The McDonalds Interview simply contains the claim by the McCEO that the photo is from a plant in china. She makes no statement about who took the photo, what it depicts, where specifically it was taken, when it was taken, or any information about how she came by any information about said image.
The news report you link contains no information about the image its self or it source. It simple utilizes the image as part of a fairly standard report on the pink slime controversy.
The Forbes article quote from BPI again simple states the image is actually chicken (a common claim given it was first widely publishes as a supposed image of MSC).
None of these links provide any sourcing for the image it self. Or vital context that would allow a third party to confirm any of the claims for its content. And I haven’t seen a single source of any sort that does. Given that the setting of the photo does not resemble a meat processing facility (even one in China). That the handling of the meat of does not match with industrial meat packing standards (even in China). That the product depicted does not resemble other images of mechanically separated chicken, photographed in actual industrial meat packing facilities. And only resembles lean finely textured only in a color resemblance. The default assumption (lacking a robust confirmable source) is that it isn’t either of those things. Personally I doubt its an image of a meat product at all. Both LFTB and MSC are technically forcemeats. And given the subjects apparent properties would be the same. Force meats don’t act that that, even when very cold. They smear, plop, and spread. They leave residue behind. When they cold enough to stop doing those things they become hard, and brittle, and would be unlikely to “rope” like that.
Beyond I have not at anypoint, disputed that pink slime, or mechanically separated chicken do not exist. And I have made no statements as to their danger, quality, or the ethics of their use. I haven’t made any statements about industrial food at all. So you’ve have no call to make assumptions about my opinions on these subjects.I might agree with you. I might not. I might believe all forcemeats are a sinful example of idleness. I might believe food is unnecessary for human life if we just belive in Spuds McKenzie hard enough.
The fact is the image (or more specifically its use, and claims that it represents anything specific) is hoaxy because we have no quality information about what is in that photo. We can not say for certain what it depicts. It could be something worse than MSC or LFTB. It could be new Slurm Pink TM. It could be bubble gum. We don’t know. So people should stop using it. If your goal is to examine, expose, demonize, or support industrial food the use of a scare mongering image of uncertain source or content only undermines the arguement. There are real images of this stuff, in situ, out there. Use them. Rather than images of some chicken paste Jamie Oliver made in a food processor or an image we know nothing about.
As to claims of a pre-determined mind set: If anyone can give me a decent, confirmed (or confirmable) source for the image I will say thank you. I’ve been curious about this for a long time, and have found nothing substantial. There’s nothing pre-determined about that. Swearing up down the image depicts x despite lack of evidence of such, combine with the fact that you seem bent on arguing something else entirely indicates you’ve got a very particular agenda.
