On-Demand Supplier Webinar
Technical / white paper
Yogurt Formulations with Clarinol® CLA for Weight Management
Stepan Lipid Nutrition
Lean finely textured beef is beef from trimmings that has been separated from the fat using a centrifuge. It is then treated with ammonium hydroxide to eliminate harmful bacteria such as E. coli and salmonella
With lean finely textured beef (LFTB) now off the menu at some of the nation’s biggest retailers and fast food chains, recriminations are flying thick and fast over who is to blame for the whole sorry, pink, slimy mess currently engulfing the food industry.
Jamie Oliver? Partly. The media? Obviously. But they are not the only ones.
Journalists have unquestionably contributed to much of the hysteria, but many food manufacturers are privately pointing the finger at their customers - food retailers and foodservice giants, who have shown that once again, if there is a bandwagon, they will jump on it, regardless of the science.
More mixed messages
If consumers see the industry saying one thing (ingredient X is safe) and doing another (but we're dropping it anyway), is it any wonder they are suspicious?
Actions speak louder than words to consumers - who don't read the small print and don't trust the food industry. If ingredient X really is safe and nutritious as the beef industry claims, they will say, then why have some of the biggest names in food retail/service dropped it like a hot potato?
Just as slapping ‘no artificial sweeteners’ or ‘no HFCS’ on pack sends a message, so does dropping lean finely textured beef. No one will remember the bits in the press releases saying 'just so you know, there isn’t actually anything wrong with this stuff...'
Could things have played out differently?
Of course, retailers that don’t listen to consumers won’t stay in business for long. But brands as big as the ones caught up in the pink slime fiasco (Walmart, Kroger, Safeway, SuperValu, McDonald's, Burger King) have the capacity to influence public debate as well as react to it.
And are they really serving consumers’ best interests when they admit that the media debate – however ill informed – is not just influencing, but driving, their decision-making?
Could things have played out differently if the whole of the industry – retailers, fast food giants, manufacturers, ingredients suppliers and trade associations – presented a united and consistent message to the media the minute it hit the headlines?
After all, no one can argue that they didn’t see this one coming. LFTB has been used in food production for years. And even the term ‘pink slime’ isn’t new (thanks Jamie).
Indeed, the firms producing LFTB – Cargill and Beef Products Inc - have been engaged in a dialogue with retailers about this issue for months. Even the National Consumers League – which is rarely on good terms with the food industry – has come out very strongly in support.
So why the knee-jerk response?
Are decisions based on science or media headlines?
I don’t blame retailers for being pragmatic. The media scrutinizes big food companies very carefully, and no one wants to be on the wrong side of a hot issue.
But they can’t have it both ways.
When it comes to government proposals to curb ‘junk’ food marketing to kids, the message from industry has been crystal clear. We’ll do it when you supply hard evidence to prove it’s the right thing to do, because food policy should be based on sound science, not media headlines.
But when it comes to their policies on LFTB, GMOs, HFCS, aspartame and BPA, it seems those very same media headlines are the very core of the decision making process, and hard scientific evidence goes out of the window.
I have lost count of the number of times I have been sent a press statement reading: “Ingredient Y is safe and legal, but we won’t be using it anymore because consumers are worried about it.”
Pragmatic? Certainly. Helpful? Not really.
David Acheson: Pink slime debacle distracts attention from real food safety issues
Dr David Acheson, former FDA Associate Commissioner of Foods and now head of the food and import safety division at consultancy Leavitt Partners, told FoodNavigator-USA he was dispirited by the whole 'pink slime' fiasco, although not surprised.
“As soon as one big brand drops something, you are going to get a cascade effect. They could have tried to grind it out until the right message finally got across – that this isn’t a safety issue - but that would have involved presenting a united front, and that’s just not the way things work in this industry.
“The sad thing is that things like this distract from the more important issues that really do impact food safety.”
As my colleague Caroline Scott-Thomas observed last week : "There are genuine problems with our food supply. But this isn’t one of them."
NCL: Retailers should have taken a deep breath, not pushed the panic button
Sally Greenberg, executive director of the National Consumers League, also believes things could have turned out differently had retailers taken a “deep breath” instead of “pushing the panic button”.
She added: “The misinformation has unduly harmed a company [Beef Products Inc - which has laid off hundreds of staff] — and its employees- that is recognized as an industry leader in food safety.
"This is tragic, as they have been harmed by a completely unfounded conclusion that their product is not safe. From NCL’s standpoint, the record must be corrected.”
Lessons learned: A picture tells a thousand words...
So what can we learn from the whole sorry affair?
I’ll give the last word to Benjamin England, founder of legal practice Benjamin L. England & Associates and consultancy FDAImports.com, who makes three points...
”First, consumer opinion is informed just as much by the entertainment media as it is “official” sources like the meat industry or government agencies.
“Second, brands, companies and associations should be poised to respond during a food safety crisis (or perceived one) and communicate not just the facts but also the necessary sentiment to be heard by consumers.
“Third, images and video are crucial to public perception and are more important than words.”
Click here to read about the new 'Requiring Easy and Accurate Labeling of Beef Act' (REAL Beef Act), a bill introduced Friday by Congresswoman Chellie Pingree that would require products containing LFTB to have a label at the final point of sale.
Click here to read about ground beef processor AFA Foods Inc., which has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection today, blaming the "unfounded public outcry over the use of boneless lean beef trimmings".
Elaine Watson is a correspondent on FoodNavigator-USA.com and NutraIngredients-USA.com. An award-winning journalist, Elaine has been writing about the food industry for more than 10 years for a range of print and online trade publications including The Grocer, Food Manufacture and Food Ingredients, Health & Nutrition.
16 comments (Comments are now closed)
What is wrong with this picture???
What is wrong with this picture? A national news source released a story about the quality of beef produced by Beef Products, Inc. within their four facilities. The source gives a very negative picture of the process and injects degrading words and demonstrates a theatrical untrue process. To the best of my knowledge the national news source has yet to report the BPI side of the story.
It is my understanding that the news reporter from such national news source was provided factual information and web-sites available to explain and demonstrate the process. If the reporter has reviewed any of the material, they have not made the other side of the story known to the viewing public. This reporter was provided with the opportunity to tour one of BPI facilities in South Sioux City, Nebraska and to ask questions on the tour and in a news conference that followed. Still no publication or story of the BPI side has been presented.
I had the opportunity to tour the local BPI facility and found it to be the cleanest facility I have ever had the opportunity to visit. The process used by BPI has all been approved by government agencies and meat inspectors are visible in the plant to ensure all safety measures are taken to protect the public. BPI has built a cold storage facility to store product until all tests prove that the product to be safe for human consumption.
What is wrong with the story is that a national news reporter and the national news source have not reported news, but reverted to a “smear campaign”.
I would like to applaud the other media outlets, both local and national, that have taken the time to review the facts and have provided both sides of the story to the reading and viewing public.
Report abuse
Posted by Oscar Gomez, City Councilman
26 April 2012 | 20h13
This War was lost before it started...
My own kids don't believe me when I tell them 'XYZ is safe.' Instead, they thank me for showing them it was in a product and then avoid buying it from then on.
Safe or not, a lot of things that pass as SOP in the industry just don't look/smell/feel right. Those of us in the industry ignore such things at our own peril.
Report abuse
Posted by John
26 April 2012 | 19h03
Right to be Informed
As a consumer, I want and should have the right to know what I'm paying for. If I'm buying ground beef, I expect to get ground beef and not a bunch of other things regardless of safety. Whether this product filler is safe or not, we should know when it and any other ingredient is added to the food we put into our bodies.
As for safety; many of the major food companies have a proven track record of trying to trick consumers, hiding the truth, and adding fillers to foods to increase their profits with complete disregard to their impact on the health of our people. Much of the food in our grocery stores can hardly be called real food when you actually see the staggering amount of artificial compounds that are added. Our food policies in this country had the goal of producing cheap food and that's just what we've gotten. Cheap, unhealthy, chemical-laden food that is no good for humans, animals, or the environment.
One of the single greatest problems in our country is the intertwining of huge corporations and government. I'm sure many people who work for these corporations are well-intentioned, but many of these corporations don't care what kind of harm they do to the public as long as their products keep selling. The comments from food industry leaders in this article clearly show their disdain for their customers and lack of willingness to be truthful with them. Education and transparency is the key to taking back control of our food and, in turn, our health. Let's start with honest labeling of all our foods; not only LFTB but also GMO, types of pesticides used, hidden chemicals, etc.
Report abuse
Posted by Daniel Niehoff
17 April 2012 | 19h36
tip of the iceberg
The food 'industry' is the problem. No longer is food 'nurtured' or 'grown.' It is manufactured. You get what you pay for; and if it is cheap, feed lot beef, the pink slime is the least of your problems. Eating anything with corn syrup in it? The Pink Stuff is the least of your problems.
Report abuse
Posted by xenopolis
05 April 2012 | 05h01
This started in 2008
This all really started in 2008 with the documentary, FOOD INCORPORATED. The latest has only come about because that movie finally reached some newsrooms.
The old name for pink slime was much more fun, and as Dave Barry says, "Would make a good name for a rock band"-- Ammoniated Beef Sludge.
LFTB is beef like gelatin made from cow hooves is beef... Only in the technical sense.
Report abuse
Posted by Karl LeMay
03 April 2012 | 22h33
Treat people with respect
All the big corporate industries treat their customers without any respect wanting thier money but then treating them with disdain when anyone questions what they are doing. Same is true for the nuclear industry. The message back to the customer is, "Don't question us, we know better than you do." Then when people vote with wallets and feet, the industry gurus point to Internet conspiracy theories as the blame.
No respect for people no matter what the issue always results in the same negative outcome.
Report abuse
Posted by Bob In Philly
03 April 2012 | 18h14
Solyent Green
They're feeding us pink slime! Can solyent green be very far off? Maybe some of you remember the old Charlton Heston movie where the government was feeding the population a substance called solyent green made from people and saying it was a sea weed product. Well maybe that would be safe to consume too, but would you want to?
Report abuse
Posted by tinmanrl
03 April 2012 | 17h17
Be informed!
The two greatest dangers to our own health is lack of knowledge, and the FDA, and not in that order. Our very health and well being is being assaulted on a daily basis, thanks to cronyism, in government and business. Ask better questions, don't just ask "what" is in something, ask "why" it's in there. Vote for products with your dollars! That seems to be the only thing they care about.
Report abuse
Posted by WillieG51
03 April 2012 | 13h55
What about Labeling?
Not one mention in the article about the consumers right to be informed. Unsafe or not, why is it not being mandated that LFTB has to be on the label. This is not a “safe or not safe” issue it’s a “be honest with the consumer” issue.
Report abuse
Posted by Lance
03 April 2012 | 02h08
Safety is not the heart of the issue
The issue is that it was hidden from us. From the beginning, we as a public were not informed that we were eating meat previously only fit for DOGS. And, the only way that this product was possible to be fit for human consumption was to spray it with ammonia and then flash freeze it. I'm sure it's perfectly safe. It's also perfectly gross, and we were not given the opportunity to make an informed decision.
If it's so great a thing, a giant leap forward in food safety, why not shout it from the rooftops once the product was introduced?
PR problem indeed.
Report abuse
Posted by Karen
03 April 2012 | 01h55
Food and Healthcare
Food and health are closely related.
One problem with healthcare is that profit remains a main driver.
Are we heading towards an awareness that profit should not be the main driver in food and/or healthcare supply?
The food industry has been in reactive rather than proactive mode for too long on many issues such as the current LFTB.
Report abuse
Posted by Dennis Seisun
02 April 2012 | 19h55
"Safety" is not the Issue
Evidently, the industry as well as journalists fail to get the message or perhaps even comprehend the real issue. “Safety” is NOT the issue. It is ‘safe’ to eat many things (including PlayDoh) but we choose not to. Thanks to those that have brought this product and situation to our attention, consumers now know that LFTB is technically “safe” since it is (and must be) subjected to chemical treatment in order to be so. Basically anything can be bathed in one chemical or another or, irradiated to ensure that pathogens are dead but let us remain real shall we? American consumers want to eat clean wholesome food not dead pathogens.
Secondly, we demand to be informed about anything and everything the food industry does to our food supply and we alone will make decisions as to what we ultimately put into our bodies. There is a long and nefarious litany of foods and or additives we were told were ‘safe’ only to be informed otherwise and having them removed.
Thirdly, I take umbrage to the latest attempt at marginalizing the issue. If these companies allege and maintain that LFTB is simply beef, why must it be chemically treated? Since we do not ‘treat’ all beef in this manner, there is indeed a ‘difference.’ This product has but one purpose, to bolster the bottom line of huge producers or should I dare say, fabricators and, retailers. Evidently, the retailers have heard the message and reacted accordingly…the producers, not so much.
So, what are the next steps? My prediction is that the producers will spend millions in a targeted PR campaign to “educate” the public as to the “safety” of this product…As an business consultant, my free advice is; don’t waste your time as “you can’t un-ring a bell.” They should relinquish a few points of margin and revert to selling this product to pet food companies and move on.
Report abuse
Posted by A. DeRubeis
02 April 2012 | 18h19
Hysteria??
My food money is the biggest part of my budget that has a *choice.*. and I chose to not help corporations to get richer while my/our health suffers. To be so hugely misinformed by corporations that obviously do not have my best interests at hand.. is frustrating to say the least...
Report abuse
Posted by Chris Harmon
02 April 2012 | 17h03
No truth in labeling
Consumers are tired of being mislead about what is actually in our food supply. Unlabeled GMOs, ingredients, or processing and packaging aids which may cause severe allergic reactions, asthma or other illnesses. Harmful chemical additives, which we don't have a clue what they are, or why they are there. And, we don't trust the government or food companies, when they claim something is perfectly safe. Knowing their track records does not lead to trust. So don't blame the consumers for erring on the side of caution. We have a right to know what we are eating, and need truthful labels so we can make informed choices. Forunately, consumers are waking up to the way industry works, and will no longer put blind faith in them looking out for our health and safety. We have to look out for ourselves. If any industries want our trust, they will have to earn it. Truthful labels might be a good start, but I don't really see that happening any time soon.
Report abuse
Posted by DJ
02 April 2012 | 16h58
Message to Food Producers: Just because you can produce something, doesn't mean you should
Despite the fact that in 2002 a former USDA scientist, Gerald Zirnsterin, and another USDA scientist objected to what Zirnsterin called ‘pink slime’ and classified these trimmings as a ‘high risk product,’ the USDA gave the connective tissue mush a green light just the same. While I do believe that the main trimmings producer involved has gone to great lengths to develop wide-ranging and robust safety protocols, this executive and the company have completely missed the point.
No processor or manufacturer should have the arrogance and audacity to take ground-up offal that is only fit for animal feed and to get it put into the human food supply masquerading as 100% ground beef.
The sad thing is I don’t think it a deliberate trick as much as it is that they think it’s fine, the USDA rubber-stamped it, and that’s all these producers really care about. They don’t realize how nasty and revolting this processed product is, and they probably don’t think the public has a right to know that a certain package of ground beef has 15% pink slime in it, but the public does have the right to know and to then make an informed choice based on that knowledge. The term ‘lean, finely textured beef’ makes it sound like a product fit for gourmets rather than an ammonium-bathed mash of connective tissues and offal.
So, at a minimum, it should be labeled as a ‘beef by-product’, regardless of whether the ammonium is listed.
The connecting issue is transparency: industry’s responsibility to disclose and the public’s right to know. The goal behind the development of this product was most assuredly not: Let’s provide consumers with a pure, healthful, unadulterated product.
And more often than not I believe it is not a question of hiding or intentionally tricking consumers, but of not even thinking of consumers at all. I don’t think some industry leader ever said ‘Let them eat slime!,’ but in effect that is what the industry has done with many products. Instead of focusing on serving consumers in a responsible and honorable way, much of industry has been focused on production quotas and profits to the exclusion of the consumer’s right to know what is in his or her food.
Report abuse
Posted by James J. Gormley
02 April 2012 | 16h46
Misinformed Media Hysteria
Again we see an individual promoting a state of fear using no scientific backed data. Once the media begins to perpetuate this fear it becomes a self-sustaining snowball that only grows. Peer reviewed scientific data must be the basis for all food safety issues; not imaginary hype spread by someone with a personal axe to grind. The media needs to be more responsible in verifying what they publish as they have a responsibility to truth not a salicious story. The quality of journalism has declined in the race to scoop others. The time has come to return integrity and truth to journalins.
Report abuse
Posted by Neil Guidry
02 April 2012 | 16h30
Read all comments (16)