Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Discussion of Skeptic magazine and Letters to the Editor
User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:21 am

ForestDweller wrote:
fromthehills wrote:http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/12/us-food-wheat-salt-idUSBRE82B0I220120312


And by using non-GM methods. Good to know!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... witterfeed

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/vaop/ ... .2120.html

Now you're just playing semantics.

Selective breeding is a form of genetic modification.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10528
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby OlegTheBatty » Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:42 am

One of the problems with conventional farming has been the development of resistances to pesticides in weed and insect pests. GM was supposed to solve that problem, but now that results are coming in - maybe not so much.

Resistance in weeds.

Monsanto scientists predicted that weeds would not be able to evolve resistance to glyphosate (Round-uptm) because of the enormous effort and 20 years it had taken to develop resistant strains of corn, soy and cotton. In fact, at least 20 weed species did it faster.

Resistance to bt in corn borers.

Suboptimum farming practices are primarily to blame according to this report. The economics of farming encourage the suboptimum practices. GM creates the opportunity.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

slee
New Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 6:21 pm

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby slee » Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:57 pm

Monsanto is the main culprit in putting small farmers out of business. Since they developed the roundup resistant soy, they've been selling it to farmers, unfortunately their GM product eventually contaminates a natural soy field. Monsanto has investigators(or did)that trespass onto neighboring fields to see if their product is growing there, if they claim it is, they demand the farmer destroy or pay for it...or they bankrupt the farmer in court. Also, Monsanto has been pushing to make it illegal to store soy seed, claiming it's their product and they didn't give any farmer permission to store their seed, They want the farmers to buy new seed every year from them(Monsanto). You can see this happening in the Food Inc documentary. Lots of old farmers that were shutdown/bankrupt by Monsanto share their stories.

On another note, Scotts has recently developed a RoundUp resistant grass seed:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/ ... bluegrass/

I foresee several problems like 'superweed' which is explained in the article and when cities use the seed on their properties(parks, roadsides) they will be spraying a lot more roundup to control weeds knowing it won't harm the grass.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:21 pm

Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:[...]the ammonia doused product[...]

Is it considered "dousing" if it isn't in liquid form? I think you're characterizing what's actually done.

A puff of ammonia gas would be a simple and effective way to alter the ph and thus kill any harmful bacteria that are present. This prevents the kinds of lethal bacterial outbreaks the EU has seen. Are you suggesting that harmful bacteria shouldn't be eliminated?

Readers should also note that the ammonia gas process is only specific to one supplier of the processed product. Other processors reduce ph in order to kill harmful bacteria.


Thank you for the correction, Blacksamwell. I am sure that "dousing" is not a technically accurate representation of the process and I am unfamiliar with the specific detail of that aspect of the production of the additive.

I have not mentioned "harmful bacteria," at all. I am suggesting that the ground beef with this additive, is less nutritious than organic ground beef. Do you dispute this suggestion?

EDIT - clearly you do ;)

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:46 am

ForestDweller wrote:I have not mentioned "harmful bacteria," at all. I am suggesting that the ground beef with this additive, is less nutritious than organic ground beef.

Why do you suggest that the protein in the additive is less nutritious than the protein in the primary stock? What information or evidence do you know of that demonstrates that the connective tissue protein is less nutritious than protein from muscle tissue? They both come from the same animal right? The primary stock also contains connective tissue, just in a different proportion than the additive.

ForestDweller wrote:Do you dispute this suggestion?

EDIT - clearly you do ;)

"Dispute" is too strong of a label. I'm skeptical of your claims regarding differing nutrition as I know of no reason for connective tissue protein to be less nutritious than muscle tissue. Since you appear to be certain of your claim, I'm asking what information you're basing your certainty on.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:06 am

Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:I have not mentioned "harmful bacteria," at all. I am suggesting that the ground beef with this additive, is less nutritious than organic ground beef.

Why do you suggest that the protein in the additive is less nutritious than the protein in the primary stock? What information or evidence do you know of that demonstrates that the connective tissue protein is less nutritious than protein from muscle tissue? They both come from the same animal right? The primary stock also contains connective tissue, just in a different proportion than the additive.

ForestDweller wrote:Do you dispute this suggestion?

EDIT - clearly you do ;)

"Dispute" is too strong of a label. I'm skeptical of your claims regarding differing nutrition as I know of no reason for connective tissue protein to be less nutritious than muscle tissue. Since you appear to be certain of your claim, I'm asking what information you're basing your certainty on.


Clearly you dispute my suggestion. Certainty? Seems to me, I am making suggestions and asking questions. This would not be reflective of certainty. Last night I read several further credible references to this material being less nutritious than ground beef, but those links are home and I am at work. I'll VNC to my home machine later to pull them if I get a chance. I also read that Taco Bell and McDonald's no longer use this material in the ground beef that they serve. It was used previously for dog food, but fairly recently it has been included in ground beef for humans. I owe more responses and will get to them as time affords.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:25 pm

ForestDweller wrote:Certainty? Seems to me, I am making suggestions and asking questions. This would not be reflective of certainty.

Yes. If you were not certain I'd expect you to use terms like "may" or "might". Instead you've used "is". Here's the quote:
ForestDweller wrote:I am suggesting that the ground beef with this additive, is less nutritious than organic ground beef. (Emphasis added.)

I suppose of you consider asking for your evidence and to explain your reasoning to qualify for "disputing", so be it.

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9890
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby fromthehills » Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:43 pm

Disputing, and being skeptical of a claim are two different things. The claim is that this "pink slime" is less nutritious than the beef they are adding it to. FD, you also claimed that one should eat organic to avoid it, but McDonald's, Taco Bell, and Costco state that they don't sell meat with the additive. So if the additive is bad, and I am not opposed to avoiding it myself for personal preference, it seems we can avoid it without going organic. I remember seeing one statement on organic beef not containing it, but it didn't seem to be verified. Wouldn't it be just as valid to say that if you want to avoid "pink slime", you should eat at McDonald's and Taco Bell?

I'm all for "contains meat bi-product" labeling, in order to have a choice, but just as in mechanically separated chicken, not using all the edible parts of the animal just means raising and killing more animals. If it's safe to eat, and isn't shown to be less nutritious, there isn't any reason to stop it.

When I was a kid, I remember the scandal of adding soy to hamburgers to bulk them up. Shortly after, the McDonald's theme changed to "Two all beef patties...." Funny how an all soy burger costs more than a hamburger today.

I want one of those Doritos tacos from Taco Bell, now, but I haven't needed to go to town.

User avatar
Austin Harper
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4857
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Austin Harper » Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:57 pm

fromthehills wrote:I want one of those Doritos tacos from Taco Bell, now, but I haven't needed to go to town.

I'll mail you one.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9890
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby fromthehills » Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:08 pm

Cool, thanks! I wonder if there's something you could spray it with to preserve it. Paraffin, perhaps.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 pm

Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:Certainty? Seems to me, I am making suggestions and asking questions. This would not be reflective of certainty.

Yes. If you were not certain I'd expect you to use terms like "may" or "might". Instead you've used "is". Here's the quote:
ForestDweller wrote:I am suggesting that the ground beef with this additive, is less nutritious than organic ground beef. (Emphasis added.)

I suppose of you consider asking for your evidence and to explain your reasoning to qualify for "disputing", so be it.


I suggested - a suggestion, is not a statement of certainty, is it? I am not certain. Why such intense parsing, when it does not speak to any particular point? I made a suggestion and suggestions by their nature, are subject to review, it is the implied expectation of the suggestion. I find the semantic games to be tedious, unnecessary, and beside the point.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:42 pm

Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:Certainty? Seems to me, I am making suggestions and asking questions. This would not be reflective of certainty.

Yes. If you were not certain I'd expect you to use terms like "may" or "might". Instead you've used "is". Here's the quote:
ForestDweller wrote:I am suggesting that the ground beef with this additive, is less nutritious than organic ground beef. (Emphasis added.)

I suppose of you consider asking for your evidence and to explain your reasoning to qualify for "disputing", so be it.


You are questioning my evidence. I see questioning validity as a disputation. Perhaps I am mistaken. Minor semantic difference, I don't see that it makes much difference. I will get to the point as to evidence suggesting that this meat product under discussion, is more or less nutritious than ground beef without it, when I can. I appreciate the discussion and am simply trying to make a contribution.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:39 pm

fromthehills wrote:Disputing, and being skeptical of a claim are two different things. The claim is that this "pink slime" is less nutritious than the beef they are adding it to. FD, you also claimed that one should eat organic to avoid it, but McDonald's, Taco Bell, and Costco state that they don't sell meat with the additive. So if the additive is bad, and I am not opposed to avoiding it myself for personal preference, it seems we can avoid it without going organic. I remember seeing one statement on organic beef not containing it, but it didn't seem to be verified. Wouldn't it be just as valid to say that if you want to avoid "pink slime", you should eat at McDonald's and Taco Bell?

I'm all for "contains meat bi-product" labeling, in order to have a choice, but just as in mechanically separated chicken, not using all the edible parts of the animal just means raising and killing more animals. If it's safe to eat, and isn't shown to be less nutritious, there isn't any reason to stop it.

When I was a kid, I remember the scandal of adding soy to hamburgers to bulk them up. Shortly after, the McDonald's theme changed to "Two all beef patties...." Funny how an all soy burger costs more than a hamburger today.

I want one of those Doritos tacos from Taco Bell, now, but I haven't needed to go to town.


Sure, the "slime" can be avoided without eating organic, I agree & didn't suggest otherwise. It would be valid to say that one could eat at taco bell to avoid the slime, certainly, based on the information that I've read. I'm not convinced that the pink slime is bad for health by the way - just that it's processed and from what I read, is less nutritious.

The stuff was already used in dog food, so the material wasn't wasted before, either. Apparently it is more profitable to use it in human food. From what I read I'm getting that the ammonia treatment made this possible.

If soy burgers were in production to the level that beef burgers are in production, the price would come down - possibly way down as there is less water useage and fewer resource conversions necessary to produce a soy or other vegetable-based burger.

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9890
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby fromthehills » Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:35 pm

Briefly heard that they might be banning it altogether. That doesn't bother me, but I still think it's based on public opinion.

Good point on it being used in dog foods, already. Probably why both my cat and dog love this Beneful wet dog food. It does look better than Army food, at least when I was in.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:05 pm

ForestDweller wrote:
Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:Certainty? Seems to me, I am making suggestions and asking questions. This would not be reflective of certainty.

Yes. If you were not certain I'd expect you to use terms like "may" or "might". Instead you've used "is". Here's the quote:
ForestDweller wrote:I am suggesting that the ground beef with this additive, is less nutritious than organic ground beef. (Emphasis added.)

I suppose of you consider asking for your evidence and to explain your reasoning to qualify for "disputing", so be it.


You are questioning my evidence. I see questioning validity as a disputation. Perhaps I am mistaken.

Well, I believe you'd have to actually present some evidence before I can dispute it. In the meantime, I'm merely skeptical of your claim and have asked you to share whatever evidence you're working from so that I might take it under consideration.
ForestDweller wrote:I will get to the point as to evidence suggesting that this meat product under discussion, is more or less nutritious than ground beef without it, when I can.

Great. In the meantime I remain skeptical of your claim.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:13 pm

ForestDweller wrote:it's processed and from what I read, is less nutritious.

Where did you read this? Can you share a link? Is there any substantiating evidence provided in your sources, or is it just someone making the claim?

If you're just reading a claim, then your statement of "from what I read, [it] is less nutritious." is not a correct reflection of what you're reading. I would suggest instead saying "from what I read, there are claims that it is less nutritious."
ForestDweller wrote:The stuff was already used in dog food, so the material wasn't wasted before, either. Apparently it is more profitable to use it in human food. From what I read I'm getting that the ammonia treatment made this possible.

Or other treatments. The use of ammonia to alter ph is only one of a few methods to eliminate harmful bacteria.

Irradiation might be a better alternative. One could sterilize the product without having to add any substances. I wonder why they don't use irradiation?
ForestDweller wrote:If soy burgers were in production to the level that beef burgers are in production, the price would come down - possibly way down as there is less water useage and fewer resource conversions necessary to produce a soy or other vegetable-based burger.

What kind of processing is necessary to create soy burgers?

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:57 pm

Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:
Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:Certainty? Seems to me, I am making suggestions and asking questions. This would not be reflective of certainty.

Yes. If you were not certain I'd expect you to use terms like "may" or "might". Instead you've used "is". Here's the quote:
ForestDweller wrote:I am suggesting that the ground beef with this additive, is less nutritious than organic ground beef. (Emphasis added.)

I suppose of you consider asking for your evidence and to explain your reasoning to qualify for "disputing", so be it.


You are questioning my evidence. I see questioning validity as a disputation. Perhaps I am mistaken.

Well, I believe you'd have to actually present some evidence before I can dispute it. In the meantime, I'm merely skeptical of your claim and have asked you to share whatever evidence you're working from so that I might take it under consideration.
ForestDweller wrote:I will get to the point as to evidence suggesting that this meat product under discussion, is more or less nutritious than ground beef without it, when I can.

Great. In the meantime I remain skeptical of your claim.


Since we're bantering semantics now, I see no reason to believe that one would require specific evidence to have been presented, in order to dispute a claim, or to be skeptical of a claim. If you could provide evidence toward the requirement of evidence in order to dispute, it would be beneficial in understanding this difference in meaning. On the other hand, you need not go to the trouble for I understand why you remain skeptical.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:30 pm

ForestDweller wrote:
Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:
Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:Certainty? Seems to me, I am making suggestions and asking questions. This would not be reflective of certainty.

Yes. If you were not certain I'd expect you to use terms like "may" or "might". Instead you've used "is". Here's the quote:
ForestDweller wrote:I am suggesting that the ground beef with this additive, is less nutritious than organic ground beef. (Emphasis added.)

I suppose of you consider asking for your evidence and to explain your reasoning to qualify for "disputing", so be it.


You are questioning my evidence. I see questioning validity as a disputation. Perhaps I am mistaken.

Well, I believe you'd have to actually present some evidence before I can dispute it. In the meantime, I'm merely skeptical of your claim and have asked you to share whatever evidence you're working from so that I might take it under consideration.

Since we're bantering semantics now, I see no reason to believe that one would require specific evidence to have been presented, in order to dispute a claim, or to be skeptical of a claim.

You appear to be using the terms "evidence" and "claim" interchangeably. I'm not sure why.
ForestDweller wrote:If you could provide evidence toward the requirement of evidence in order to dispute, it would be beneficial in understanding this difference in meaning.

Huh? You need me to explain why evidence must first be presented before it can be disputed?

You see, it is not possible for me to dispute your evidence as you have not yet presented any.

You have presented claims and I haven't disputed those claims, but I am skeptical of them. I've asked you to share any evidence you have to support your claim. "Dispute" is a verb that means to argue or debate. I've yet to argue or debate. It would be difficult to do even do so until you provide evidence to examine and argue over. Instead I've merely asked (repeatedly) for evidence.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:38 pm

ForestDweller wrote:I will get to the point as to evidence suggesting that this meat product under discussion, is more or less nutritious than ground beef without it, when I can.

Any evidence yet?

Here, let me help. Let's analyze the nutrition panels for the lean beef trimmings and 90% lean ground beef.

The comparison is summarized by Cameron English in a post titled Pink Slime in Schools is No Problem.

The basic message:
The explosion of concern over the stuff seems to be driven mainly by aesthetics (it looks funny) and semantics (it's called slime!). Even New York University professor of nutrition Marion Nestle, no friend to the beef industry, concluded that the ammonia treated beef isn't harmful, but that it is the "least common denominator" in terms of quality.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:57 pm

This page is from BPI, the producer of the lean beef trimmings product. It provides information about exactly what the lean beef trimmings product is made of, how it is made, and how the ammonia puff alters the product and what it leaves behind in the product.

Top 7 Myths of “Pink Slime”

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:30 pm

Blacksamwell wrote:Huh? You need me to explain why evidence must first be presented before it can be disputed?

You see, it is not possible for me to dispute your evidence as you have not yet presented any.

You have presented claims and I haven't disputed those claims, but I am skeptical of them. I've asked you to share any evidence you have to support your claim. "Dispute" is a verb that means to argue or debate. I've yet to argue or debate. It would be difficult to do even do so until you provide evidence to examine and argue over. Instead I've merely asked (repeatedly) for evidence.


Okay then, back to where we started. This is the evidence that I originally presented:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2 ... ery-store/

You have indicated that some of the statements made in this link are not sufficiently substantiated. I have already acknowledged this. This does not mean that I made baseless statements, or that there is a complete lack of evidence, or that my source is not reputable. It only means that I have presented evidence that has not been substantiated to your liking. If I recall correctly, your call for evidence was based on this text and statement made by Kit Foshee, who was a corporate quality assurance manager/whistleblower at Beef Products Inc., the company that makes pink slime. - "Foshee says it is more like gelatin and not nutritious as ground beef because the protein comes mostly from connective tissue, not muscle meat.
“[It will] fill you up, but won’t do any good,” Foshee said."

That is, after threshing through your misdirections and twisting around of my statements.

If you are genuinely interested in reviewing the substantiation of the evidence presented, that is great and you will have to wait for me to get the opportunity to focus on this. I have to wonder if you have a full-time job - I do, & then some. Posting links to the contrary is also great, yet I now have to review them as well, further delaying my response to your original call for evidence.

This statement that you made - "Huh? You need me to explain why evidence must first be presented before it can be disputed?"

Was in response to this statement that I made - "Since we're bantering semantics now, I see no reason to believe that one would require specific evidence to have been presented, in order to dispute a claim, or to be skeptical of a claim. If you could provide evidence toward the requirement of evidence in order to dispute, it would be beneficial in understanding this difference in meaning. On the other hand, you need not go to the trouble for I understand why you remain skeptical."

Clearly I am not asking you to explain why evidence must first be presented before that same evidence can be disputed. That has nothing to do with the statement that I made. These word twists just waste time and misdirect the conversation. It is fallacy.

I am asking you to explain why I would be required to present specific evidence, as opposed to simply stating a claim, before you would be able to dispute the statement that I made. I think that was clear in my original statement. You would then, presumably, present a terms-definition based response that made clear the requirement for evidence to be on the table, as opposed to mere statements or claims, in order to utilize the term "dispute" in the argument, conversation or debate. I appreciate your interest though I would need to set aside two kids, the cats, the girlfriend and the IPTV upgrade in order to meet your ability in terms of research commitment to the conversation. As it is, I can't keep up. So, if this means that "you win" and my statements are not valid, to the readers of this, so be it.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:04 pm

ForestDweller wrote:
Blacksamwell wrote:Huh? You need me to explain why evidence must first be presented before it can be disputed?

You see, it is not possible for me to dispute your evidence as you have not yet presented any.

You have presented claims and I haven't disputed those claims, but I am skeptical of them. I've asked you to share any evidence you have to support your claim. "Dispute" is a verb that means to argue or debate. I've yet to argue or debate. It would be difficult to do even do so until you provide evidence to examine and argue over. Instead I've merely asked (repeatedly) for evidence.


Okay then, back to where we started. This is the evidence that I originally presented:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2 ... ery-store/

You have indicated that some of the statements made in this link are not sufficiently substantiated. I have already acknowledged this. This does not mean that I made baseless statements, or that there is a complete lack of evidence, or that my source is not reputable. It only means that I have presented evidence that has not been substantiated to your liking.

Nope. The link contains claims without evidence.
ForestDweller wrote:If I recall correctly, your call for evidence was based on this text and statement made by Kit Foshee, who was a corporate quality assurance manager/whistleblower at Beef Products Inc., the company that makes pink slime. - "Foshee says it is more like gelatin and not nutritious as ground beef because the protein comes mostly from connective tissue, not muscle meat.
“[It will] fill you up, but won’t do any good,” Foshee said."

My call for evidence was based on your claims that the lean beef product was not as nutritious as regular beef. You may be basing your claim on Foshee's claim, I don't recall your actually admitting that.

I've stated why my own understanding of protein chemistry makes me skeptical of both your and Foshee's claims and I've asked for you to share the data which supports the claims of differential nutrition. I'm not assuming that my understanding is correct and giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you have new information that I should consider I'd really like to see it.
ForestDweller wrote:If you are genuinely interested in reviewing the substantiation of the evidence presented, that is great and you will have to wait for me to get the opportunity to focus on this.

Start with evidence, then formulate a hypothesis.

I kind of assumed that if you were in a position to confidently make a claim about the relative nutrition that you actually had data upon which you were basing that claim. Your inability to provide said data suggests that perhaps you never had it and have supported an unfounded claim. If so, just say so.
ForestDweller wrote:Posting links to the contrary is also great, yet I now have to review them as well, further delaying my response to your original call for evidence.

Really? Why not just provide any links you have first, and then review any new posts I've made? It's simple.
ForestDweller wrote:I am asking you to explain why I would be required to present specific evidence, as opposed to simply stating a claim, before you would be able to dispute the statement that I made. I think that was clear in my original statement. You would then, presumably, present a terms-definition based response that made clear the requirement for evidence to be on the table, as opposed to mere statements or claims, in order to utilize the term "dispute" in the argument, conversation or debate. I appreciate your interest though I would need to set aside two kids, the cats, the girlfriend and the IPTV upgrade in order to meet your ability in terms of research commitment to the conversation. As it is, I can't keep up. So, if this means that "you win" and my statements are not valid, to the readers of this, so be it.

Totally unnecessary. Just paste any links you have that show the lean beef trimmings are less nutritious than regular unprocessed ground beef.

There really isn't any "winning" here. I'm just asking you to share any evidence you have or are using to support the claim that lean beef trimmings are less nutritious than regular ground beef.

If you don't have any such evidence just say so and we'll move on.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Hey, is there any way we can stop referring to the lean beef trimmings as "pink slime"? Apparently the product is neither pink, nor slime-like. It appears that those with an axe to grind have labelled it as such in their efforts to influence public opinion.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:38 am

Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:
Blacksamwell wrote:Huh? You need me to explain why evidence must first be presented before it can be disputed?

You see, it is not possible for me to dispute your evidence as you have not yet presented any.

You have presented claims and I haven't disputed those claims, but I am skeptical of them. I've asked you to share any evidence you have to support your claim. "Dispute" is a verb that means to argue or debate. I've yet to argue or debate. It would be difficult to do even do so until you provide evidence to examine and argue over. Instead I've merely asked (repeatedly) for evidence.


Okay then, back to where we started. This is the evidence that I originally presented:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2 ... ery-store/

You have indicated that some of the statements made in this link are not sufficiently substantiated. I have already acknowledged this. This does not mean that I made baseless statements, or that there is a complete lack of evidence, or that my source is not reputable. It only means that I have presented evidence that has not been substantiated to your liking.

Nope. The link contains claims without evidence.
The link contains references to the Food, Inc. Documentary. Have you watched it? Are you saying that none of that information can be considered evidence? Does the link then also contain claims with evidence?
ForestDweller wrote:If I recall correctly, your call for evidence was based on this text and statement made by Kit Foshee, who was a corporate quality assurance manager/whistleblower at Beef Products Inc., the company that makes pink slime. - "Foshee says it is more like gelatin and not nutritious as ground beef because the protein comes mostly from connective tissue, not muscle meat.
“[It will] fill you up, but won’t do any good,” Foshee said."

My call for evidence was based on your claims that the lean beef product was not as nutritious as regular beef. You may be basing your claim on Foshee's claim, I don't recall your actually admitting that.
My claim was generally based on a link which actually referenced a lot of information.


I've stated why my own understanding of protein chemistry makes me skeptical of both your and Foshee's claims and I've asked for you to share the data which supports the claims of differential nutrition. I'm not assuming that my understanding is correct and giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you have new information that I should consider I'd really like to see it.
ForestDweller wrote:If you are genuinely interested in reviewing the substantiation of the evidence presented, that is great and you will have to wait for me to get the opportunity to focus on this.

Start with evidence, then formulate a hypothesis.

I kind of assumed that if you were in a position to confidently make a claim about the relative nutrition that you actually had data upon which you were basing that claim. Your inability to provide said data suggests that perhaps you never had it and have supported an unfounded claim. If so, just say so.

Clearly I posted a link about which which I stated "This situation suggests to me at least, that evidently in some cases, Organic store-bought beef is better than conventional store-bought beef." For your assessment of my statement to be valid, the link that I posted, and the references that it contains, would have to be totally without substance, in regard to meat with the BPI meat product being in any way inferior, and it seems to me that you do not have sufficient grounds to make that claim. Consider for instance, the quote that you put forward, "...concluded that the ammonia treated beef isn't harmful, but that it is the "least common denominator" in terms of quality." Assuming that you consider your source here to be credible, this concedes that the BPI product is inferior to organic ground beef. Unless of course the "least common denominator" in terms of quality," is somehow actually better than organic ground beef.
ForestDweller wrote:Posting links to the contrary is also great, yet I now have to review them as well, further delaying my response to your original call for evidence.

Really? Why not just provide any links you have first, and then review any new posts I've made? It's simple.
If I have time left after responding to this, I will certainly post the links that I have - though your discerning palate will likely yearn for more, and better, and I am interested in providing such. By the way, in regard to another statement that you made recently, something like, "start with the evidence, then formulate an hypothesis," I did so initially - with my posting of the link, and the statement that I made in regard to it. It follows the form that you suggest.
ForestDweller wrote:I am asking you to explain why I would be required to present specific evidence, as opposed to simply stating a claim, before you would be able to dispute the statement that I made. I think that was clear in my original statement. You would then, presumably, present a terms-definition based response that made clear the requirement for evidence to be on the table, as opposed to mere statements or claims, in order to utilize the term "dispute" in the argument, conversation or debate. I appreciate your interest though I would need to set aside two kids, the cats, the girlfriend and the IPTV upgrade in order to meet your ability in terms of research commitment to the conversation. As it is, I can't keep up. So, if this means that "you win" and my statements are not valid, to the readers of this, so be it.

Totally unnecessary. Just paste any links you have that show the lean beef trimmings are less nutritious than regular unprocessed ground beef.
I hope to serve them up soon, and I appreciate your interest.

There really isn't any "winning" here. I'm just asking you to share any evidence you have or are using to support the claim that lean beef trimmings are less nutritious than regular ground beef.
...And I am trying to get to that.

If you don't have any such evidence just say so and we'll move on.

I have such. As I said, based on my reading thus far, there is more and better, and in going the distance toward satisfying your need for substantive evidence, I am digging deeper. This does not mean that my horse of hypothesis is before my cart of evidence - though it is my working understanding that in science, one can base an hypothesis on a set of observations, then seek to validate it, which becomes the research step, which is where I find myself now.

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/03/t ... ink-slime/

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/03/05 ... -slime-1-3

If you're good with eating pink slime, then these two links ought to hold you over until I get the time to pull better data. Following references back takes time. As an aside, you do realize that the BPI product processing method is born of the necessity of negating E.Coli in the beef production chain, E.Coli that is the result of processing cow crap-caked carcasses of cows that "live" knee-deep in cow crap up until they are slaughtered, right?

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:39 am

Blacksamwell wrote:Hey, is there any way we can stop referring to the lean beef trimmings as "pink slime"? Apparently the product is neither pink, nor slime-like. It appears that those with an axe to grind have labelled it as such in their efforts to influence public opinion.


Sure, how about "Soylent Pink?" Or "BPI Product?"

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:47 am

Blacksamwell wrote:This page is from BPI, the producer of the lean beef trimmings product. It provides information about exactly what the lean beef trimmings product is made of, how it is made, and how the ammonia puff alters the product and what it leaves behind in the product.

Top 7 Myths of “Pink Slime”


I suggest that you are quite quick to accept the unsubstantiated claims within this link. And in regard to this "puff" that is referred to, it is my working understanding that ammonium hydroxide is not a gas, it is a liquid, which is the point of the hydrogen bonding to the ammonia gas - and further to that, I've seen video of ammonium hydroxide in the BPI processing plant (watch Food Inc. as Slee suggests), and it sure looks like liquid to me. I find it notable also that this link does not seem to mention the bones of the crap-coated cow carcasses that the BPI product is scraped from. Why not, I wonder.

EDITed for natural goodness.
Last edited by ForestDweller on Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29446
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Gord » Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:12 am

Blacksamwell wrote:Hey, is there any way we can stop referring to the lean beef trimmings as "pink slime"? Apparently the product is neither pink, nor slime-like. It appears that those with an axe to grind have labelled it as such in their efforts to influence public opinion.

NEVAR!! :shakefist:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:49 am

Earlier I suggested, loosely related to the question as to whether Organic food is or is not generally speaking & if one can afford it, better than conventional food, that the BPI product perhaps unfairly yet commonly referred to as "Pink Slime," said to be found in 70% of all conventional ground beef, is less nutritious than ground beef without the BPI product. Below I quote a general knowledge link referencing "Anatomy and Physiology"; Gary Thibodeau, Ph.D.; 2007.

"Indigestible Components
While beef is mostly protein, not all the proteins in beef are digestible for humans. For instance, elastin -- a highly elastic protein found in muscles and connective tissue -- isn't susceptible to digestion by enzymes secreted by the human digestive tract. Collagen, a connective protein, also resists digestion to some degree. You pass the indigestible components of beef through your digestive system and eliminate them as solid waste."

http://www.livestrong.com/article/51774 ... igestible/


It would seem that, if elastin and collagen are subcomponents of the BPI product, then their relative indigestibility further suggests that, pound for pound, this material would be less nutritious than ground beef without the BPI product. It seems reasonable to presume that the human digestive system would not pull nutrients from these indigestible subcomponents.

EDITed for palatability.
Last edited by ForestDweller on Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:02 pm

Thanks to Slee for encouraging us to view the movie Food, Inc.

"Schlosser: In the 1970s, there were literally thousands of slaughterhouses in the United States. Today we have 13 slaughterhouses that process the majority of beef that is sold in the United States. The hamburger of today, it has pieces of thousands of different cattle ground up in that one hamburger patty. The odds increase exponentially that one of those animals was carrying a dangerous pathogen."

"Pollan: So you feed corn to cattle and E. coli, which is a very common bug, evolves, a certain mutation occurs and a strain called the "E. coli 0157:h7" appears on the world stage. And it's a product of the diet we're feeding cattle on feedlots and it's a product of feedlot life. The animals stand ankle deep in their manure all day long. So if one cow has it, the other cows will get it. When they get to the slaughterhouse, their hides are caked with manure. And if the slaughterhouse is slaughtering 400 animals an hour, how do you keep that manure from getting onto those carcasses? And that's how the manure gets in the meat. And now this thing that wasn't in the world is in the food system."

http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scri ... cript.html

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:18 pm

ForestDweller wrote:Thanks to Slee for encouraging us to view the movie Food, Inc.

"Schlosser: In the 1970s, there were literally thousands of slaughterhouses in the United States. Today we have 13 slaughterhouses that process the majority of beef that is sold in the United States. The hamburger of today, it has pieces of thousands of different cattle ground up in that one hamburger patty. The odds increase exponentially that one of those animals was carrying a dangerous pathogen."

"Pollan: So you feed corn to cattle and E. coli, which is a very common bug, evolves, a certain mutation occurs and a strain called the "E. coli 0157:h7" appears on the world stage. And it's a product of the diet we're feeding cattle on feedlots and it's a product of feedlot life. The animals stand ankle deep in their manure all day long. So if one cow has it, the other cows will get it. When they get to the slaughterhouse, their hides are caked with manure. And if the slaughterhouse is slaughtering 400 animals an hour, how do you keep that manure from getting onto those carcasses? And that's how the manure gets in the meat. And now this thing that wasn't in the world is in the food system."

http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scri ... cript.html


This raises the question, are we feeding corn to "organic" beef? Need to learn answer to this.

A personal note, I don't eat beef, haven't for 28 years. I am a weird convolution of ovo-lacto vegetarian/hunter (I am vegetarian apart from salmonoid fishing (more "fillet & release" than catch & release), and deer & bear hunting. I eat only what I take, or what my ah, "small social grouping" (lacking the better term) takes, in terms of meat. Hunting contributes to management of the state herds. I use as much as I can of the animals that I do take (I tan or make rawhide for things like straps, my bow grip is rawhide, etc.). This past season I was licensed to hunt deer/extra tag and bear with bow & rifle, but didn't go out. I seem to do more hunting with camera these days, perhaps I am getting soft in my old age. I trapped beaver, mink & muskrat for several years, starting when I was 13.

EDITed, changed to "raises" from "begs"
Last edited by ForestDweller on Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9890
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby fromthehills » Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:26 pm

ForestDweller wrote:
This begs the question...


This raises the question. Look up "begging the question".

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:43 pm

fromthehills wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:
This begs the question...


This raises the question. Look up "begging the question".


Thanks for the correction Hills.

There are issues with corn feeding. If organic beef is fed corn, that would make organic beef no better than conventional beef in that particular aspect.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:49 pm

ForestDweller wrote:The link contains references to the Food, Inc. Documentary. Have you watched it? Are you saying that none of that information can be considered evidence? Does the link then also contain claims with evidence?

Sure, there's a reference to claims made in a documentary. Where's the evidence that one would use to determine whether or not the claims are true?

Let's examine what the article claims the documentary claims...
As seen in the movie Food Inc., the low-grade trimmings come from the most contaminated parts of the cow and were once only used in dog food and cooking oil.

According to BPI before the centrifuge/ammonia process was available it wasn't possible to separate the bits of meat that were attached to the fat that was trimmed from the carcass by hand. The fat could only be separated by cooking the trimmings, it at which point it wasn't suitable for addition to raw ground beef. The fats were used in cooking oils and the meat trimmings were used in cooked meat products.

According to industry sources the claim that these cooked trimmings were not edible and only used in dog food is patently false. I'd like to see source information that showed us one way or another how these trimmings were used prior to the centrifuge/ammonia process was available.

The point is that the ABC article does not contain any evidence, only claims.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:58 pm

ForestDweller wrote:My claim was generally based on a link which actually referenced a lot of information.

The link contained a great number of claims, but very little actual evidence in regard to the claims. There's a great deal of information about people and organizations making claims but let's not confuse this with evidence regarding the claims being made.

For example there was the claim that the beef trimmings product was less nutritious than regular ground beef. No evidence was provided to support this claim and yet you latched onto the idea and suggested that it was true.

I've since provided a link which shows the nutritional labels and allows one to actually compare the nutritional data of the lean beef trimmings product to 90% lean ground beef. The nutritional data is actual evidence. It is exactly the kind of thing I've been asking for.

Question for you: Now that you've had an opportunity to review the nutritional comparison between lean beef trimmings and 90% lean ground beef, do you still suggest that the lean beef trimmings product is less nutritious than regular ground beef?

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:02 pm

ForestDweller wrote:Clearly I posted a link about which which I stated "This situation suggests to me at least, that evidently in some cases, Organic store-bought beef is better than conventional store-bought beef." For your assessment of my statement to be valid, the link that I posted, and the references that it contains, would have to be totally without substance, in regard to meat with the BPI meat product being in any way inferior, and it seems to me that you do not have sufficient grounds to make that claim. Consider for instance, the quote that you put forward, "...concluded that the ammonia treated beef isn't harmful, but that it is the "least common denominator" in terms of quality." Assuming that you consider your source here to be credible, this concedes that the BPI product is inferior to organic ground beef. Unless of course the "least common denominator" in terms of quality," is somehow actually better than organic ground beef.

That's not the point I've been contending.

You made a claim regarding nutrition. I've only been asking for evidence regarding this claim. I've never put forth any argument regarding inferiority.

You're dodging.

I understand that a T-bone is higher quality than a hotdog. But the beef protein in one is as equally nutritious as the beef protein in the other.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:07 pm

Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:The link contains references to the Food, Inc. Documentary. Have you watched it? Are you saying that none of that information can be considered evidence? Does the link then also contain claims with evidence?

Sure, there's a reference to claims made in a documentary. Where's the evidence that one would use to determine whether or not the claims are true?

Let's examine what the article claims the documentary claims...
As seen in the movie Food Inc., the low-grade trimmings come from the most contaminated parts of the cow and were once only used in dog food and cooking oil.

According to BPI before the centrifuge/ammonia process was available it wasn't possible to separate the bits of meat that were attached to the fat that was trimmed from the carcass by hand. The fat could only be separated by cooking the trimmings, it at which point it wasn't suitable for addition to raw ground beef. The fats were used in cooking oils and the meat trimmings were used in cooked meat products.
Why may I ask do you feel that unsubstantiated claims made by BPI, the actual producer of the material in question, supersede the claims in the article that I posted, or that were in Food, Inc.?
According to industry sources the claim that these cooked trimmings were not edible and only used in dog food is patently false. I'd like to see source information that showed us one way or another how these trimmings were used prior to the centrifuge/ammonia process was available.
I used to eat dog food all of the time, when I was younger. I managed to survive, therefore from personal experience I can validate that dog food was edible by humans. I don't doubt that it still is. What evidence do you have that "industry sources" are superior to my sources? It seems rather obvious that they have a vested interest in presenting the material as sound and I have no reason or evidence to substantiate the claims that BPI made in the link that you posted.
The point is that the ABC article does not contain any evidence, only claims.

The ABC article contains reference to credible source material.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:11 pm

Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:Clearly I posted a link about which which I stated "This situation suggests to me at least, that evidently in some cases, Organic store-bought beef is better than conventional store-bought beef." For your assessment of my statement to be valid, the link that I posted, and the references that it contains, would have to be totally without substance, in regard to meat with the BPI meat product being in any way inferior, and it seems to me that you do not have sufficient grounds to make that claim. Consider for instance, the quote that you put forward, "...concluded that the ammonia treated beef isn't harmful, but that it is the "least common denominator" in terms of quality." Assuming that you consider your source here to be credible, this concedes that the BPI product is inferior to organic ground beef. Unless of course the "least common denominator" in terms of quality," is somehow actually better than organic ground beef.

That's not the point I've been contending.

You made a claim regarding nutrition. I've only been asking for evidence regarding this claim. I've never put forth any argument regarding inferiority.

You're dodging.

I understand that a T-bone is higher quality than a hotdog. But the beef protein in one is as equally nutritious as the beef protein in the other.


Please reference the link in my posting #148.

User avatar
ForestDweller
Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: Rockshore, New Hampshire

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby ForestDweller » Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:15 pm

Blacksamwell wrote:
ForestDweller wrote:My claim was generally based on a link which actually referenced a lot of information.

The link contained a great number of claims, but very little actual evidence in regard to the claims. There's a great deal of information about people and organizations making claims but let's not confuse this with evidence regarding the claims being made.

For example there was the claim that the beef trimmings product was less nutritious than regular ground beef. No evidence was provided to support this claim and yet you latched onto the idea and suggested that it was true.

I've since provided a link which shows the nutritional labels and allows one to actually compare the nutritional data of the lean beef trimmings product to 90% lean ground beef. The nutritional data is actual evidence. It is exactly the kind of thing I've been asking for.

EDIT - did you review the labels that you posted? The BPI product, which you do not provide a source link for, has for a 4 ounce serving, 160 calories and 70 calories from fat. The Beef ground/lean tag reports for a 4 ounce serving, 200 calories, with 100 from fat. Therefore, obviously there is more nutritive value in the latter product. Though, I see no evidence here to substantiate the BPI product tag, in the first place.



Question for you: Now that you've had an opportunity to review the nutritional comparison between lean beef trimmings and 90% lean ground beef, do you still suggest that the lean beef trimmings product is less nutritious than regular ground beef?


I continue to suggest that the BPI product in question, pound for pound, is less nutritious than organic ground beef. I will use the distinction "organic," to avoid the potential misdirection of an argument toward the FDA's still classifying the BPI product to be "ground beef."

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:26 pm

ForestDweller wrote:http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/03/the-lunch-tray-responds-to-beef-industry-defenses-of-pink-slime/

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/03/05 ... -slime-1-3

These links don't provide any evidence. They only repeat the message "Pink slime is bad!"

I'm asking for evidence that it is less nutritious or in any way dangerous to eat. Show me where someone became ill, or where testing demonstrates that it is unsafe.

ForestDweller wrote:As an aside, you do realize that the BPI product processing method is born of the necessity of negating E.Coli in the beef production chain, E.Coli that is the result of processing cow crap-caked carcasses of cows that "live" knee-deep in cow crap up until they are slaughtered, right?

Sure. But do you have much experience with cows living in open fields where they are NOT knee deep in crap? You'll note that they are still often covered in their own excrement.

Animals poop. Poop contains dangerous bacteria. Slaughter has always involved risk of contamination. Even if the animal is pristine on the outside as soon as you split them open there's the risk of contamination from the microbes within their digestive tract. Organic beef isn't any less risky in this regard.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Organic food makes Harriet Hall's top 10 - Really?

Postby Blacksamwell » Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:27 pm

ForestDweller wrote:The ABC article contains reference to credible source material.

Where? Which sources?

Do these sources contain evidence, or just claims?


Return to “SKEPTIC Magazine: Letters & Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest