Posts Tagged ‘pink slime’
How sweet is too sweet?
Is “artificial” the opposite of “all-natural?” If so, I’m reminded of my artificial past… When after years (and years!) consuming diet sodas and other beverages and foods containing artificial sweeteners (and other potentially dangerous additives and chemicals), I finally cut all of these substances out of my diet – all about the same time I learned to Just Stop Eating So Much! and to eat healthier, fresher and purer.
It’s no wonder that up until this breakthrough I felt compelled to induce these chemically laced “food” products. After all, I was taught that the way to lose weight was to reduce calories through any means – including by consuming substances that my body didn’t necessarily know how to process (or even properly metabolize). After learning to pay more attention to the food and beverages I was downing as well as how I felt after doing so, I realized that a 16-calorie teaspoon of real, all-natural sugar left me feeling better than a packet of no-calorie whatever-it-might-be. And since that wakeup call, numerous scientists and studies have been continually proving why chemically altered foods aren’t necessarily even being registered as ‘foods’ by our bodies.
Hopefully we can all agree that one of the nourishing paths to a healthy weight and body (inside is out) is one that utilizes pure, natural foods. This means as little salt/sodium as possible and absolutely no added chemicals or preservatives. And as many of you are also learning through the pink slime situation, food labels cannot always be trusted. In fact, the FDA allows food makers to be very “creative” when listing ingredients. (For example, did you know that the pink color in Yoplait’s Strawberry Yogurt comes from crushed female cochineal beetles and their eggs? Try checking for that on the label!)
As for artificial sweeteners (something many consume daily without any thought), series of news articles site findings by Purdue University Scientists who studied rats that were fed food with artificial sweetener saccharin and rats fed food with glucose, a natural sugar.
The results of the study showed that in comparison to rats given yogurt sweetened with glucose, the rats that consumed yogurt sweetened with saccharin went onto consume many more calories and put on more weight and, as a result, body fat.
These researchers determined that sweet foods may prompt the body to get ready to take in a lot of calories, but that when the sweetness in the form of artificial sweeteners is not followed by a large amount of calories, the body’s internal system becomes disoriented, which might then lead to eating more, while expanding less energy than normal.
Said Purdue researchers Susan Swithers and Terry Davidson in the journal Behavioral Neuroscience, published by the American Psychological Association: “The data clearly indicate that consuming a food sweetened with no-calorie saccharin can lead to greater body-weight gain and adiposity than would consuming the same food sweetened with high-calorie sugar.” Furthermore, they went onto state: “Such an outcome may seem counterintuitive, if not an anathema, to human clinical researchers and health care practitioners who have long recommended the use of low- and no-calorie sweeteners as a means of weight control.”
The researchers also confirmed that additional artificial sweeteners such as aspartame that also taste sweet but do not lead to the delivery of calories may have similar effects. “Animals may use sweet taste to predict the caloric contents of food. Eating sweet non-caloric substances may degrade this predictive relationship.”
“With the growing use of non-caloric sweeteners in the current food environment, millions of people are being exposed to sweet tastes that are not associated with caloric or nutritive consequences,” noted the researchers. This research has been part of studies to examine the question of whether artificial sweeteners – used in an incredible number of today’s foods and beverages – actually assist or hinder people who are trying to lose weight.
Whether or not the findings in the rats translate to similar findings in humans remains to be seen. But one aspect of all these studies seems to be true: the less pure and the more chemically enhanced certain foods are, the less likely our internal system is to recognize and, therefore, be able to process them – thereby slowing down our metabolism. (To say nothing of wondering how these chemicals might be adversely affecting our overall health.)
You read it time and time again on this blog: Keep it pure. Keep it simple. And as your taste buds become less reliant on these chemical and man-made additives, you’ll find that you enjoy the flavors of pure and natural food more and more. To say nothing of the benefit they bring to your overall health and well-being!
Pink Slime: The Sequel?
Photo Source: Gizmodo.com
Are you sure you were enjoying a delicious filet mignon the last time you went out to a fancy steakhouse? Or were you eating pieces of stew-quality meat that were “glued” together to form what resembled a filet mignon, but was actually anything but?
Much like Pink Slime, the use of Meat Glue (AKA transglutaminase) is not something that’s been publicized much – until recently. The process of using Meat Glue requires taking a powder-like substance, mixing it in a bowl with some water and then using it to coat various pieces of meat before forming them into a filet mignon (or other type cut) shape. After sealing the creation in a vacuum bag and then allowing it to set overnight, you have your newly formed creation – with the transglutaminase still intact as part of the ingredients.
Chef Staffan Terje of San Francisco’s Perbacco Restaurant recently told San Francisco’s KGO-TV that he does not use Meat Glue at his restaurant, but that he’s very familiar with the practice of using it and jokingly refers to filet mignons and other bogus ‘steaks’ manufactured to look as such as “Franken-steaks.”
Betsy Booren, Director of Scientific Affairs for the American Meat Institute defends Meat Glue – telling Los Angeles’s KABC-TV, “It gives chefs and specialists some flexibility to create a very nutritious and healthy product and add value to what ultimately, worst-case scenario, would just be thrown away.”
Although the USDA requires that transglutaminase appear on the ingredient label along with the terms “Formed” or “Reformed meat,” those labels are not necessarily available to anyone consuming “Franken-steaks” at a restaurant or other public eating scenario during which the meat is prepared and then served to dining guests.
Add to this, the concern that normally the center of a cut of meat is sterile (thus there’s usually no harm in eating a steak rare or medium-rare). But when Meat Glue is used to assemble various pieces of steak into one, there is no “center” that hasn’t come into contact with potential bacteria that could possibly harm the person eating it if it’s not cooked all the way through.
Food Safety Attorney and Advocate Bill Marler told KABC-TV, “It has not reached a point where people generally are aware of it and I think it’s primarily because, like Pink Slime, nobody knew where it was. I think what their fear is, is that the public’s going to look at their information and go ‘I don’t want to eat that.'”
Marler went onto say that Meat Glue is used more than people realize and the meat industry isn’t giving consumers the entire picture (even though the meat industry claims that meat glue is used to glue scraps of filet mignon back together, as opposed to lesser quality scraps of meat).
The French Culinary Institute’s Tech’N Stuff Blog reports that some studies have shown that stomach enzymes have difficulty breaking down proteins after they’ve been bonded together by transglutaminase, while other studies show that the bonded proteins are absorbed and broken down in the body as though they had never been bonded.
Whether you’re for the use Pink Slime or Meat Glue in your meat products is an individual choice (and has someone who has blogged against Pink Slime, I can assure you it has its defenders). What’s good about these recent reports is that we as consumers get to be more informed and, therefore, are able to make more informed choices when it comes to what we’re ingesting.
Personally, I subscribe to ‘the more natural, the more clean the food is, the better for my system and my metabolism’ way of eating. Again, the choice is up to you. So tell me, are you for Meat Glue? Or would you want to avoid it? I would love to hear from you in regard to this somewhat sticky issue.
Where’s the beef?
Shame on the Governors of three states (Rick Perry of Texas, Terry Branstad of Iowa and Sam Brownback of Kansas) along with two Lieutenant Governors (Rick Sheehy of Nebraska and Matt Michels of South Dakota) – all of whom not only took a recent tour of one of pink slime’s main production plants, but also did their best to convince consumers and grocery store chains that the substance is not only safe but should continue to be consumed.
All together now: “Ewwwww!”
I understand that these political officials wanted to show their support for the thousands of jobs that the manufacturing of pink slime requires. And don’t get me wrong – I’m all for commerce and gainful employment. But this act of not only defending pink slime (or “Finely textured beef,” according to its manufacturer) but also encouraging it be eaten in beef products can be likened to someone in authority encouraging us to smoke cigarettes because tobacco companies employ thousands of people as well.
This is especially deplorable when considering that one of the consumer groups that these pink slime manufacturers most want to hold onto is school districts that utilize pink slime in meals they’re serving to children. (It should be noted that not using pink slime in beef would raise beef prices for schools by 16% – but what about the price that using it could cost our and our children’s health?)
When recently discussing pink slime, Iowa Governor Terry Branstad noted, “It’s beef, but it’s a leaner beef, which is better for you.”
A leaner beef, Governor? Pink slime (AKA “Finely textured beef”) is made from fatty bits of meat that are gathered from leaner cuts, which are then treated with ammonium hydroxide to slightly change the acidity and kill the bacteria according to an Associated Press article appearing on The Huffington Post. This same article also reports that the ammonium hydroxide BPI is also used in baked goods, puddings and other processed foods.
A recent article by Colleen Vanderlinden of Planet Green reports that the latest issue of Mary Janes Farm sheds even more light on the issue of pink slime: “Ten years ago, the rejected fat, sinew, bloody effluvia, and occasional bits of meat cut from carcasses in the slaughterhouse were a low-value waste product called ‘trimmings’ that were sold primarily as pet food. No more. Now, Beef Products Inc. of South Dakota transforms trimmings into something they call ‘boneless lean beef.’ In huge factories, the company liquefies the trimmings and uses a spinning centrifuge to separate the sinews and fats from the meat, leaving a mash that has been described as ‘pink slime,’ which is then frozen into small squares and sold as a low-cost additive to hamburger.”
If that’s not enough to turn your stomach, I don’t know what is. And yet these politicians aren’t only defending, but encouraging pink slime’s use.
Again, its use up to now does not warrant its use going forward. It’s time for food manufacturers to take responsibility and undo some of the potentially heinous decisions they’ve made in the past. We have never been unhealthier (or heavier) as a nation – and one might certainly argue it’s partly due to the unhealthy and unnatural additives to food that our bodies cannot necessarily utilize or even metabolize.
It’s time for us (and our political leaders) to stop putting a bandage on the issue (and its resulting job losses) and start addressing ways that we, as a nation, can start consuming real foods with real ingredients – in ways that support the economy and the jobs market. As for pink slime manufacturers, no matter how many jobs might be saved, its continued use does not seem worth the ultimate price these kinds of questionable ingredients could have on our health (and the cost of maintaining our health) in the future.
http://youtu.be/wshlnRWnf30
Artificial Intelligence
With many news stories focusing on pink slime, I’m reminded of my artificial past… When after years (and years!) consuming diet sodas and other beverages and foods containing artificial sweeteners (and other potentially dangerous chemicals), I finally cut all of these substances out of my diet – all about the same time I learned to Just Stop Eating So Much! and to eat healthier, fresher and purer.
It’s no wonder that up until this breakthrough I felt compelled to induce these chemically laced “food” products. After all, I was taught that the way to lose weight was to reduce calories through any means – including by consuming substances that my body didn’t necessarily know how to process (or even properly metabolize). After learning to pay more attention to the food and beverages I was downing as well as how I felt after doing so, I realized that a 16-calorie teaspoon of real, all-natural sugar left me feeling better than a packet of no-calorie whatever-it-might-be. And since that wakeup call, numerous scientists and studies have been continually proving why chemically altered foods aren’t necessarily even being registered as ‘foods’ by our bodies.
Hopefully we can all agree that one of the nourishing paths to a healthy weight and body (inside is out) is one that utilizes pure, natural foods. This means as little salt/sodium as possible and absolutely no added chemicals or preservatives. And as many of you are also learning through the pink slime situation, food labels cannot always be trusted. In fact, the FDA allows food makers to be very “creative” when listing ingredients. (For example, did you know that the pink color in Yoplait’s Strawberry Yogurt comes from crushed female cochineal beetles and their eggs? Try checking for that on the label!)
As for artificial sweeteners (something many consume daily without any thought), series of news articles site findings by Purdue University Scientists who studied rats that were fed food with artificial sweetener saccharin and rats fed food with glucose, a natural sugar.
The results of the study showed that in comparison to rats given yogurt sweetened with glucose, the rats that consumed yogurt sweetened with saccharin went onto consume many more calories and put on more weight and, as a result, body fat.
These researchers determined that sweet foods may prompt the body to get ready to take in a lot of calories, but that when the sweetness in the form of artificial sweeteners is not followed by a large amount of calories, the body’s internal system becomes disoriented, which might then lead to eating more, while expanding less energy than normal.
Said Purdue researchers Susan Swithers and Terry Davidson in the journal Behavioral Neuroscience, published by the American Psychological Association: “The data clearly indicate that consuming a food sweetened with no-calorie saccharin can lead to greater body-weight gain and adiposity than would consuming the same food sweetened with high-calorie sugar.” Furthermore, they went onto state: “Such an outcome may seem counterintuitive, if not an anathema, to human clinical researchers and health care practitioners who have long recommended the use of low- and no-calorie sweeteners as a means of weight control.”
The researchers also confirmed that additional artificial sweeteners such as aspartame that also taste sweet but do not lead to the delivery of calories may have similar effects. “Animals may use sweet taste to predict the caloric contents of food. Eating sweet non-caloric substances may degrade this predictive relationship.”
“With the growing use of non-caloric sweeteners in the current food environment, millions of people are being exposed to sweet tastes that are not associated with caloric or nutritive consequences,” noted the researchers. This research has been part of studies to examine the question of whether artificial sweeteners – used in an incredible number of today’s foods and beverages – actually assist or hinder people who are trying to lose weight.
Whether or not the findings in the rats translate to similar findings in humans remains to be seen. But one aspect of all these studies seems to be true: the less pure and the more chemically enhanced certain foods are, the less likely our internal system is to recognize and, therefore, be able to process them – thereby slowing down our metabolism. (To say nothing of wondering how these chemicals might be adversely affecting our overall health.)
You read it time and time again on this blog: Keep it pure. Keep it simple. And as your taste buds become less reliant on these chemical and man-made additives, you’ll find that you enjoy the flavors of pure and natural food more and more. To say nothing of the benefit they bring to your overall health and well-being!
Follow
-
