Ground beef actually contains "pink slime"

that is not how it works. the MDM is made in the same plants that turn out the ground beef, from the same cows. buying it from another processor would not be sound business. Some massive processors do, but for a smaller outfit like and organic processor it wouldn't make sense.
I don't believe that you are correct, but honestly I don't care either way or see how that point is germane to the conversation. My only point was that organic meat could have his product without anyone knowing as far as the labeling is concerned since this product has been determined to be 'beef', not 'filler'.

It is my understanding that not all processors have he ability (or license) to produce this product and that the ones that do buy trimmings from other processors to make this product. It stands to reason that they could buy organic trimmings and make organic 'slime' to be sold to other producers or be added to their own organic ground beef. Organic 'slime' added to organic ground beef would be properly labeled as organic ground beef with no fillers.
 
I don't believe that you are correct, but honestly I don't care either way or see how that point is germane to the conversation. My only point was that organic meat could have his product without anyone knowing as far as the labeling is concerned since this product has been determined to be 'beef', not 'filler'.

It is my understanding that not all processors have he ability (or license) to produce this product and that the ones that do buy trimmings from other processors to make this product. It stands to reason that they could buy organic trimmings and make organic 'slime' to be sold to other producers or be added to their own organic ground beef. Organic 'slime' added to organic ground beef would be properly labeled as organic ground beef with no fillers.

you are correct about the labeling, but to my knowledge not about producing MDM. most small processors I have been into do in fact have a setup to mechanically debone their carcasses, and use their own MDM in production.
 
you are correct about the labeling, but to my knowledge not about producing MDM. most small processors I have been into do in fact have a setup to mechanically debone their carcasses, and use their own MDM in production.

I am pretty sure that this thread is about pink slime, not MDM.
 
I am pretty sure that this thread is about pink slime, not MDM.
"pink slime", which isn't really slime at all, is just MDM treated with a particular type of ammonia solition which turns it pink. It is just meat trimmed or mecanically removed from the caracass and is not different from other meat, except when some companies choose to treat it with ammonia.That is why it can be included in products without being included in the labeling. It is meat, the same meat used to make ground beef, just removed from the carcass in a different manner and is not required to have a seperate designation as a food ingredient, even on certified organic products. Minus the ammonia treatment, it is in almost every meat product except whole cuts in some from or another. Jamie Oliver and others vastly misreperent the process that most packers use. In fact, I have NEVER seen it done the way they are describing.
 

"pink slime", which isn't really slime at all, is just MDM treated with a particular type of ammonia solition which turns it pink. It is just meat trimmed or mecanically removed from the caracass and is not different from other meat, except when some companies choose to treat it with ammonia.That is why it can be included in products without being included in the labeling. It is meat, the same meat used to make ground beef, just removed from the carcass in a different manner and is not required to have a seperate designation as a food ingredient, even on certified organic products. Minus the ammonia treatment, it is in almost every meat product except whole cuts in some from or another. Jamie Oliver and others vastly misreperent the process that most packers use. In fact, I have NEVER seen it done the way they are describing.

It is not "just" meat trimmed or mechanically removed from the carcass and treated with ammonia. It is simmered in low heat in order to separate the tissue from the fat, then covered with ammonia. Ammonia is not beef, the last time I checked, and, when I buy my "raw" beef, I prefer to be the first one to cook or "simmer" it. :confused3
 
No offense, but you are both wrong. First, there is no heat involved. The meat is separated in a centrifuge. Second, there is no ammonia 'solution'. It's a puff of ammonia GAS that alters the ph. No solution. No 'washing'.
 
No offense, but you are both wrong. First, there is no heat involved. The meat is separated in a centrifuge. Second, there is no ammonia 'solution'. It's a puff of ammonia GAS that alters the ph. No solution. No 'washing'.

The low-grade trimmings come from the parts of the cow most susceptible to contaminaton, often close to the hide, which is highly exposed to fecal matter. But because of BPI’s treatment of the trimmings -- simmering them in low heat, separating fat and tissue using a centrifuge and spraying them with ammonia gas to kill germs -- the United States Department of Agriculture says it’s safe to eat.

Read On ABC News Radio: http://abcnewsradioonline.com/health-news/#ixzz1osLkirdM

Besides, I don't care if they "puff" it with vanilla flavoring, I still want the full disclosure on the package of beef I am buying. Whether it's immersed or "puffed", it's still comes in contact with the beef and it's in there.
 
All organic means is that it is a naturally occuring molecule. Ammonia is naturally occurring in living things, IS organic, and IS used as a disinfectant in some "organic" meats. in and of itself, it is NOT harmful in low concentrations and is actually better than many other alternatives, both organic and artificial. just because the label says organic, that doesn't mean it is free from this. the contents are in fact all "organic". I hate this whole "organic food" kick because people see that on a label and assume all kinds of things to be true. All that is required to labla product organic is that all contents are naturally occurring. assuming the beef it is made from is "organic" as well, this stuff would qualify.

Pink slime can be made from an "organic" cow. Pink slime is (according to the FDA) beef and does not have to be on a label as an additive.

this stuf is called mechanically debonedc meat, or MDM, and because it is made fom the same beef Going into ground beef it is NOT considered a filler and CAN be included in certified organic ground meat IF the animal it came from was certified organic. I used to work in this industry, believe me I know the rules. Certified organic ONLY means the animal consumed no nonorganic feed products and wasn't treated with nonorganic drugs, and that no nonorganic chemicals were used in the paking process. Organic ground beef packaged with organic MDM qualifies. You are fooling yourself if ou believe organic meat processors don't use MDM. also, the companies claiming to be "pink slime free" do use MDM, it just isn't processed with ammonia and turned pink. Pretty much every company mecanically strips carcasses of usable meat and uses it I n one form or another. It is the same meat, just strippedcfrom the carcass in a different manner. my company never treated it with ammonia, but we did do extensive testing or bacterial contamination. We rarely found any, but if we did the batch was discarded.

My only point was that organic meat could have his product without anyone knowing as far as the labeling is concerned since this product has been determined to be 'beef', not 'filler'.

It is my understanding that not all processors have he ability (or license) to produce this product and that the ones that do buy trimmings from other processors to make this product. It stands to reason that they could buy organic trimmings and make organic 'slime' to be sold to other producers or be added to their own organic ground beef. Organic 'slime' added to organic ground beef would be properly labeled as organic ground beef with no fillers.
I am trying to figure out if organic beef is treated chemically with ammonia.

Do any of you have a link to something reliable showing this to be true?

Princess can you clarify because it looks like you're saying in the first quote some organic beef does use ammonia and in another you say some don't. What is the difference? Different processers? How do we know which ones do and which ones don't?

I think most people probably think this doesn't happen with organic beef. But it only makes sense if the goal is to rid the beef of ecoli, they might very well wash it with ammonia regardless of whether it's organic or not, especially since some slaughterhouses process both organic and conventional beef cows, sometimes on the same day, albeit "segregated" (according to certification standards, as I understand them).

Organic Meat Processing:

http://www.mosesorganic.org/attachments/broadcaster/livestock14.6meatprocess.html
 
Wait...

"Pink slime" is based on the product, right?

There's pink slime in chicken nuggets, but that's "chicken pink slime". Whereas ground beef pink slime is "beef pink slime". Right?

Or do they use beef in both actual ground beef and chicken nuggets?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...appears-to-be/2012/03/09/gIQApJJd1R_blog.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T67DvoH2H3E

DH loves Spam. I do wonder about that stuff. :)

http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/ai407e/AI407E16.htm

A few things I came across in my readings.
 
I was curious about the question of whether organic beef is "safer" in terms of contamination with some of the germs mentioned here like EColi and salmonella, etc.

I did some research and thought I'd share some of my findings in case anyone is interested.

March 3, 2009

It’s Organic, but Does That Mean It’s Safer?

By KIM SEVERSON and ANDREW MARTIN

MOST of the chicken, fruit and vegetables in Ellen Devlin-Sample’s kitchen are organic. She thinks those foods taste better than their conventional counterparts. And she hopes they are healthier for her children.

Lately, though, she is not so sure.

The national outbreak of salmonella in products with peanuts has been particularly unsettling for shoppers like her who think organic food is safer.

The plants in Texas and Georgia that were sending out contaminated peanut butter and ground peanut products had something else besides rodent infestation, mold and bird droppings. They also had federal organic certification.

“Why is organic peanut butter better than Jif?” said Ms. Devlin-Sample, a nurse practitioner from Pelham, N.Y. “I have no idea. If we’re getting salmonella from peanut butter, all bets are off.”

Although the rules governing organic food require health inspections and pest-management plans, organic certification technically has nothing to do with food safety.

“Because there are some increased health benefits with organics, people extrapolate that it’s safer in terms of pathogens,” said Urvashi Rangan, a senior scientist and policy analyst with Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports. “I wouldn’t necessarily assume it is safer.”

But many people who pay as much as 50 percent more for organic food think it ought to be. The modern organic movement in the United States was started by a handful of counterculture farmers looking to grow food using methods that they believed were better for the land and produced healthier food. It was a culture built on purity and trust that emphasized the relationship between the farmer and the customer.

By 2002, those ideals had been arduously translated into a set of federal organic regulations limiting pesticide use, restricting kinds of animal feed and forbidding dozens of other common agricultural practices.

To determine who would be allowed to use the green and white “certified organic” seal, the Department of Agriculture deputized as official certifiers dozens of organizations, companies and, in some cases, state workers.

These certifiers, then, are paid by the farmers and manufacturers they are inspecting to certify that the standards have been met. Depending on several factors, the fee can be hundreds or thousands of dollars. Manufacturers who buy six or seven organic ingredients to make one product are especially dependent on the web of agents.

If agents do a thorough job, the system can be effective. But sometimes it falls apart.

Texas officials last month fired a state worker who served as a certifier because a plant owned by the Peanut Corporation of America — the company at the center of the salmonella outbreak — was allowed to keep its organic certification although it did not have a state health certificate.

A private certifier took nearly seven months to recommend that the U.S.D.A. revoke the organic certification of the peanut company’s Georgia plant, and then did so only after the company was in the thick of a massive food recall. So far, nearly 3,000 products have been recalled, including popular organic items from companies like Clif Bar and Cascadian Farm. Nine people have died and almost 700 have become ill.

The private certifier, the Organic Crop Improvement Association, sent a notice in July to the peanut company saying it was no longer complying with organic standards, said Jeff See, the association’s executive director. He would not say why his company wanted to pull the certification.

A second notice was sent in September, but it wasn’t until Feb. 4 that the certifier finally told the agriculture department that the company should lose its ability to use the organic label.

Mr. See said the peanut company initially appeared willing to clear up the problems. But he said the company was slow to produce information and then changed the person in charge of the organic certification, further delaying the process.

He said his organization finally decided to recommend suspending the organic certification after salmonella problems at the plant were exposed.

Although certifiers have some discretion in giving organic companies time to fix compliance problems, Barbara C. Robinson, acting director of the agriculture department’s National Organic Program, said her agency is investigating the gap between the first notice of noncompliance and the recommendation that the peanut plant surrender its organic certification.

To emphasize that reporting basic health violations is part of an organic inspector’s job, Ms. Robinson last week issued a directive to the 96 organizations that perform foreign and domestic organic inspections that they are obligated to look beyond pesticide levels and crop management techniques.

Potential health violations like rats — which were reported by federal inspectors and former workers at the Texas and Georgia plants — must be reported to the proper health and safety agency, the directive said.

“For example, while we do not expect organic inspectors to be able to detect salmonella or other pathogens,” Ms. Robinson wrote, “their potential sources should be obvious from such evidence as bird, rodent and other animal feces or other pest infestations.”

Even some certifiers say that while their job is not to assure that food is safe, taking account of health inspections will help consumers.

“It’s a reassurance that they have another set of eyes, and more eyes is always a good thing,” said Jane Baker, director for sales and marketing of California Certified Organic Farmers, a nonprofit certifying organization in Santa Cruz, Calif., and one of the largest and oldest in the country. “But let’s not confuse food safety controls with the organic side of things.”

Organics has grown from an $11 billion business in the United States in 2001 to one that now generates more than $20 billion in sales, so the stakes for farmers, processors and certifiers can be high. But the agency overseeing the certifying process has long been considered underfunded and understaffed. Critics have called the system dysfunctional.

Arthur Harvey, a Maine blueberry farmer who does organic inspections, said agents have an incentive to approve companies that are paying them.

“Certifiers have a considerable financial interest in keeping their clients going,” he said.

Meanwhile, consumers are becoming more skeptical about certification, said Laurie Demeritt, president of the Hartman Group, a market research firm.

Some shoppers want food that was grown locally, harvested from animals that were treated humanely or produced by workers who were paid a fair wage. The organic label doesn’t mean any of that.

“They’re questioning the social values around organics,” Ms. Demeritt said.

The Organic Trade Association, which represents 1,700 organic companies, wants to shore up organic food’s image. This week it’s beginning a $500,000 Web-based campaign on the benefits of organic food with the slogan: “Organic. It’s worth it.”

Supporters of the National Organic Program think additional money in the recent farm bill will help improve its reach.

And great hope is being placed in Kathleen A. Merrigan, director of the agriculture, food and environment program at Tufts University, who was appointed the deputy agriculture secretary last week. Dr. Merrigan helped design the national organic standards, and is seen as a champion of organic farmers and someone who can help clarify and strengthen federal food laws.

Meanwhile, consumers remain perplexed about which food to buy and which labels assure safer and better-tasting food.

Emily Wyckoff, who lives in Buffalo, buys local food and cooks from scratch as much as possible. Although she still buys organic milk and organic peanut butter for her three children, the organic label means less to her these days — especially when it comes to processed food in packages like crackers and cookies.

“I want to care, but you have to draw the line,” she said.

But the line stops when it comes to basic food safety.

Recently, a sign near the Peter Pan and Skippy at her local grocery store declared that those brands were safe from peanut contamination. There was no similar sign near her regular organic brand.

“I bought the national brand,” she said. “Isn’t that funny?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/dining/04cert.html?pagewanted=all

Organic vs. Conventional: A Bacterial Comparison

by Matt Cheung | Feb 21, 2010

Many consumers associate organic food production with food safety. While there is an abundance of persuasive arguments supporting this connection, the claims are often not accompanied by credible, scientific studies. As a result, it is unclear whether advocating for organic production methods will actually lead to a safer food supply.

For a study to be recognized by the scholarly community it must usually go through a process called peer review. This process subjects the author's work to an impartial review by experts in the same field, who examine the methods, interpretations, and potential biases of the study.

One level above a peer-reviewed study is a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is essentially a study of multiple peer-reviewed studies. The authors begin by surveying the literature, then select several quality studies relevant to the research question, and finally run statistical and analytical tests to derive their conclusions.

The objective of this article is to summarize the findings from two meta-analyses that compared the prevalence of various foodborne pathogens between organic and conventional farming methods. It should also be noted that while E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella were addressed in both meta-analyses, there were inconsistent findings between the relatively few studies and neither was discussed in great depth. Additionally, the focus of this article is solely on meat and dairy products, so it is entirely possible that fruit and vegetable production might have different results.

Article 1: Meat

The first meta-analysis was a comparison of bacteria and antimicrobial resistance in organic and conventional poultry, swine, and beef (Young et al. 2009). The study included a total of thirty-eight articles (1991 to 2008) from around the world, selected based on relevance and quality (sample size, statistical method, etc.). While two statistical tests did not reveal any publication bias, it was also not completely ruled out. Additionally, most of the studies were observational cross-sectional studies, which can only provide evidence of association, not causation.

Key Findings

1. There appears to be no difference in the prevalence of Campylobacter in organic and conventional retail chicken. The study found a higher prevalence of Campylobacter in organic broiler chicken at slaughter, but there was no difference at the retail level. One proposed explanation for the difference at the slaughter level is that organic chickens come from a slower-growing breed. The study also found that consumption of organic meats was a significant risk factor for C. jejuni. This conclusion was based on only one study, and the authors noted that future case-control studies would be needed before organic meat could be considered a risk factor for this illness.

2. Bacterial isolates from conventional broiler chicken, turkey, and swine production exhibited more antimicrobial resistance and multi-drug resistance than isolates from organic production. The article also found that the prevalence of ciprofloxacin-resistant Campylobacter was higher in conventional compared to organic retail chicken. Ciprofloxacin is an antibiotic used to treat severe cases of Campylobacter infection, so an infection from conventional meat may not respond as well to the drug. Additionally, significantly higher multi-drug resistance was reported in bacterial isolates from conventional chicken, swine, and pork in comparison to organic meat products, which suggests that antimicrobial use practices on conventional farms are more selective of multi-drug resistance than those on organic farms.

Article 2: Dairy

The second meta-analysis compared bacteria, antimicrobial resistance, and somatic cell count in organic and conventional dairy production (Wilhelm et al. 2009). A total of 32 studies (1992 to 2004) from around the world were found to be of high enough quality to be analyzed, and another 15 descriptive studies were also reviewed. The authors noted that there was potential publication bias based on language restriction.

Key Findings

1. There does not appear to be an association between prevalence of bacteria, antimicrobial resistance, or somatic cell count and dairy production type. In general, no consistent association was observed between the prevalence of zoonotic bacteria and whether production was organic or conventional. The authors noted that many of the studies conducted in the US sampled essentially the same group of herds, suggesting that the outcomes were not independent of one another. The number of studies for each type of bacteria was also very limited.

2. Smaller herd size was associated with higher somatic cell count irrespective of production type in North America. Somatic cell count can be an indicator of infections, so a lower level is desirable. Among four studies that controlled for herd size, no difference in somatic cell count was found in two studies, another study found that the difference was attributable to age-specific stratum, and the last study found a significantly higher level of somatic cells on organic dairy farms.

Conclusion

There are many reasons why consumers choose organic foods. Some believe that organic foods are of higher nutritional value, others fear the potential effects of pesticides and genetic modification, and many decide based on environmental or ethical concerns. Reducing the risk of foodborne illness, however, is not as compelling. The only significant difference between organic and conventional meat products appears to be antimicrobial resistance and multi-drug resistance. This means that people are as likely to be sickened from either, but an illness from an organic source might allow them to respond better to medication. Additionally, there does not appear to be any significant difference between organic and conventional dairy products. In fact, given that organic dairy farms tend to have smaller herd sizes, organic milk might actually have a higher level of somatic cell counts than conventionally produced milk.

While foodborne illness is only one of several issues important to our food system, it should not be taken lightly. In the U.S., there are an estimated 2.4 million Campylobacter infections and 1.4 million cases of Salmonella each year (pdf). These infections result from consuming food from a wide variety of sources, both organic and conventional. As a result, it is important to remember that proper safety precautions should be observed with all types of foods, regardless of the production method.

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/02/organic-meat-dairy-safer/


From PBS/Frontiine

Know Your Meat: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/safe/know.html


From USA Today

Local, organic foods not always safer: http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitnes...cal-organic-foods-not-always-safer/50916392/1

I did not see anything that talked about the ammonia process in organic meats, but it doesn't mean it's not out there, so I'm still curious about that.

This is an aside, but there also seems to be quite a bit of discrepency between the terms "natural" and "organic" that could easily be misconstrued by the average consumer.

For clarification, from the USDA: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...Bx389I&sig=AHIEtbR9O316Qt-QoqK0PkvW-yGd2GlxjA
 
Besides, I don't care if they "puff" it with vanilla flavoring, I still want the full disclosure on the package of beef I am buying. Whether it's immersed or "puffed", it's still comes in contact with the beef and it's in there.
1) thanks for posting yet another example of a news story that got the facts wrong.
2) The ammonia gas is completely food-safe. Why are you having such a problem with it?
 
1) thanks for posting yet another example of a news story that got the facts wrong.
2) The ammonia gas is completely food-safe. Why are you having such a problem with it?

Oh my word. It's because ammonia isn't beef. Ammonia is not beef. I am going to the store to buy beef, not beef with a puff of ammonia.
"Food grade" means nothing to me. This country is so messed up in what they deem "okay" for human consumption, it's not even funny.
It is about informed consent. I should have a say in what goes in my body, not led to believe one thing and fed another. I personally don't have a problem with the "trimmings", nor the slopping them around in a centrifuge.
It's the ammonia that I have a problem with.
I don't care about organic or not organic. Toe jam is organic, but I'd surely like to know if they are "puffing" my food with it.
 
I find latest media manufactured food scare pretty amusing myself. They take a cheeky pejorative ("pink slime") and repeat it over and over for maximum "ick" effect and act like it's some grand adulteration. It's "hamburger", people. I know that people wish to merrily think that the hamburger on their grill is just made from ground up T-bone steaks, but that isn't reality. Unless your package states what parts of the cow the ground meat comes from, then it can be pretty much about any tissue part. It's also funny that I don't see people freaking out about their kids' bologna, salami, or Slim-Jim type snacks (You want to talk about "parts"!)

As for the concern about "ammonia", many, many (if not most) packing houses spray a mild antimicrobial wash (including ammonia solutions) on meat they process in an effort kill any pathogens that they might have come in contact with during slaughtering and butchering. This isn't new, and it's to help improve food safety. It's just another thing the media is throwing out there in an effort to turn the hoped for "ick" response up to "11". Other antimicrobials commonly used are: acidified sodium chlorite, lactic acid, peroxyacetic acid, octanoic acid, acetic acid, hydrogen peroxide, peroxyoctanoic acid, ozone, chlorine dioxide, hypochlorous acid. None of these agents are required to be included on the labeling. OK, so what makes the use of anhydrous ammonia so uniquely awful?

The bottom line for me is, if it's mislabelled that's one thing, but if you read more into the word "hamburger" then "beef" or "it came from a cow", you're fooling yourself.
 
It is not "just" meat trimmed or mechanically removed from the carcass and treated with ammonia. It is simmered in low heat in order to separate the tissue from the fat, then covered with ammonia. Ammonia is not beef, the last time I checked, and, when I buy my "raw" beef, I prefer to be the first one to cook or "simmer" it. :confused3
Actually, no it isn't. Iti sn't "simmered" at all in most cases.
No offense, but you are both wrong. First, there is no heat involved. The meat is separated in a centrifuge. Second, there is no ammonia 'solution'. It's a puff of ammonia GAS that alters the ph. No solution. No 'washing'.
A sloution doesn't have to be a liquid. It is in fact "washed" with the gaseous ammonia solution. Pure ammonia gas would overwhelm everyone in the facility very quickly. They use a diluted soultion of ammonia and other gases.
I am trying to figure out if organic beef is treated chemically with ammonia.

Do any of you have a link to something reliable showing this to be true?

Princess can you clarify because it looks like you're saying in the first quote some organic beef does use ammonia and in another you say some don't. What is the difference? Different processers? How do we know which ones do and which ones don't?

I think most people probably think this doesn't happen with organic beef. But it only makes sense if the goal is to rid the beef of ecoli, they might very well wash it with ammonia regardless of whether it's organic or not, especially since some slaughterhouses process both organic and conventional beef cows, sometimes on the same day, albeit "segregated" (according to certification standards, as I understand them).

Organic Meat Processing:

http://www.mosesorganic.org/attachments/broadcaster/livestock14.6meatprocess.html
that is just the thing. You CANNOT tell what companies use it or don't , unless they disclose the infromation. I don't really understand the concern however, becuase small amount of ammonia left behind by the gas treatment is similar in concentration to that produced in our own bodies by the digestive process and poses no health risk whatsoever. It really doesn't make a difference.
 
Oh my word. It's because ammonia isn't beef. Ammonia is not beef. I am going to the store to buy beef, not beef with a puff of ammonia.
"Food grade" means nothing to me. This country is so messed up in what they deem "okay" for human consumption, it's not even funny.
It is about informed consent. I should have a say in what goes in my body, not led to believe one thing and fed another. I personally don't have a problem with the "trimmings", nor the slopping them around in a centrifuge.
It's the ammonia that I have a problem with.
I don't care about organic or not organic. Toe jam is organic, but I'd surely like to know if they are "puffing" my food with it.
You do realize that your body will naturally produce ammonia as is digests said beef, right?? So, the moment it hits your stomach, even before, some of it is being converted to ammonia. There is ammonia IN beef, as part of the amino acids that make up its proteins.
 
You do realize that your body will naturally produce ammonia as is digests said beef, right?? So, the moment it hits your stomach, even before, some of it is being converted to ammonia. There is ammonia IN beef, as part of the amino acids that make up its proteins.
Stop it, you're being way too logical and factual! You know as well as I do, that the way that you're supposed to react to these sorts of stories is emotionally!
 
Stop it, you're being way too logical and factual! You know as well as I do, that the way that you're supposed to react to these sorts of stories is emotionally!
I know, but I cannot seem to stop myself from trying to inject just a little logic, reason, and common sense!


For everyone who objects so strongly to the ammonia, I would ask this:
Do you really want to consume beef potentially tainted with ecoli or other patogens just becuase you don't like the idea of it being treated with ammonia, or would you rather consume beef that has been treated with a safe, naturally occuring antibacterial that has a really good track record of getting rid of those pathogens and is not harmful to humans? I am taking the treated beef here, hands down.
 
I appreciate all of the links that some of you posted. The more I read about this, the less concerned I am. I'll just continue to use ground beef as I always have unless something new comes up.
 
You do realize that your body will naturally produce ammonia as is digests said beef, right?? So, the moment it hits your stomach, even before, some of it is being converted to ammonia. There is ammonia IN beef, as part of the amino acids that make up its proteins.

Yes and as a chemist I also know that my body creates carbon dioxide and nitrogen too but I also know that it can kill me it I start inhaling and absorbing this crap.

Stop playing like just because the body uses these compounds that all of a sudden that it makes it safe.
We also know that our body stores fats and lipids but yet we also know that too much fat will kill ya.

Gimme a break.
The ammonia they are spraying on the beef is NOT the same composition or breakdown as naturally occuring. THAT is why most doctors and nutritionist will advise you to get your vitamins other stuff from non processed foods not from vitamins and supplements. NYT study has shown that some of the beef treated after the ammonia spray had ph's way over the 10 (naturally beef is around the 6 level).

I totally agree this is a personal decision. for me it's simply I will avoid it at all cost. I don't like the process, I don't like the fact that they start with beef trimmings that are normally labeled unfit for human consumption (so now it's supposed to be ok?) but then I don't like corn feed beef in the first place.
 





New Posts










Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top