Controversies Surrounding Pink Slime - Essay Example

Controversies Surrounding Pink Slime Introduction Pink slime is the terminology used to refer to lean finely textured beef product made from the remains of beef cattle carcass after the normally consumed products have been extracted. South-Dakota-based Beef Products Inc. manufactures the pink slimes. The product was previously set aside for dog food production. meat used to make pink slime is largely made from connective tissue as well as fat and is said to contain loads of pathogens thus it is a reject in the normal beef market. The product is processed by heating, centrifuging, adding ammonium hydroxide, and then freezing the carcass remains. Addition of ammonia serves to kill the bacteria such as E. coli and Salmonella. The pink slime forms a variety of product especially in the United States. Products containing pink slime include ground beef, burgers, just to mention but a few. The pink Slime contains reduced fat content thus it is added to ground beef to lower the fat content. Generally, most products made from ground beef contain a considerable percentage of pink slime. The controversy arises since most people feel that the pink slim is unhygienic for human consumption due to the high levels of bacterial is said to posses. Some people argue that the controversy did not arise from the composition of the pink slime but the negative branding of the product by media that created anxiety amongst the Americans. This paper focuses on the controversy on whether pink slime is fit for human consumption and the role played by the media in heightening the controversy. Background of the Pink Slime Controversy The term pink slime was coined a biologist called Gerald Zirnstein in 2002 due to the use of ammonium hydroxide in processing of this product. Initially the term was only used publicly in reference to food packaged for dogs. However, the media outlets created a phobia throughout United States when they made a claim that almost all meat products comprised some amount of Pink Slime. Following this media disclosure, a good number of beef processing industries have been forced to shut their business due to the controversy. Individuals as well as institutions such as schools have raised several arguments over the quality and appropriateness of the pink slime consumption (Drahl Web). Currently, the phrase pink slime is used to define a different type of ground meat different from the habitual ground meat in that it was prepared from fatty crumbs, connective tissue and hides, which were remnants of beef carcasses after steaks and roasts, had been extracted. The issue of slime mould caused many questions among the American particularly on the role of government in protecting the quality and safety of their food (“A Fight About Beef: Why to Avoid Pink Slime’” Web; Drahl Web). Arguments Surrounding the Pink Slime Debate The American have a reason and the right to know the security of product that they consumer. However, the deliberations on slime meat have been stuffed with distortions and propaganda, which could be either true or fictitious. Straightforwardly, the half-truths have had negative impacts particularly on the beef processing industry since Americans now scrutinize all beef products with panic. This is quite a disservice to the people who have to dread that which they ones treasured due to what the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) christen as misinformation (Boffey Web; Drahl Web). Test have been done on samples from the product by private laboratories and proofed that there are no Salmonella or E. coli bacteria as challengers of this product claim. Agricultural Department, which acknowledges use of pink slime, has also verified there has never been any outbreak of bacterial diseases or food poisoning that was attributed to use of pink slime. According to Russell, (Web) the lean finely texture beef (LFTB) is purely beef with only low residual level. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and USDA have echoed Russell’s claim and added that the residual level in LFTB is limited and thus, the public has no reason to fear. The United States Department of Agriculture has expressed it reservations on the large percentage of beef that will have to go into waste if the propaganda on LFTB is not terminated soon. USDA adds that the extra cost of increasing the beef cattle to add up to the losses will be an additional burden on American taxpayers (Russell Web). However it is not clear if the declaration by the USDA are only meant to entice Americans to continue using the disputed product. Nevertheless, the clear implication is that pink slime is not pure beef but it has some residual, which have been treated with ammonia to kill pathogens. Another clear point is that rejection of pink slime could lead to great losses to the beef industry. The losses could be because the beef industry might have to reconsider the use of beef residues. Another source of loss could arise due to the phobia that American might develop towards all beef products (Tomson, Mark, and Ian Web). The fact that other countries particularly in Europe have banned consumption of pink slime amplifies the gravity of the controversy. U.S government has continued to support the claim that Pink Slime is safe for human consumption. The question on why U.S government does not consider pink slime as harmful while the European Union refutes its usage is still a mystery. Another debatable issue is the risks associated with Pink Slime that are yet to be ascertained. It is important that the U.S. government considers this issue more seriously and deal with it fully in order to keep whole society out of harm from the possible harmful effects that the pink slime might have on human (Tomson, Mark, and Ian Web; Russell Web). Those opposed to use of pink slime argue that the only controversy is not on the bits and pieces used to make the pink slime but also on the issue of using ammonium hydroxide in killing the pathogens in the meat trimmings. Some of the media outlets argued that ammonium hydroxide is not only harmful to humans but cannot eliminate all the bacterial particularly E. coli and Salmonella. The doubts on the efficacy of the treatment of pink slime with ammonium hydroxide to kill pathogen were increased by the realization that processed pink slime was still prone to infection by several pathogens (McWilliams Web; Russell Web). The seriousness of the problem was augmented by the actuality that student enrolled for school lunch program were consuming the disputed pink slime. Schools receive their meet supply from U.S Department of Agriculture at no cost. However, the percentage of the beef that is usually pink slime is not yet clear. The controversy on whether school should continue using the dubious product is still a question to be decided by the school districts. However, persons have raised concern over the issue of inclusion of pink slime in school diet with others such as MS. Siegel filing petition over this issue (Shah Web; McWilliams Web). Another controversy arising is on whether the disputation of pink slime is due to the nickname or its source. Some people feel that the heated discussion on the safety of pink slime arose due to the media intrusion and labelling the product as pink slime (Boffey Web). Prior to medial, disclosure on the processing of this product, people were consuming it comfortably thinking it was the regular ground beef. It is thus questionable if the product is as harmful as the media argues or the euphoria is only due to media outcry. There has not been any infirmity that has been linked to pink slime consumption, which makes the media insight controversial (Boffey Web; Tomson, Mark, and Ian Web; Shah Web). The controversy has already led to closure of some plants that deal with meat processing. The plants that have suspended their operations include Texas, Kansas, and Iowa. However, the pink slime processing company hope that people will find out the truth and restart to appreciate their products (“A Fight About Beef: Why to Avoid Pink Slime’” Web; Shah Web). Conclusion The intensity of the controversy surrounding the processing and consumption of lean finely texture beef (LFTB) requires to be addressed with more genuineness. From the squabble between those advocating for continued use of pink slime and opponents of the issue, it is clear that none of the party fully understands the impacts of the product. Those backing the production of pink slime argue that it is fine for human consumption in view of the fact that it is almost similar to the ordinary ground beef given. They insist that the small amount of residue added is first processed such that all the pathogens are eliminated, which makes it suitable for human consumption. On the contrary, the opponents of pink slime posit that the use of ammonium hydroxide in processing of pink slime is conniving since the chemical could be harmful to the consumers. Consumption of lean finely texture beef (LFTB) was not an issue until the media disclosed that the beef industry was selling to people products previously used as dog feed. The pink slimes, which had been part of school, lunch program with no negation had to be withdrawn not only from the school food programme but also from the glossaries in many parts of United States. The issue of pink slime is a dispute not only on United States but also in Europe. However, European Union has already declared its stance by disapproving use of pink lime for Human consumption. It is thus contentious why United States Department of Agriculture and other government bodies insist that the product is safe for human utilization. As consequence, the suitability of pink slime for human consumption is an issue that require more research since neither the opponents nor the supporters of its usage seem to have concrete facts. Works Cited “A Fight About Beef: Why to Avoid Pink Slime." New York Times 21 May 2012: 22. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21cJune 2012. Boffey, Philip. "What if It Werent Called Pink Slime?" New York Times 13 May 2012: 12. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 June 2012. Drahl, Carmen. "Pink Slime." Chemical & Engineering News 90.17 (2012): 40. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 June 2012. McWilliams, James E. "The Myth of Sustainable Meat”. New York Times 13 Apr. 2012: 31. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 June 2012. Russell, Cross. "No need for labelling." USA Today n.d.: Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 June 2012. Shah, Nirvi. "USDA Decides To Let Schools Decide Whether Pink Slime Is On The Menu." Education Week 31.26 (2012): 6. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 June 2012. Tomson, Bill, Mark-Peters, and Ian Berry. "Pink Slime Defenders Line Up." Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition 29 Mar. 2012: B1+.Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 June 2012. Read More