eating A Red Meat-Rich Diet Can Kill, Warn Experts" is an appropriate headline. "Red meat, particularly processed red meat, in large quantities over periods of time will contribute to ending your life earlier than if the red meat were replaced with a healthier alternative" is not the best headline.

 

[Luminis]

Are you being serious? Please explain how you arrived at that conclusion from a study that explicitly says red meat may cause premature death, meaning one's life would simply be longer absent red meat...

I was posting memes, so, what do you think? I obviously wasn't.

Anyways, I still am of the opinion that this whole study stinks of scare tactics. Thus, I'm not taking it seriously. Lines like this:

A regular hamburger or steak dinner may take years off your life, a new study suggests.

Are not exactly oozing with objectivity, are they?

So, excuse me for not taking this topic seriously.

And 4 out of 5 people in the study are still alive. Therefore, every claim that someone will die over a specific period of time from eating red meat based of this study is absolutely frivolous. In no way is that even implied.

Even the evil media included this in their report:

That quote is what has me scratching my head. How can death be premature, if the average male on this study is 54 and they're talking about a 20 - 30 year timeframe? Especially because I'm doubtful that, despite what's being claimed, they're able to make sure to account for all other variables.

 

[Northstar]

"Red meat, particularly processed red meat, in large quantities over periods of time will contribute to ending your life earlier than if the red meat were replaced with a healthier alternative" is not the best headline.

It may not be the best, but it's the headline you would expect from a properly done scientific experiment.

Also, the average life span in 2009 was 78.1 years old, which happens to around the age the people in the study passed.

 

[Dapper]

That quote is what has me scratching my head. How can death be premature, if the average male on this study is 54 and they're talking about a 20 - 30 year timeframe? Especially because I'm doubtful that, despite what's being claimed, they're able to make sure to account for all other variables.

How can death be premature? Metaphysically speaking, you have a point. But, unfortunately, philosophy is dead. A premature death is one that could be prevented. The objective experts at one of the world's most renowned universities says red meat causes premature death. Now the quote in question should induce less head scratching.

It may not be the best, but it's the headline you would expect from a properly done scientific experiment.

Also, the average life span in 2009 was 78.1 years old, which happens to around the age the people in the study passed.

The vast majority in the study are alive, not oddly passed.
'Archives of Internal Medicine' is the place you want to be reading if you don't want to read what a journalist thinks and you dislike headlines.

Here's the abstract-
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/co...t+&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

The original headline-

Red Meat Consumption and Mortality: Results From 2 Prospective Cohort Studies

 

[Northstar]

How can death be premature? Metaphysically speaking, you have a point. But, unfortunately, philosophy is dead. A premature death is one that could be prevented. The objective experts at one of the world's most renowned universities says red meat causes premature death. Now the quote in question should induce less head scratching.

The thing is, the average age of the people when the study started was 54! Without knowing what kind of life style they lived during that 54 year period you can't draw any conclusions. The only way to get any real findings is to track someones every move since birth, even than you wouldn't get a very good conclusion.

 

[Dapper]

The thing is, the average age of the people when the study started was 54! Without knowing what kind of life style they lived during that 54 year period you can't draw any conclusions. The only way to get any real findings is to track someones every move since birth, even than you wouldn't get a very good conclusion.

Where do people like you get the audacity to tell a Harvard professor what conclusion they can draw?

Foolkiller picked his battle, he didn't go after a Harvard professor. But you think you are right! You believe you are a more authoritative expert than Frank Hu on this subject.

 

[Northstar]

Where do people like you get the audacity to tell a Harvard professor what conclusion they can draw?

I'm questioning his findings, if you can't do something as basic as question someone(especially someone who is an authority figure) than what good is having a voice?

I also frankly don't give a damn if it's Steven Hawking, if I see an obvious flaw in a study I will point it out.

 

[Dapper]

I'm questioning his findings, if you can't do something as basic as question someone(especially someone who is an authority figure) than what good is having a voice?

I also frankly don't give a damn if it's Steven Hawking, if I see an obvious flaw in a study I will point it out.

What finding do you not agree with? And based on what?

I bet Stephen Hawking doesn't eat much red meat anyways... Unless it goes through his g-tube.

 

[Northstar]

What finding do you not agree with? And based on what?

The finding that red meat will kill you "prematurely".

More specifically how someone can come to that conclusion without taking into account how the participants lived their life prior to the study. In order to have any kind of reputable finding you would need control groups that only ate meat, or only fruit/vegetables their entire life as well as a group with a mixed diet. Than you have to have some sub groups in there as well.

I bet Stephen Hawking doesn't eat much red meat anyways... Unless it goes through his g-tube.

Point.

-----------

Your Head.

 

[Dapper]

The finding that red meat will kill you "prematurely".

Based on what? You are a lay person with no qualification to be authoritative on any subject at all, much less a person that is able to refute a expert. The part of your post I omitted is testament to this; You clearly do not have an understanding of all the variables involved.

Point.

-----------

Your Head.

You have no point.

And unless you paid the $30, you haven't read the entire study.

 

[Danoff]

Where do people like you get the audacity to tell a Harvard professor what conclusion they can draw?

Appeal to authority. Logical Fallacy.

At some point maybe we should talk about the Passion Fruit allergy epidemic and how that's actually affecting people (unlike pink slime).

 

[Northstar]

Based on what? You are a lay person with no qualification to be authoritative on any subject at all, much less a person that is able to refute a expert. The part of your post I omitted is testament to this; You clearly do not have an understanding of all the variables involved.

So because I don't have a degree I don't get to have a say?

Well neither do you!!!

What makes you qualified to refute me?

What makes you qualified to support him?

If you can't question him without proper qualifications you sure as hell can't support him either.

What do you think the purpose of this whole damn forum is?

Do you really think most people on here have proper qualification to talk about half the crap discussed here?

The fact that I, a mere "Lay person"(which I take serious offense to by the way) can basically refute what this guy claims should say something.

Tell you what, you can go on, not questioning those with power, just like the rest of the sheep general public.

You have no point.

My point was that just because a "smart" person says it doesn't mean it's true.

 

[Dapper]

Appeal to authority. Logical Fallacy

100% wrong.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

 

[Danoff]

100% wrong.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Looks right to me.

 

[Dapper]

Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:

Yes, every professor at Harvard, including the guy I linked to earlier, falls into this category that is "widely accepted".

@ Justin- Yes, because you are academically inferior to the expert in their field of expertise, your opinion means nothing. Also, "smart" people saying something is NOT the same as a qualified expert speaking about their specific field of expertise.

 

[Bram Turismo]

Where do people like you get the audacity to tell a Harvard professor what conclusion they can draw?

Where do people like you get the audacity to show such rude behaviour towards other people on a forum?

Justin was making a perfectly valid point in questioning why the study is being performed on 50+ year olds without taking their medical background in consideration.

Also, show me where Justin ever wrote that the conclusion drawn is a wrong one. As far as I can read, Justin is questioning the study, not judging it.

 

[Northstar]

What about when said "expert" produces a study that is flawed a mere "lay person" can refute it?

By the way, answer my visitor message please.

 

[Luminis]

What finding do you not agree with? And based on what?

I kinda agree with Justin. For all we know, and based on the information at hand, that isn't much, they could be comparing a group of people who've been eating twenty donuts per day until their 50th birthday and their cardial arrests are now attributed to eating red meat.

Similarily, the reason why the folks who're not eating (as much) red meat might be linked to the reason they're not incorporating large amounts of red meat into their diet. I know a few athletics who're basically eating no meat aside from chicken and fish - what's keeping them healthy, though? I'd say that their sport is influencing that far more than their decision to go with fish and chicken over red meat.

As far as questioning a Havard professor goes, what's the big deal about that? I know that their knowldedge on the subject exceeds mine by far, but I wouldn't put it past a Harvard professor to have all sorts of hidden agendas. I mean, it's no different from politicians. They may have studied politics, but I can still voice my opinion if I disagree with their actions.

 

[Northstar]

your opinion means nothing.

Neither does yours.

But this is a forum, and the idea is to swap our meaningless opinions. Usually people do it in a more friendly fashion though.