Pink Slime - What's the big deal?

[Tornado]

Yes, because you are academically inferior to the expert in their field of expertise, your opinion means nothing.

Feel free to stop posting at any time, since by that logic neither does yours.

 

[huskeR32]

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

[Dapper]

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.

For a 2nd time, unless you paid the $30 you haven't read the details.
So a non-expert without all the information is passing judgement that a test conducted by a qualified expert is flawed. How ridiculous.

Feel free to stop posting at any time, since by that logic neither does yours.

Where is my opinion?

 

[Danoff]

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

Do they? Harvard isn't perhaps what you think it is. You realize that Bush Jr. got his grad degree from Harvard right? Not that that statement means the same thing to me that it does to you.

Harvard is basically where you go to buy some prestige. It's almost an appeal to authority in and of itself. It's not a bad institution, but I don't think it's very special.

 

[huskeR32]

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.

This.

 

[Dapper]

Do they?

Yes.

 

[Luminis]

For a 2nd time, unless you paid the $30 you haven't read the details.
So a non-expert without all the information is passing judgement that a test conducted by a qualified expert is flawed. How ridiculous.

Have you paid the thirty bucks? If not, you're in no position to support the study, either. If you did, please be so kind and pass that specific bit of information on.

If that's not the case, well, all you're going by is a person's status.

 

[Dapper]

I'm not refuting an expert!

 

[Northstar]

Popcorn

Glad you are enjoying the show.

For a 2nd time, unless you paid the $30 you haven't read the details.

Did you?

The fact you have to pay to see the actual study should say something.

So a non-expert without all the information is passing judgment that a test conducted by a qualified expert is flawed. How ridiculous.

Non-expert? Like how you claim I'm uneducated lay person based on you not knowing me?

I like how instead of going after my criticism of his study you took to that. You would make a good politician, when asked about a policy you go right to attacking someone.

Where is my opinion?

Really?

No, seriously, REALLY?!!!!!!!!!!

YOU CALLED ME AN UNEDUCATED LAY PERSON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess that's more of an insult though than anything else.

 

[Luminis]

I'm not refuting an expert!

Maybe you should, at times. At one point in time, those "experts" would've told you that the world was flat. And people like you would've payed no mind to a "lay person" like Galilei.

 

[Danoff]

Really?

No, seriously, REALLY?!!!!!!!!!!

YOU CALLED ME AN UNEDUCATED LAY PERSON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess that's more of an insult though than anything else though.

Don't take the bait. I'm not sure he realizes it but he basically plays troll all over the place. You'll never get anything but another dodge out of him.

 

[Dapper]

I didn't call anyone uneducated.
And for me to assume anyone on the other end of this screen is anything but a layperson would be very naive.

 

[arora]

If they replace my pink slime with tofu I'll be outraged.(tbh It's rare I eat cheap)

In Dapper's world no one is allowed to make decisions that may harm their health, known or unkown. If you don't take pristine care of your body Obama's health bill will cost him too much, or fail. We might as well be slaves to the machine, perhaps give us trouble makers lobotomies to insure compliance.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

It doesn't look like Harvard's record with these studies is exactly the best.

I used as a case study the researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health, led by Walter Willett, who runs the Nurses’ Health Study. In doing so, I wanted to point out one of the main reasons why nutritionists and public health authorities have gone off the rails in their advice about what constitutes a healthy diet. The article itself pointed out that every time in the past that these researchers had claimed that an association observed in their observational trials was a causal relationship, and that causal relationship had then been tested in experiment, the experiment had failed to confirm the causal interpretation — i.e., the folks from Harvard got it wrong. Not most times, but every time. No exception. Their batting average circa 2007, at least, was .000.

Now it’s these very same Harvard researchers — Walter Willett and his colleagues — who have authored this new article claiming that red meat and processed meat consumption is deadly; that eating it regularly raises our risk of dying prematurely and contracting a host of chronic diseases.

If someone wants to read more about the study:
http://garytaubes.com/2012/03/science-pseudoscience-nutritional-epidemiology-and-meat/
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/will-eating-red-meat-kill-you/#axzz1qXRIiQHy
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2012/03/red-meat-mortality-the-usual-bad-science/
http://www.weightymatters.ca/2012/03/what-reading-that-red-meat-and-die.html

If they replace my pink slime with tofu I'll be outraged.(tbh It's rare I eat cheap)

No problem with that:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10763906
CONCLUSIONS: In this population, higher midlife tofu consumption was independently associated with indicators of cognitive impairment and brain atrophy in late life.





On a new topic the government is considering banning some antiobiotic use in livestock:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/h...ntibiotics-in-livestock.html?_r=2&ref=science

 

[FoolKiller]

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?!

Die from cardiovascular or cancer related issues. You have a greater risk of not dying peacefully in your sleep.

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.

The attack on peanuts and sugar has already begun. Red meat is next on the agenda. Oh and don't forget the girl who had her lunch from home confiscated at school for not being healthy enough.

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

Watched it while eating a burger from Steak N Shake.

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).

<snip>

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.

And if they only produced expensive high-quality food they would be accused of being greedy and not caring about the nutritional needs of the poor. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

I don't know about you but I eat ground beef more than steak because I can't afford to eat steak at the same rate. What meats I do buy, I get the highest quality I can afford, 90% lean beef or better, Purdue Farms chicken (not injected with brine and fillers), pork loins, fish such as mahi mahi, tuna steaks, swordfish, calamari, cuttlefish, etc. Some of those choices are special treat items because I cannot afford to eat like that often. My grocery bill is ridiculously expensive to get better quality meats. I don't expect most people to be able to spend between $200-$500 on food more than once a month, like I do. But what happens if the cheapest food available is equal to the quality I buy?

And I am not even considering how much it would setback developing nations from being able to one day put an end to the starvation in their countries. I bet I won't be able to feed a child for just pennies a day.

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

I do. I eat what I like. I also will pay top dollar for rare and exotic animal meat if I get the chance.

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

I hear they make the passion fruit ice tea by filtering through gym socks with potpourri.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10763906
CONCLUSIONS: In this population, higher midlife tofu consumption was independently associated with indicators of cognitive impairment and brain atrophy in late life.

Assuming this study is accurate and not disproven through further study, I wonder if it is a matter of the processed tofu (come on we complain about pink slime but white slime is sold in the open?) or is a case of the soy bean itself being the culprit. I'd hate to lose my edamame. It is a great way to get my protein when I am feeling like a salad, or even tossing it into some pasta sauce when I am too lazy to cook some meat first.

That does explain a lot of vegans I know though.

On a new topic the government is considering banning some antiobiotic use in livestock:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/h...ntibiotics-in-livestock.html?_r=2&ref=science

One of two things will come from this.

1) We will have more cases of unusable meat due to disease, raising the price of farm-raised meats and even milk.

2) If I understand its use correctly it is mainly used when cows are held in tight pens and fed 24/7 to fatten them or being connected to milk machines that draw milk from them constantly as they are hormone injected to keep them producing. So the result will be that all farms will need to resort to field-raised (buying tons more land) and dairy farms will have to either only get milk once a day or have massively larger numbers of cows that are cycled in for milking in shifts. Ultimately, raising the price of farm-raised meats and even milk.

Odd, they seem similar in the end.


If this keeps up I might have to solely buy from local farms or maybe even buy half a cow so that it only costs me the cots of raising and butchering the cow, plus 10% to the farm it is raised on. $600 for a years worth of beef, all cuts, is a good deal. I just need a new freezer to hold it all.


I had beef tacos at a taco bar, in a government-run cafeteria, and ribeye steak for dinner. Still not seeing the issue.





EDIT: Why did I come back after a day at work to find you all spent two pages (by my settings) under here?

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Assuming this study is accurate and not disproven through further study, I wonder if it is a matter of the processed tofu (come on we complain about pink slime but white slime is sold in the open?) or is a case of the soy bean itself being the culprit. I'd hate to lose my edamame. It is a great way to get my protein when I am feeling like a salad, or even tossing it into some pasta sauce when I am too lazy to cook some meat first.

http://www.dadamo.com/B2blogs/blogs/index.php/2009/08/11/will-soy-rot-your-brain?blog=27

Yet, despite the dramatic results of his work White recently told an interviewer, "I would be violating a cardinal rule if I said my data says you shouldn't eat tofu [or other soy foods]."

The wait for something more conclusive will take a while. The researcher who did the study said it will take at least 10 years since 2009. On the bright side, the tofu eaters had a 65% lower incidence of prostate cancer.

Per the article, some researchers say that it could be a link between aluminum and brain shrinkage, since soy absorbs quite a bit of aluminum.

 

[FoolKiller]

On the bright side, the tofu eaters had a 65% lower incidence of prostate cancer.

Small brain and fully-functional prostate?

 

[Luminis]

Die from cardiovascular or cancer related issues. You have a greater risk of not dying peacefully in your sleep.

Well, based on the fact that most of my deceased family members have died due to cancer or cardiovascular issues, including vegetarians and those who've been very cautious about their diets, I'd say that I'm going to die due to one of those two, anyways. Might as well eat red meat, then, no?

I'd rather sacrifice a year or two of my life instead of compromising the enjoyment I'm getting out of the remaing 75 to 80 years. That's just not worth it.

The attack on peanuts and sugar has already begun. Red meat is next on the agenda. Oh and don't forget the girl who had her lunch from home confiscated at school for not being healthy enough.

What I hate about this is that eating sugar, peanuts or red meat is a choice that everyone can make for themselves. It's not like it's some top secret information that consuming too much of anything can be quite dangerous. That even goes for whater and oxygen.

Do I mind that people get the information that that's the case? No, I'm all for it. On the other hand, headlines like "Red Meat Kills", "Want to live longer? Lay off the red meat!" or "Eating a hamburger might cost you years of your life" are just plain stupid, in my opinion.

 

[spunwicked]

I do. I eat what I like.

What you like and what's good for you and the rest of civilization are most likely unrelated. The only way to stop global food production as it stands now is to stop buying mass produced ****. You know, the stuff in your paradise cheeseburger that was once graded as fit for animal consumption only?

It's becoming globally accepted that the world is in for some very major changes over the next half a century, food just being part of it.

You can't have your cheeseburger and eat it.

 

[Famine]

What you like and what's good for you and the rest of civilization are most likely unrelated.

You do know of Foolkiller's protracted (and congenital) health issues, requiring him to monitor what he eats considerably more closely than even the whiniest of vegans?

 

[spunwicked]

You do know of Foolkiller's protracted (and congenital) health issues, requiring him to monitor what he eats considerably more closely than even the whiniest of vegans?

I do now, thanks Famine 👍

 

[Famine]

The lengths he goes to - pretty much required - to get tasty food that doesn't literally kill him never ceases to amaze me.

Mind you, I've got a friend with phenylketonuria. He will effectively die (through brain damage, oddly) if he eats much more than 20g of protein a day for any length of time. I've offered him a Famparmo (500g of protein in one go) if he ever feels like he can't go on, rather than waste money on a ticket to Switzerland.

 

[Matty]

Isn't this just the same thing that happened in England a few years ago about Mechanically Separated Meat (MSM)? I'm certain I seen a show on BBC3 a year or so back where (Mark Dolan?) presented it and was trying too see what the fuss about MSM and why so many products where excluding it from there ingredients list?

Sure the chances are we've already eaten it by the time we hear about how 'bad' it is for you, I probably ate it, I have a flu.. Maybe it is bad for you? TELL THE PAPERS AND NEWS PEOPLE AND OBAMA HIMSELF... THIS IS A EPIDEMIC I TELL YOU!!!

But seriously I've eaten it, done no harm to me, what's the problem?

 

[spunwicked]

I can only imagine how difficult that must be to live with.

I meant no malice in my posting, just hoping to continue the debate. The state of global food production is quite scary.

 

[Luminis]

There are two things that are scaring me more than that, though.

1) The mass media presenting information in a way that they are able to create a certain reaction. For example, calling this stuff "pink slime" and dramatizing things way too much. Spreading the information is good, altering it in a fashion that it will cause all kinds of overblown reactions isn't. Especially if it's done in order to increase viewer levels or circulation.

2) People not being critical about information anymore. Jamie Oliver presents it and everybody just assumes that everthing they're being told is 101% factual, complete and correct.

 

[Ibonibo]

But seriously I've eaten it, done no harm to me, what's the problem?

That argument has come up in this thread now several times.

By the same logic:
I smoke, still live, so what's the problem
people get shot in the head and can live on, so what's the problem

I could go on now with similar exemples but I guess you got the point.

Feed an human with only that kind of meat for 50 years than we can talk about it not having negative effects.

For now nobody knows for sure if it is nocive ( to any degree) to the body or not.

 

[Matty]

That argument has come up in this thread now several times.

By the same logic:
I smoke, still live, so what's the problem
people get shot in the head and can live on, so what's the problem

I could go on now with similar exemples but I guess you got the point.

Feed an human with only that kind of meat for 50 years than we can talk about it not having negative effects.

For now nobody knows for sure if it is nocive to the body or not.

They haven't banned smoking yet? And if you get shot in the head and survive I have no doubt the person in question would be in hospital for a very long time..

 

[Luminis]

Feed an human with only that kind of meat for 50 years than we can talk about it not having negative effects.

That's ridiculous. Half a glass of red wine a day is good for your health, but make someone drink nothing but red wine for 50 years and it's going to impact his health negatively. Big time.

The impact on your health largely depends on the amount of whatever you are consuming.

 

[Ibonibo]

^I haven't said that you are not allowed to eat other things. But for meat only eat the pink slime one and you would see the results.

It was just to refute the argument that if it doesn't show effects directly, it isn't that bad.

 

[Luminis]

The point still stands, though, and I brought up the red wine example only to make a point: It all depends on the amount you're consuming.

The effect that large amounts of "pink slime" will have on the body are not necessarily indicative of the effects small amounts will have. Small amounts of alcohol won't impact your overall health at all. Large amounts will impact it negatively, whether you're drinking only alkohol or non-alcoholic drinks in between.