NY Times Article: Pink Slime Beef

Back in December, the New York Times published it's article on beef processing, Safety of Beef Processing Method Is Questioned, and people have been rethinking their consumption of ground beef ever since. In a shortsighted industry solution to an industry problem of E. coli and salmonella, a major meat processor has been using ammonia (a substance classified by EU as "irritant", "corrosive", or danger to the environment" dependent on it's concentration) in an effort to kill pathogens without actually reducing levels of contamination in beef. This processed beef-like substance, referred to as "pink slime," has made it's way into the majority of fast food burgers and into school lunches. Grist.org food editor Tom Philpott wrote a predictably smart and angry piece in response. From his Lessons on the food system from the ammonia hamburger fiasco:

To make a long story short: Beef Products buys the cheapest, least desirable beef on offer—fatty sweepings from the slaughterhouse floor, which are notoriously rife with pathogens like E. coli 0157 and antibiotic-resistant salmonella. It sends the scraps through a series of machines, grinds them into a paste, separates out the fat, and laces the substance with ammonia to kill pathogens.

Sustainable Nutrition Bottom-line: Pink slime, of course, is not healthy for us or the planet. Factory farmed beef is the largest environmental polluter in the food system (see previous posts Changing Climate Change or Meat's Deep Eco Footprint ) and the end product is high in saturated fat and goodness knows what else. A better choice for dinner would be grass fed beef or bison—higher in healthy fats like omega 3 and conjugated linoleic acid. Or choose beans—inexpensive, high in protein, fiber, and antioxidants, and low in fat and impact.

50% less Meat

The next twenty minutes you have free, you should watch this online video of food writer Mark Bittman on TED. Bittman’s work has been featured in an earlier blog post: “Meat’s Deep Eco-Footprint”.

The Center for a Livable Future explains:

He calls attention to the lop-sided USDA food pyramid, the contribution of
industrial food animal production to climate change, and gives a pretty good
recap of how the American diet has changed in the last century.

Many gems can be found in this short segment. He connects the hyperconsumption of animal products and junk food to our health and climate crisis as well as the “death of the real community.” On the subject of nutritionism he says, “Its not the beta-carotene, it’s the carrot.”
He also proposes American’s cut their meat consumption in half and that we stop raising animals industrially and "stop eating them thoughtlessly". Bravo!

We all need to act individually and collectively if we want to improve the world we live in. Eating less meat and more plants is an individual action that, collectively, can have major impact.

Animal products are not needed for health, but they can be a part of a healthy diet. Animals raised right, such as grass fed beef and bison, can actually improve an ecosystem. But our planet cannot support our current (and growing)meat habit.

Sustainable Nutrition Recommendation:

If you eat animal products, choose small amounts of appropriately raised meat- grass fed beef and bison, organic pastured chicken and eggs, heritage pigs fed a varied diet, and wild fish not at risk of extinction.

Food Safety Needs Proactive Approach

The 143,000,000 pounds of meat recalled last month sparked quite a debate. But while legislators cry outrage, the food industry seems to be lobbying quite successfully for the status quo to remain in place; aiming to patch holes in the dam of swelling food hazards.

Food Navigator (an online Food & Beverage Industry media outlet) reported "last week the US House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a meeting to discuss which measures work best in safeguarding the nation's food supply. It was attended by representatives of leading companies in the food processing industry....The Committee urged food manufacturers to provide serious recommendations and strongly support legislation to ensure the safety of the nation's food."

Now the US Grocery Manufacturers Association is recommending congress increase funding for the FDA's food safety inspection and testing. In a recent press release the GMA outlines their proposed plan:

-A requirement that every food company have in place a mandatory foreign supplier quality assurance program to ensure that foods and food ingredients arriving on American shores from overseas meet food company and federal government standards.

-Food companies will voluntarily share confidential test results, laboratory data and sourcing information with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) so that the government can focus its limited resources on high-risk products and countries, such as China.

-The federal government, in consultation with the food industry, will work with foreign governments to raise overseas food safety standards and improve the quality of food and ingredients processed overseas.

-We have asked Congress and the Bush Administration to double the FDA food safety budget over the next five years to allow the agency to hire more inspectors and scientists, upgrade its antiquated information systems and expand its laboratory and testing capability.

-We have called for the establishment of new regulations governing the harvesting and processing of fresh fruits and vegetables to cut down on food-borne outbreaks.


Of the five recommendations the GMA makes, three focus on the hazards of imports. This effectively diverts attention from our significant national problems. Quality is inherently at risk in a globalized food system, and food manufacturers must address this if they continue to import more food from far away, but current mandatory food safety & quality assurance standards have failed in our own country, why expand the same ineffective rules to a larger system?

In the fourth recommendation, the GMA asks the government to allocate more money for inspectors and testing and the last recommends increased regulation for fruits and vegetables.

None of these recommendations deal with the hazards that U.S. factory farms pose to food safety. In our current paradigm, cattle are raised in such high-stress settings with such poor nutrition, that the animals are at higher risk of disease. The wide spread use of antibiotics aims to stem the tide of infection, but medicine can’t replace the benefit of fresh grass to eat and space to roam for these herbivores. Factory farming and high volume slaughterhouses/processing plants create more problems than increased inspection and testing could ever hope to solve. The waste of factory farms then runs off into waterways that are used for irrigation, fishing, swimming, and drinking. Is this not a serious food safety issue?

To continue our national policy of cheap food in general and cheap meat specifically is a food safety issue in and of itself.

The position paper of the American Dietetic Association on Food and water safety acknowledges the importance of safe food and water for the health of a population. Historically dietitians have seemed to focus mostly the food safety issues of hand washing and safe internal temperature for cooking meats, but a growing number of dietitians are beginning to expand the conversation to include more proactive approaches to keeping consumers safe and well fed. Increased advocacy for safety includes working towards a clean food system.

Bottom Line: The best option for safe and clean food is to reduce our dependence on an unsafe system. While much of the recalled beef has already been eaten by schoolchildren there are proactive steps to take. Get to know your farmers. Learn to cook local, seasonal foods. Buy grass-fed beef. Eat more vegetarian meals.

Visit a website like http://www.foodroutes.org/ or Marion Nestle's blog http://www.whattoeatbook.com/to start.