enthalpy

Posted 3/28/2012 05:06:00 PM by Douglas

I'm so tired of hearing about "pink slime" I could throw up. But as opposed to adding to the hysteria, I would just like to add a few salient points about the status of the meat processing industry in our country and meat that it provides. First off, it's not perfect, and it's looking to maximize profits. This shouldn't be news to most rationally thinking adults, but that's certainly not the country we live in, either. Enter this limey twit and his introduction to the term "pink slime" in this video that would have made Goebbels proud in the level of overly emotionalized misinformation it contains.

Can we get one thing straight? We don't buy meat from a man whose first name we know. . . that carves off a steak from a cow we raised from a calf. OK, some people still do, but that's not the rest of the 98% of us. We buy processed meat slathered in chemicals, wrapped in cellophane and if we're lucky, refrigerated. You could make the argument, as so many others have in the past, that we shouldn't eat meat, and that may be true, but that doesn't change the fact that those of us in first world countries do choose to eat meat. So you're going to be stuck with the 'left overs' of the dis-assembly line of a bovine carcass at some point and the decision of what to do with it.

We've seen in recent weeks numerous grocery stores, school cafeterias and yes, even fast food burger joints vow to give up their "pink slime" component of their burgers. Why? Because it's bad meat, or because of bad PR?

Well the enormous beef producing state of Texas isn't going to take this laying down over a salad, and the Houston Chronicle's liberal wing of the Hearst corporation isn't going to miss any opportunity to make fun of Perry like a petulant Sophomore mocking the principal:

Gov. Rick Perry is defending so-called “pink slime” in a statement issued in conjunction with Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman and South Dakota Lt. Gov. Matt Michels (on behalf of South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard, who’s on a trade mission to China).

Their statement says that the “lean, finely textured beef is a safe, nutritious product that is backed by sound science.”

Here’s how the AP describes the produce, nicknamed pink slime: “The lower-cost ingredient is made from fatty bits of meat left over from other cuts. The bits are heated and spun to remove most of the fat. The lean mix then is compressed into blocks for use in ground meat. The product is exposed to ammonium hydroxide gas to kill bacteria, such as E. coli and salmonella.”

Well ok, you lost me at "ammonia", but go on to read Perry's statement:

Lean, finely textured beef is a safe, nutritious product that is backed by sound science. It is unfortunate when inaccurate information causes an unnecessary panic among consumers.

It's just hard for me to imagine anyone that would turn their nose up at this and still eat what their supermarket calls "ground beef." Is there really a difference? People buying ground beef don't think this is some "good" cut of beef they decided to grind up into patties, do they? Ground beef is, and always will be, "what's left." That doesn't make it bad. That doesn't make it good, either; it just depends what you do with it.

In the time it took me to write that sentence, Oscar Mayer just sold another four tons of bologna, which was, the last time I checked, pink and comprised of what some might consider 'meat.'

Am I the only one that wonders if these same moms that cry so loud against "pink slime" in their children's cafeteria food are the same moms that give their kids a bologna & cheese sandwich when they get home from school? Can we focus on some real problems in the meat packing industry instead of some overly sensationalized topic by some limey twit that's trying to drum up ratings for his crappy cable show?

Posted 3/15/2012 03:44:00 PM by Douglas

The Federal government is spending $54 million of your dollars over the next 12 weeks to get people to quit smoking. This might be a good idea if the tobacco companies weren't spending $27 million a day to get you to start.

An anti-smoking advocate praised the new effort.

"The campaign is long overdue," said Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

"The scientific evidence is clear that highly charged ads depicting the health effects of smoking are among the most cost-effective ways to reduce tobacco use and reduce the number of kids who start to smoke," he said.

The CDC estimates that because of these ads, 500,000 people will try to stop smoking and about 50,000 will succeed.

That's good and all, and in a perfect work this wouldn't be so silly. But it gets dumber. How much does the Federal government spend each year on growing tobacco? Only $194 million in 2010.