Pink goop in Chicken McNuggets?

boing
46

I’d ask you for a source on that. Preferably multiple reliable sources. I’ve been periodically checking for several years and haven’t been able to find a reliable confirmation of where the image is from and what it depicts. I have however seen other images of pink slime, and mechanically separated chicken that do not resemble this substance, read accounts from meat packers, as well as from people who attempted to track down the images source. Its been suggested its everything from marshmallow, to some sort of gum material, to a construction product. At no point have I seen a good, confirmable claim that its origins and content had been pin pointed. Even this Huffington Post article:

Notes the total lack of source, and attempts to tie the image (which they removed) to confirmed images of the substance. You’ll notice the major similarity is in color. In other regards the substance in the viral image does not resemble the confirmed images in the least. And if the Huffington Post, bastion of journalistic integrity and standards is can’t justify backing the image then there really must be a problem with it.

So basically we seem to have no confirmable info on the image itself. That’s what makes it a functional hoax. An unpleasant photo of who knows what, present as a handful of things we don’t like to confirm why we don’t like them. The image is often presented as what ever we’re claiming it is this week despite the wide spread knowledge that the only thing we know about it is that it likely doesn’t depict what it’s claimed to.

47

Are you really saying that you don’t see any difference between the neon pink obviously-not-meat color in the debunked photo and the pinkish-beige exactly-the-same-color-as unground-chicken color in your photo?

You may want to get checked for color blindness.

Also, your photo is from Jamie Oliver’s show where he ground up chicken in a food processor to make chicken nuggets. It’s not the beef product that’s referred to as pink slime and it’s not an industrial product.

49
Citations or it didn't happen. It's your argument, you prove it.

The interesting thing is (if one is to peruse this thread), I’m one of the only posters to back myself up with many sources (go look). Yet, you guys that keep claiming that the photo isn’t showing pink slime have provided nothing to back up your claims. Zilch.

How about you guys put your noses to the grindstone for once?

50

You probably need to be aware of the meat umbrella.

51

I am aware of the meat umbrella technique (I think I first saw it on this Lifehacker post). The meat umbrella is indeed fantastic, but I prefer to savour my wings, and I don’t particularly care if my beer hand gets dirty :slight_smile: My wings end up about as clean as the meat umbrella technique there, but I take a bit more time to do it (because really, what’s the rush?)

1 Like
52

debunked photo

Please show me where the photo has been debunked?

You may want to get checked for color blindness.

No reason to get nasty about it, grumpy single purpose account.

They are both under different lighting, but very much pink. One is in a television studio and the other is in the harsh light of a factory. But, what anyone can see is they both have a very similar tone and while the industrial pink slime is far more refined than the homemade pink slime (as one would expect), they share a very similar consistency as well.

53

“Similar consistency”? The substance at right appears to be substantially more self-supporting than the substance at left.

54
I did Google it. I found one reference to it in "cafemom.com". If that's your sauce as well, then your standard of evidence is pretty low.

Let’s see, it was a fluffy interview with the CEO of McDonald’s. It was a fluff piece defending McDonald’s, so it’s not from an activist website that’s biased against them and the writer has a picture of herself with the CEO during the interview:

I think the problem you have is not with the source itself, but the fact that some of the content of the interview doesn’t fit within your pre-determined mindset.

“It is actually a meat production plant in China that we don’t even use"

  • Jan Fields, McDonalds CEO

SamSam, the photo is not a hoax, it’s mechanically separated chicken just as the initial website Boing Boing linked to said it was.

But I honestly thought you had a real reference (since you cited so many other things)

That’s the funny thing. I’m pretty much the only one supporting myself with references in this thread, yet I’m the one who is suspect. I find that as laughable as it is lazy on the part of my detractors.

But, apparently I’m the only one capable of finding sources, so here goes:

@Ryuthrowsstuff :

At no point have I seen a good, confirmable claim that its origins and content had been pin pointed

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/2013/10/19/3044041/#

KSDK-TV

…Treating scrap meat with ammonium hydroxide creates a pink goo that is used to extend meat products like chicken and beef and to kill bacteria. "

Also, here it is from the Beef Products Incorporated:

…A common photo used by most news organizations is actually a photo of chicken and is not beef…” … Indeed, the company contends, the public is not seeing beef when they see so-called pink slime. “The image spreading on the Internet is not beef,” it says in its “Top 8 Myths of ‘Pink Slime.’ ”

I’m sure instead of thanking me for doing your research for you SamSam, etc. none of my sources will satisfy the pre-detemined mindset, but so be it. I’m sure the photo has been used incorrectly to represent different processes including errantly shown as beef, but that’s doesn’t make the picture itself a “hoax” or a “fake” as the industry would like us all to believe. It’s “pink slime” from chicken.

Meanwhile, you guys keep eating up industry talking points, I wonder why?

http://annelandmanblog.com/2012/03/18/pink-slime-manufacturer-starts-new-website-pinkslimeisamyth-com-usda-backs-off-pushing-pink-slime-in-schools/

2 Likes
55

“Similar consistency”? The substance at right appears to be substantially more self-supporting than the substance at left.

I guess you missed the part where I mentioned the industrial pink slime is obviously far more refined than the homemade pink slime. Of course the homemade pink slime isn’t going to be as blended as finely as the industrial kind. I showed there’s similarities. Anyone without a pre-determined mindset can see them.

The homemade pink slime isn’t exactly runny, is it?

Your skepticism is bunk anyway. All any of you had to do was a modicum of research to find sources that say the image on the right is industrial pink slime from mechanically separated chicken.

56

grumpy single purpose account.

  1. I’m an Infrequent Poster, but I’ve been here for years. Calling me a “single purpose account” is just one more example of you spouting complete lies about things you know nothing about.

  2. Beef is not chicken. The substance called “pink slime” is beef.

  3. The colors and textures are very different between the two photos. Putting them side by side really undermines your attempt to show that they’re the same. Now I’m not only question your ability to distinguish colors, but your ability to see shape and texture as well.

57

I’m an Infrequent Poster, but I’ve been here for years.

I apologize, I was wrong. I should have searched your name on boingboing first since we changed over to a newer bbs.

Beef is not chicken. The substance called “pink slime” is beef.

Sure, industry likes to call the beef process “pink slime” and try to use that as a talking point to distract from the fact that the photo of the chicken paste is not “fake” or a “hoax”. Industry would rather focus on trite semantics than the fact that the pink goo is put into our food products.

The truth of the matter is no matter what you call the photo of the mechanically separated chicken goo, it’s a real photo and it is the contents of everything from hotdogs to bologna to chicken nuggets.

Sometimes mechanically separated chicken, etc. is also called “white slime” which is analogous to “pink slime”. It’s also been commonly called “pink goo” or “pink goop”.

‘White Slime’ Chicken Sickens Tenn. Inmates, CDC says

It’s also sometimes referred to in the media and elsewhere as “the chicken version of pink slime”:

“Mechanically Separated Chicken” is the Fowl Equivalent of “Pink Slime”

Doo Doo Chicken: the New Pink Slime

Toxic Chicken Is the New Pink Slime

Once again, the photo isn’t a “fake” or a “hoax”, it’s a slimy pink goo used in our food supply.

Now I’m not only question your ability to distinguish colors, but your ability to see shape and texture as well.

Thanks for being rude to me (once again).

Sorry, but color sampling trumps your opinion. They are both just different shades of pink:

Deal with it.

The colors and textures are very different between the two photos

I already showed by examples in this thread of the similarities, but you obviously only want to focus like a narrow laser on the differences. I never said or implied that they were exactly the same in every way. Only someone being purposefully obtuse would keep implying that.

I’ve noted similarities. You won’t see them and can apparently only see differences. The funny thing is I’m able to note the differences and the similarities while you are not. That’s very telling of your mindset.

your ability to see shape and texture as well.

Why would homemade pink slime (or pink goo or whatever you prefer to call it) being scooped and dumped by hand into a container have the same shape as industrial pink slime being forced from a pressurized nozzle?

The industrial pink slime is obviously more refined than the homemade pink slime. Of course the homemade pink slime isn’t going to be as blended as finely as the industrial kind. I shown that there’s similarities. Anyone without a pre-determined mindset can see them.

Your skepticism is bunk anyway. All any of you had to do was perform a modicum of research to find sources that say the infamous image of pink slime is industrial pink slime from mechanically separated chicken. Or, once again, call it “pink goo”, “pink goop”, “pink shit”… or "the Fowl Equivalent of “Pink Slime”.

Whatever you want to call it, industry has been increasingly pressured to remove it from our human food supply and most people are happy about it.

58

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.

59

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.

The CEO of McDonald’s who is the head of a multinational corporation that deals with meat sources worldwide has confirmed it was from a meat plant in China.

Beef Products, Incorporated which is one of the world’s largest producers of meat has confirmed it’s chicken.

At what point do you start using common sense and stop referring to a photo as a hoax?

Given that the setting of the photo does not resemble a meat processing facility (even one in China).

Prove it. Where’s your sources?

That the handling of the meat of does not match with industrial meat packing standards (even in China).

It’s obvious to anyone with common sense that the overflowing pink slime wasn’t being put into the box for packaging. It was obviously being put on display for the camera. Please stop insulting my intelligence.

And, once again, the CEO of McDonald’s who is the head of a multinational corporation that deals with meat sources worldwide has confirmed it was from a plant in China.

Where is your sources that says she’s wrong? You’re not much on sources, are you?

That the product depicted does not resemble other images of mechanically separated chicken, photographed in actual industrial meat packing facilities.

That’s false.

In what planet do you live in that the meat industry is transparent enough to readily offer photos of every part of the process of mechanically separated chicken in all its stages and forms? It’s not easy, but fortunately, I was able to find a legitimate sampling of mechanically separated chicken in various forms:

Above is an image of mechanically separated chicken. Note that two of the three raw globs are quite pink and very much match that of the pink slime photo in question.

This image comes from an article written in 2005 via University of Georgia professor Daniel Fletcher, who is “highly regarded and respected by poultry instructors and researchers in industry, government, and academia,” according to the World’s Poultry Science Association, which inducted him into its Hall of Fame in 2008.

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

Hoaxy?

Beef Products, Incorporated which is one of the world’s largest producers of meat has confirmed it’s chicken. The CEO of McDonald’s who is the head of a multinational corporation that deals with meat sources worldwide has confirmed it was from a meat plant in China.

There’s nothing “hoaxy” about that. What’s “hoaxy” is the fact that you’re claiming something is a hoax without providing evidence and sources to back yourself up.

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. … It could be bubble gum. We don’t know.

You are swearing up and down an image doesn’t depict that it’s chicken goo (without showing sources) despite the fact that Beef Products, Incorporated (which is one of the world’s largest producers of meat) has confirmed it’s chicken. Also, why would the CEO of McDonald’s say it’s from a meat production facility in China if it was anything but meat?

I’ve now also shown you an image that shows its resemblance to an image of mechanically separated chicken:

But, I have a feeling you’ll still make unsupported, unsourced claims that it still looks nothing like mechanically separated chicken and it’s “hoaxy”, correct?

What do you suggest the image is at this point beyond what the Beef Products, Incorporated says? And, please explain to me why Beef Products, Incorporated (again, one of the world’s largest producers of meat) wouldn’t simply say they didn’t know what it was if it wasn’t chicken?

Please provide sources to back this up while you’re at it.

you’ve got a very particular agenda.

Yes, it’s called being factual, providing sources and using common sense in the face of those who would simply embrace industry talking points and leave it at that.

1 Like
60

[quote=“Cowicide, post:55, topic:21806”]I guess you missed the part where I mentioned the industrial pink slime is obviously far more refined than the homemade pink slime. Of course the homemade pink slime isn’t going to be as blended as finely as the industrial kind.[/quote]Yes? And shouldn’t stuff that is better-blended have less ability to support itself, not more?

[quote]The homemade pink slime isn’t exactly runny, is it?[/quote]Really now, that GIF you made shows the stuff after it has been mixed with generous quantities of egg and flour.

[quote]Also, why would the CEO of McDonald’s say it’s from a meat production facility in China if it was anything but meat?[/quote]Could it be that she was sufficiently desperate to say anything that she was willing to resort to poorly-substantiated hearsay passed up the line from some underling?

61

Also, why would the CEO of McDonald’s say it’s from a meat production facility in China if it was anything but meat?

Could it be that she was sufficiently desperate to say anything that she was willing to resort to poorly-substantiated hearsay passed up the line from some underling?

Yes, or perhaps aliens came down and zapped her brain. Have you ever heard of Occam’s razor?

You conveniently left out the fact that Beef Products, Inc. (which is one of the world’s largest producers of meat) has confirmed it’s chicken.

Do you have a similar excuse for BFI as well that’s supposed to be believed?

Grasping straws, my friend… grasping straws…

Really now, that GIF you made shows the stuff after it has been mixed with generous quantities of egg and flour.

You’re dead wrong. Re-watch the video more carefully. The clip is from 3 mins 12 secs. He has only added a food stabilizer (not egg and flour) and flavoring at this point in the video similar to what’s done with industrial pink slime… educate yourself.

He only later puts some bread crumbs on it (there’s your egg and flour) at 3 min 18 secs.

But, I suppose you won’t admit error here either.

Yes? And shouldn’t stuff that is better-blended have less ability to support itself, not more?

His homemade blend is mixed with his bare hands with his own stabilizer which isn’t going to be the same patented industrial stabilizers mixed with an industrial machine. Of course there’s going to be some differences.

You keep desperately grasping for straws because homemade pink slime (or goo) doesn’t exhibit the exact, same properties of industrial goo. Something I’ve never claimed or alluded to in the first place.

I only noted some similarities, but nowhere have I claimed that homemade pink slime is going to exhibit the exact, same properties of industrial pink slime. You’re making a false argument in replace of a rational one.

The telling thing is that I’m able to note the differences and the similarities while you are not able to even admit the most minor of similarities. That says a lot about you and putting your ego ahead of rational discussion.

At this point, we’ll just have to agree to disagree that there’s no similarities whatsoever between the homemade chicken goo and industrial chicken goo in color and consistency.

Once again, your skepticism is bunk anyway. All you had to do was a modicum of research to find sources that say the image is industrial pink slime from mechanically separated chicken.

Also, take a long, hard look at this:

Look above, the image on the left is raw, mechanically separated chicken. Note that the raw globs are quite pink and very much match that of the pink slime photo in question.

This image comes from an article written in 2005 via University of Georgia professor Daniel Fletcher, who is “highly regarded and respected by poultry instructors and researchers in industry, government, and academia,” according to the World’s Poultry Science Association, which inducted him into its Hall of Fame in 2008.

Oh… and check this out… hahahaha…

Nice debating with you.

1 Like
62

Oh great, now McDonalds have ruined the “What part of the chicken is a McNugget” bit for lazy stand-up comedians everywhere…

63

[quote=“Cowicide, post:61, topic:21806”]You conveniently left out the fact that Beef Products, Inc. (which is one of the world’s largest producers of meat) has confirmed it’s chicken.[/quote]Except they, too, have done precious little to substantiate their claim aside from supplying their own photo and saying “This is beef”. The provenance of the photo in question remains elusive.

[quote]The clip is from 3 mins 12 secs. He has only added a food stabilizer (not egg and flour) and flavoring at this point[/quote]Fine, that’s what it looked like when I watched the video. It’s still a lot more than ground meat at that point.

[quote]You keep desperately grasping for straws because homemade pink slime (or goo) doesn’t exhibit the exact, same properties of industrial goo. Something I’ve never claimed or alluded to in the first place.[/quote]Actually, you said “while the industrial pink slime is far more refined than the homemade pink slime (as one would expect), they share a very similar consistency as well.” I do not think they share the same consistency, which is why I replied.

64

The provenance of the photo in question remains elusive.

I think when both the McDonald’s CEO and one of the world’s largest meat producers confirms it’s chicken meat from a plant in China, it’s not very elusive. Then once you combine that with the fact it looks just like mechanically separated chicken as well, it’s fairly obvious what it is and it becomes far more of a stretch to call it a “hoax” picture.

If it looked nothing like actual samples of mechanically separated chicken, then I’d agree with you. But, it very much does look like a confirmed sample of it as I’ve shown. It’s also no mystery to me why there isn’t some official credit for the photo, most of the industry is very opaque.

It’s still a lot more than ground meat at that point.

No, there’s not. Just stabilizer and flavoring. And, that’s beside the point… As I showed you, industry adds stabilizers as well and certainly doesn’t mix it in by hand like he did.

Actually, you said “while the industrial pink slime is far more refined than the homemade pink slime (as one would expect), they share a very similar consistency as well.” I do not think they share the same consistency, which is why I replied.

Read my quote again, I didn’t say it was the “same consistency”, I said it was “very similar”. But, once again, we’ll just have to agree to disagree there as well.

65

[quote=“Cowicide, post:64, topic:21806”]I think when both the McDonald’s CEO and one of the world’s largest meat producers confirms it’s chicken meat from a plant in China, it’s not very elusive.[/quote]For all we know, “one of the world’s largest meat producers” – or rather, their PR flack – was just parroting the unsourced line from the McDonald’s CEO. If people really knew where this picture came from, someone would have managed to dig up a lot more information about it by now.

[quote]Then once you combine that with the fact it looks just like mechanically separated chicken as well[/quote]I don’t think it does.

[quote]As I showed you, industry adds stabilizers as well and certainly doesn’t mix it in by hand like he did.[/quote]We certainly have no way of knowing exactly what was added to the specifically pictured industrial product, even if someone at some point filed some kind of patent.

66

For all we know, “one of the world’s largest meat producers” – or rather, their PR flack – was just parroting the unsourced line from the McDonald’s CEO.

Revisit Occam’s razor once again. For all we know… aliens, dude.

If people really knew where this picture came from, someone would have managed to dig up a lot more information about it by now.

People really do know where the picture came from. Once again, see the McDonald’s CEO interview. It’s from a meat production plant in China. See the BFI interview and look at the Fletcher sample. It’s chicken. :smiley:

Once again, it’s no mystery to me (not sure why it is to you?) why there isn’t some official credit for the photo and more details, most of the industry is very opaque.

A Chinese company that makes controversial pink slime isn’t going to suddenly shift gears and become transparent after a controversial, leaked photo rotates around the world and effects other wealthy, corporate interests they are beholden to.

It would appear that you don’t understand how most corporations and industry works in reality.

Then once you combine that with the fact it looks just like mechanically separated chicken as well

I don’t think it does.

Of course you don’t.

Yep, looks nothing like it. :smiley: