Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Michael Goff, Sep 12, 2013.
school lunches were pretty terrible when i was in school, luckily i was allowed to go off campus to buy food.
i've never been to a school that even offered vegetarian options.
It came from the science lab... (cue the Theremin music)
One of the perks of going to a low population school, our food was almost always made from scratch by some amazing lunch ladies. I actually miss school lunch now. Fresh hot bread every day..
From what I have watched on documentaries of school lunches it looks like they serve kids **** anyways these days. I see pizza, pop, and all kinds of other sugary snacks. A little pink slime is just the cherry on top.
I never understood the problem with it. It's as much dead cow as ground beef, right? Same fat and protein, right?
if you eat at fast food you have eaten it. mc's taco bell burger king.
McDonalds, Taco Bell, and Burger King put out a statement last year that they will stop using it. So prior to 2013 if you ate there you have eaten it.
Then you go eat it.
I won't feed my kids what I won't eat. Would you eat this crap on a regular basis?
Why not? What's the health risk?
I won't eat cilantro. But I wouldn't be upset if schools serve cilantro.
There is a difference between me not liking a food due to taste( I don't like lobster) and eating very low quality food.
Going to small school I saw the same thing.
I also have seen this. It saddens me that junk food is consider junk food in public schools theses days. Where did the First Lady or common sense these days?
Well, define "low quality".
Does it have a different fat/protein/etc content? Harmful chemicals that regular beef doesn't have?
You do realize why they have to use Ammonium Hydroxide, right?
What's low quality about it? Honestly, I'd like to know. Does it have a high percentage of indigestible connective tissue perhaps, and is therefore filler more than anything else? Does it have any toxins? Does it have more fat, salt, or whatever than ground beef?
Read up on it.
Wikepedia says: "In food production, ammonium hydroxide is used as a leavening agent or acidity regulator and is classified by the Food and Drug Administration as generally recognized as safe (GRAS). Its pH control abilities make it an effective antimicrobial agent."
Sounds like the objections to it can be boiled down to "eww." It's not less nutritious, it's not higher in fat or salt or anything, it contains no toxins...
It's still low quality. As you stated, it's filler. It's trimmings that we wouldn't typically eat. What's so nutritious about trimmings?
You're right, it isn't really worse than the rest of our food in the US.
That being said, the rest of the food in the US is rather low quality.
But I didn't state that it's filler. I asked IF it's filler. And so far, it doesn't appear to be filler based on the Wikipedia articles. (In the sense of "filler" as I used it - for example, some fiber product that contains no nutrition at all, and is just there to increase the volume of a product. Although such fiber products can actually be good for our digestion, even if they bring no fat, protein or vitamins of their own.) It's as much beef as ground beef is beef, as much as filet mignon is beef. Heck, it's probably MORE nutritious than filet mignon due to lower fat content and higher protein content. Everything I've read suggests it's exactly as nutritious as lean beef. If your objection to pink slime is based on nutrition, you should be objecting against ground beef and steak just as strongly.
You'll get no argument from me about that. I do try to read the label of everything I buy at the grocery store, and get the least processed items I can. And while I do eat out at restaurants a lot, I try to cook at home a lot too.
PS are the parts of the cow that used to be to dangerous or unsavory for human consumption. Philosophically, it's what's left over after someone who pays the most, gets what they want, the bi products.
The unsavoryness is corrected by grinding it down to a slurry and adding flavorings. The dangers are corrected by adding chemicals. The chemicals are considered processing agents and don't need to be listed as ingredients.
In terms of health, the question is whether it has the benefits of traditional beef and doesn't add detriments in the process. Like most things scientific, it takes special training to really understand. So the question is, do we trust the people who do - the people making, selling, and regulating it?
In all my reading about pink slime, I've never hear any claim about it coming from dangerous parts of cattle. Or having flavorings added. Do you have a link to any sources discussing those?
Guess what spicy tuna rolls (sushi) are made from? Basically the tuna equivalent of pink slime.
Right, this is what I'm asking about.
If you were to take regular ground beef (like 80/20 which is what I assume schools use because it's cheap) and compare it at a nutritional (and toxin) level to pink slime, is there a difference?
I don't understand the pseudo-debate being waged?
If you want to eat pink slime, or have your kids eat it, press on.
As for myself or my family, we prefer minimally processed food as we "feel" it is healthier for us and for the environment. No proof. Nor do I care.
Eat your pink slime. All of it.
And let me source my food elsewhere.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing about hot dogs. This is not a new idea, just an idea taken to a new extent. Guess we're going to have decide where the line is.
Here are a few reads that pop up from a search for 'pink slime flavorings':
Think I'll skip lunch today :/
From what I can tell, those three links mention the ammonia used to process the pink slime, which has already been brought up, but there's no indication of the parts of cattle it comes from being dangerous, nor of any flavor issues except perhaps the ammonia being too strong.