Talk:Pink slime/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Pink Slime is an epithet. This article should reflect that.

Websters dictionary describes an epithet as: a : a characterizing word or phrase accompanying or occurring in place of the name of a person or thing b : a disparaging or abusive word or phrase

Given that the phrase Pink Slime has virtually nothing to do with lean ground beef derived by the process described in this article, and given that it is not used in any way by professionals in the meat packing industry, and given that the phrase is clearly an invention of those working with the media and popularized by them with the intention of maligning the process, this article should make clear that the phrase "Pink Slime" is an epithet, and should not be referenced as if it were a common phrase or jargon used by professionals in the industry. Its use is not common outside of these derogatory cirles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ima Groinitch (talk • contribs) 20:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Please see WP:TITLE. The meat industry's naming convention is addressed in the content, and the subject is notable (per WP:GNG) due to the form of the high profile publicity/expose/notoriety sourced. There would be no inclusion of the subject in Wikipedia as 'lean ground beef' as it is not noteworthy unto itself. Wikipedia does not work on a principle of WP:ADVOCACY, nor is it WP:CENSORED. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The NYT uses "pink slime" in quotes as a matter of its Manual of Style. [1]. "Lean finely textured beef" is used on roughly the same number of pages in the NYT and is not placed in quotes. More to the point, all the scholarly usage is for "lean finely textured beef" and zero for "pink slime" thus anyone with an interest in it from a scholarly viewpoint would find that term more likely to be used. The dysphemism of "pink slime" was justified only on the basis of "current news usage" in the past, and that argument is no longer valid. One might note ABC has been extremely careful in use of the dysphemism now. Where the use in news is now exclusively in scare quotes in news articles, and the main proponent of the term has seemingly abandoned use of the term, it is time for Wikipedia to move on as well. Collect (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I do see your point, Collect. Nevertheless, per WP:GNG, I sincerely doubt that the product would have made it into Wikipedia had it not been for its notoriety. Under those circumstances, changing the WP:TITLE could be understood as revisionist refactoring. As you've already suggested that it is no longer of encyclopaedic value, perhaps it is time to take it to a formal venue for further discussions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop trying to insert "epithet" and quarrelling about its use in your edit summary, Ima Groinitch. The fact that you introduced the term here with definitions suggests that it is unwarranted (per MOS:JARGON) when it can be expressed in a more accessible manner. Furthermore, you refactored the lead to read as if were written on behalf of the industry, as well as redacting it to exclude the 'controversial' issue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Allowing this article to exist without immediately drawing attention to the fact that the term pink slime is a derogatory term coined by adversaries in the media to the practice of finely textured lean ground beef, is misleading and political. Such content has no business being considered for an encyclopedia. An objective review of the material provides copious references to backup this point. The term "Pink Slime" is not industry standard, it is a media ploy to denigrate the practice. Wikipedia needs to rid itself of such bias opinion in order to be ever taken seriously. This entire article, especially the use of the term "pink slime" not in quotes, leads one to believe the phrase pink slime is NOT an epithet. The end product does not even resemble pink slime, however urban legend and fallacious articles have promoted photos of pink soft serve ice cream as the appearance of the end product. This article needs to either devote itself to the origins, history and use of the phrase "pink slime" in the media, or, more importantly, it should redirect to and/or become a subcategory of Lean Finely Textured Beef Ima Groinitch (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted your change. According to the very sources you added, the term was not "coined by adversaries in the media", but rather by a USDA microbiologist. I see your point, but right or wrong, the article and the use of "Pink Slime" term has been debated here for years now. Examine the talk page archives. The article title apparently follow WP:COMMONNAME, which is a Wikipedia policy. Quoting from that policy: 'Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title'. If you want to try rephrasing your addition in a manner that agrees with your sources, have at it. Or better yet, discuss your proposed changes here. Mojoworker (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It is no longer a "common name" as all usages are in "scare quotes" in major reliable sources, and ABC News, surprise, surprise, seems not to use the term. The argument that it was in common usage is thus no longer a reason to keep this name. Collect (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

A single rogue employee who used the phrase "pink slime" once in an interview does not constitute an official position by the USDA. The USDA officially refers to this product by it's proper name, Lean Finely Textured Beef . There is clearly a campaign by some to promote the phrase "pink slime" as a formal name for Lean Finely Textured Beef. I have no problem with their being a separate page devoted to the pink slime controversy, but it should focus on the issue of pink slime and its related issues, not be the sole entity of LFTB on Wikipedia. Or, more accurately, this entire article needs to be rewritten so that the product LFTB has it's own proper page, and the pink slime advocates can have carry out their campaign in the respective sub category of LFTB. As for this silly notion that a nickname at least, or an epithet, more accurately, be given WP:Commonname status is a joke. If that is true, then all original and/or official terminology could be reverted to its derogatory alternative.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ima Groinitch (talk • contribs) 02:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Ima Groinitch, mind your language. "Rogue employee" and the rest of your WP:ADVOCACY (using "derived by adversaries" in the lead is pure WP:WEASEL... besides, I thought it was derived from LFTB & BLBT: mmm-mmm, good!). Again, Collect, the article would not merit an entry in Wikipedia as "Lean finely textured beef" as it never would have met WP:GNG other than the investigation and public outcry against it. A quick reminder that WP:GNG is WP:NOTTEMPORARY, therefore (as we've discussed before) refactoring it into an advertisement for the manufacturing sector is out of the question. This would require deletion of the article, or merging any relevant information into another article per an AFD. Questions of WP:INDEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:DIVERSE need to be addressed in order to consider merging, transcluding or deleting the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Groinitch, you've misinterpreted what I'm trying to convey to you. You can't characterize the term "pink slime" as being "coined (or derived) by adversaries in the media" when the very sources you used to support that claim (along with other references already in the article) make it manifest that the term was coined by a USDA microbiologist and not by "adversaries in the media" as you've claimed. I'm not sure if you're deliberately misrepresenting the sources or you're attempting to use WP:SYNTHESIS, but either way, please stop. Mojoworker (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The best available term, AFAICT, is dysphemism. Collect (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I hope you're not trying to lead us down the path of WP:EUPHEMISM and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia articles are not censored. Parse it as you will, there are an abundance of articles (per WP:TITLE) which are construed as pejorative, euphemistic, dysphemistic, etc. (such as the "N" article). GNG requires that the notability be of primary concern. How did the subject of the article meet GNG? ... by the WP:COMMONNAME used in the media. Again, I would suggest that, if there is doubt that it met WP:PERSISTENCE criteria in the first place, a formal merge or delete discussion should take place. The arguments in this section, to date, are based on WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Read my post. "Pink Slime" was the "common name" in media for about a year. It is no longer a "common name" in media. Is that clear? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

So, you would like to change the first sentence from '"Pink slime" is the common name for a controversial beef product.' to instead read '"Pink slime" is a dysphemism for a controversial beef product.' Is that correct? Mojoworker (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Collect (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In which case, for the sake of accuracy, it would need to read as, "“Pink slime” was a commonly used dysphemism for a controversial beef product." --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

And the "commonly used" is useless in that case. It is a "dysphemism" and is no longer in "Common usage" at all. We best serve readers by giving current facts, as best we can. Collect (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Replacing "the common name" with "a dysphemism" (Wikilinked), seems OK to me. I'm not sure that "commonly used" really adds anything to the sentence since it's implicit that "pink slime" is common enough that it's the name of the article. Mojoworker (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence (e.g. a source) supporting the notion that it's no longer in common usage; as best I can tell, this is simply one editor's assertion. I don't think editing along these lines is advisable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Clue: Zero solid news media hits without scare quotes in the past year. This is not "one editor's assertion." Some hits in "pop culture media" still. Many news hits for its proper name. NYT only uses the term in "Scare quotes" and that is a pretty authoritative source in such matters. Although, you personally may have more knowledge about usage than the New York Times has? Collect (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a new section could be started to continue discussion of common usage. In any case, relevant to this section, "pink slime" patently is a dysphemism. I just don't think that '"Pink slime" is a commonly used dysphemism for a controversial beef product.' reads any better than simply '"Pink slime" is a dysphemism for a controversial beef product.' But, I guess I'd be OK with either. Mojoworker (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'd rather start with reworking the lead, which is dated (was used as a dysphemism strikes me as being relevant to the the presentation). Add to that the fact that the lead reads as if this is still 2012, and that there are court cases pending.

In general, areas of body of the article also need overhauling for the sake clarifying past and present tense issues currently sitting surrealistically side by side. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Collect (which is quite a rare thing). We should be using what the most reliable academic sources use, not what newspapers use. If you search for "lean finely textured beef" in google scholar you get all hits about it. If you search for "pink slime" you get mostly unrelated sources about microbes and also some journalist sources. People should decide whether the article is about the product or the purported "controversy", Second Quantization (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be arguing for something outside of this discussion. We're discussing the lead where, I do agree, 'dysphemism' is the best descriptor. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you're arguing for changing the WP:TITLE(?). Per WP:GNG, the title of the article is appropriate as the existence of this meat product/by-product is not notable in itself (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Erm, yes it is notable all by itself, especially considering the scientific literature discuss it in many articles: [2], Second Quantization (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Erm, there's a plethora of scientific literature on innumerable food industry products. Every food product gets studied (especially within the industry), so you are bound to find a multitude of studies. The fact that there is scientific literature on it does not equal WP:GNG. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"Pink slime" on Politifact, maybe useful for something

[3] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. While the post itself doesn't meet WP:RS, there are links in it which do so very nicely. It also confirms that the use of the term and the issues surrounding the product are ongoing. Nice find! I'm not going to worry about expanding the article as there's been more work put into organising it by an editor recently. Nevertheless, I've archived the piece and all its links at the Wayback Machine at this URL should anyone wish to expand on the debunking of its being linked to cancer, etc. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Dead link

Link #56 leads to a dead URL but I can't -quite- figure out what to delete to remove it. Lots42 (talk) 01:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Replaced with press release which is what the dead link used for figures in any case. Collect (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Consumer concerns and grocery store reactions

...the nation's three largest chains, announced that they would no longer sell products
containing the additive.

It would be very helpful if the three chains were named.
☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

And when Wikipedia becomes a newspaper, that might occur. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Ammonia/acid exposure, freezing, fine grinding

The process for killing bacteria also presumably affects the beef muscle cells. If rapid freezing explodes the cell walls of bacteria, apparently this happens to the beef muscle too? Fine grinding also suggests further shredding of cell walls of everything.

Cell walls are constructed of lipids (fat), so apparently centrifuging may remove the fat, but also shredded muscle cell wall material? Is the final product basically just a mass of loose cellular internal components from the combined exploded/shredded cells of beef muscle and bacteria alike?

Is this the definition of the phrase saying that it was not "meat" but actually "salvage" in the History section of the article?

-- DMahalko (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Product is not banned in the european union

If you want to claim that the product is banned in the European union, it should be easy for you to find proof for this on a government website, all such information is publicly available. Both articles use the discredited picture that is not pink slime. Neither state where this information comes from. They are poor articles. Just because it is on a newspaper website doesn't make it true. LFTB is a different product than what is banned in the EU. It is a false claim.

This is perhaps one of the poorest written articles on wikipedia, mostly relies on ABC's coverage and fails to mention (it used to) that all of the claims being made are being challenged in court in a billion dollar lawsuit. Including the stuff about dog food. So hover over this page all you like for political reasons but you are doing a disservice and spreading lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abracadabra777 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you have sources for your claims? --John (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps you should just read this snopes article, perhaps if you additionally do real research on this subject you will see fit to remove the lies and disinformation on this page you are promoting. http://www.snopes.com/food/prepare/msm.asp

The company, the American Meat Institute, and others have all said that this picture is not this product. Mechanically Separated Meat is not LFTB, they are different, you insist on conflating them which is false. Perhaps you could read the MSM page here at wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abracadabra777 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The Snopes article seems to have some inaccuracies (or at least omissions) about "Pink Slime", discussing only the ammonia process, and making no mention of the citric acid process used by Cargill. And I don't see any mention of the EU in that article. When you say "(t)he company, the American Meat Institute, and others have all said that this picture is not this product", which company and which picture are you referring to, BPI, Cargill, or some other producer? This Wikipedia article covers at least those two companies and I see no picture in our article except one of ground beef and another of the Iowa Governor. If you mean the picture in the Snopes article, I removed that very same picture from this Wikipedia article nearly three years ago and discussed that the picture was not beef, but chicken. Yes, that product is also pink, and is used in the Snopes article as an example of mechanically separated poultry (MSP) – the Snopes article covers both MSM and the beef product 'pejoratively referred to as "pink slime"', but I'm not entirely sure what your point is in mentioning it here, other than it was used in the two referenced articles used as sources for the EU ban. Noting your objections (assuming I've interpreted you correctly), I replaced those two refs with a citation to a peer reviewed journal stating "(p)roduction and consumption of pink slime is strictly prohibited in the European Union". Mojoworker (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Mechanically separated meat and LFTB are not the same product. The fact that MSM is banned in Europe has absolutely nothing to do with LFTB and does not belong in this article. This is a connection that has been invented in someone's mind and repeated ad nauseum by even some irrelevant journal from Turkey. MSM is "paste-like meat product produced by forcing pureed or ground beef, pork, turkey or chicken, under high pressure through a sieve or similar device to separate the bone from the edible meat tissue." And has been banned for reasons that have nothing to with LFTB. Therefore it's inclusion in this article is nothing less than ideologically motivated and weaselly. I repeat my argument, if LFTB beef is the same as MSM, you should be able to show evidence for that, or, that the EU has language in their regulations that includes this product. Neither of those things are true! The Turkish journal is fourth-rate and also wrong. LFTB is trimmings that have been separated from the carcass with a knife before being put into a centrifuge, this is miles away from what is banned in the EU!

The point of mentioning the picture is that any news agency that uses such a picture can't be trusted to get the facts right on anything and is a poor reference. No one knows what that picture is or where it came from.

I actually give up, there is too much motivated reasoning on this topic, the public knowledge has already been poisoned, perhaps the outcome of the court case will help set the record straight and we'll be able to amend this article properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abracadabra777 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully the court case will expose how they knew what they (ABC) were saying was total sensationalized BS & force them to admit it. TodKarlson (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Someone keeps readding this fourth-rate journal. I say again, if it is banned in the EU, find the .eu website where that law is printed, all of the laws in the EU are online! Why do you need to go to a fourth rate journal? Find the regulation on their website! You will never find it, hence you need to post a totally worthless reference. Transparently biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abracadabra777 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your edit and added an additional ref to Food Safety News: "Separating meat from bone is what makes desinewed meat. Separating fat from meat results in LFTB. At the moment, however, one thing the two processes have in common is that both are banned by the EC." Mojoworker (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not banned. Where is the documentation on an EU website? The following is what I am talking about "An FSA spokesperson said: “This issue has nothing to do with recent reports in the media about ‘pink slime’, a beef-based food additive used in the US as a filler in minced beef. This product is not permitted in the EU and is not obtained by the same processes as MSM or DSM.” - See more at: http://www.meatinfo.co.uk/news/archivestory.php/aid/13874/EU_bans_production_of_desinewed_meat.html#sthash.tISCtzVB.dpuf"

So, like Canada, it is not banned, it's simply never gained approval. Many people use the lie that it is "banned" to support their case that it is not good, or unhealthy. Why anyone would care with the EU unscientifically having banned GMO is besides the point, this is a lie, and it is weasel words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abracadabra777 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You may very well be correct – or you may be totally wrong. We have no way of knowing. I can understand you believe you are correct, but it's not up to any of us to go and research the EU website to find (or not find) what you assert...if the relevant material is even online. We don't work here and it's not part of our job description. Read WP:BURDEN, part of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, and you will see it says "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." That burden has been satisfied with two reliable sources confirming that LFTB is banned in the EU. It is up to you to find a source refuting that, or proving that the current sources are not reliable. That's how Wikipedia works.

EDIT: Is your whole contention that because (you claim) there is no legislation, the term "banned" is inappropriate? If so, we may be able to get input from other editors and come to a consensus compromise to replace "banned" with "prohibited" or "not permitted" or something – but that seems like splitting hairs. Mojoworker (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Unclear text.

"In the production process heat and centrifuges separate the fat from the meat in beef trimmings. The resulting product is exposed to ammonia gas or citric acid to kill bacteria."

What is "the resulting product"? The fat or the meat? 213.247.73.83 (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Changed it to: "In the production process, heat and centrifuges remove fat from the meat in beef trimmings." Mojoworker (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Doubled quote

In Product Overview, we have this sentence: "A USDA microbiologist opined, the product does contain connective tissue "instead of muscle" and thus it is "not meat" and is "not nutritionally equivalent" to ground beef." In History, we have this sentence: "Expressing concern that ammonia should be mentioned on the labels of packaged ground beef to which the treated trimmings are added, Zirnstein stated "I do not consider the stuff to be ground beef, and I consider allowing it in ground beef to be a form of fraudulent labeling." "

If we're going to name Zirnstein in the second quote, is there a reason we don't name him in the second? In both citations he's named as the one saying it, it seems superfluous to wait til the History section to name him. KesterAnt (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Pink slime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130729034125/http://www.beefisbeef.com:80/faq-3/ to http://www.beefisbeef.com/faq-3/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120509211950/http://documents.nytimes.com/meat-industry-and-government-records to http://documents.nytimes.com/meat-industry-and-government-records
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120509055148/http://sdda.sd.gov/LFTB%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf to http://sdda.sd.gov/LFTB%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pink slime/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I will review this. Adding all my comments shortly. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 05:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead

 Done Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 13:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

In my opinion all facts in the lead should typically be mentioned in the main text as well, and the citations should go there. This topic has been quite controversial, so for this particular article, it's likely best to also have inline citations to reliable sources right there in the lead. Removing them may cause confusion for readers, or a contestation of the statements in the lead per a lack of sources verifying content. North America1000 11:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Link filler It's unclear what you mean here by "Link filler". North America1000 11:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC) I mean can "filler" be linked? Sainsf <^>Feel at home 12:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Won't work at this time in the article. The closest link is an article about a similar topic, but for animal food, at Filler (animal food). North America1000 13:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC) What are trimmings? It seems self-explanatory per the rest of the text, but to further clarify, I have provided linkage to the advanced meat recovery article, to provide further definition. (diff). North America1000 11:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC) the largest U.S. producer I think it would be helpful to add "of beef" here, just for clarity. Optional. Added "of the additive" (diff). The company is the largest producer of the additive, not beef. North America1000 11:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC) I think the article in general appears listy and choppy due to the numerous short paragraphs. You may disagree, but I feel we should combine paragraphs to make it look more interesting. I liked the presentation at Big King. I have performed reorganization, which included the consolidation of content into larger paragraphs. North America1000 12:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Thank you. Some consolidation would help in "Early use" and "Market response". Sainsf <^>Feel at home 12:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC) I feel that the Early use section is best left as-is, because it clearly demonstrates the chronology of the topic. Combining information here could have a negative effect of diluting the information and creating a minor form of synthesis. I have consolidated some information in the Market response section. North America1000 13:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Contents

 Done Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

I think the apt name for this section would be "Manufacturing (or Production) and contents". Makes sense. I have renamed the section to "Production and content" (diff). North America1000 12:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)  Done Sainsf <^>Feel at home 02:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Link or explain trimmings, beef, roller press freezer, cell wall, additive, lean ground beef, cartilage I think "trimmings" is self explanatory per content further up in the article, where Advanced meat recovery is linked under the moniker "beef trimmings". Beef seems to be too common of a term to need linking. I have expanded content describing the roller press freezer (diff). Linked cell wall. I linked additive, but further up in the article, in a section after the lead. I provided further clarification for lean beef in the section, which preceeds "lean ground beef". Linked cartilage. North America1000 11:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Thank you. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Flash freezing is linked again as flash frozen  Fixed. Removed the second redundant internal link (diff). North America1000 11:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Cattle looks too common to be linked I'm aware of WP:OVERLINK, but because this topic is intrinsically related to beef products from cattle, I feel that the link is okay in this instance. North America1000 11:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)  Resolved Sainsf <^>Feel at home 02:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC) BPI and Cargill should be mentioned by their full names and linked at first mention in the main text  Done per recent copy edits. North America1000 13:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC) removing the melted fat by centrifugal force Better say centrifuge directly lest the reader should be left wondering how this happens. Y I have clarified this by rewriting it to "... removing the melted fat by centrifugal force using a centrifuge ..." North America1000 16:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Early use

 Done Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

use of the basic technology What does "basic technology" mean? Removed the word "basic", as an unnecessary adjective in this instance (diff). North America1000 12:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC) USDA FSIS microbiologists You have already mentioned the association between them, so we could simply say FSIS here.  Done. North America1000 16:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC) USDA FSIS microbiologists Carl Custer and Gerald Zirnstein... This line looks very long, can it be split? Splitting it into two sentences could create ambiguity, and it's really not overly long. North America1000 16:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC) process's effectiveness I think "the effectiveness of the disinfection process" looks better. Makes sense. I rw it to "of the effectiveness and safety of the disinfection process". North America1000 16:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC) occasions in which process adjustments Should "in" not be "on"? I think it's clearer worded as-is. North America1000 17:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC) , aired on April 12, 2011, To avoid so many commas can we say aired on 12 April 2011 without commas? Most sources are based in the U.S., and the topic itself is also. U.S. uses Month/day/year format, which is consistent throughout the article. North America1000 13:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Y I also removed two commas from the sentence, which weren't necessary (diff). North America1000 13:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Oliver has stated I think it should be simply "stated". Y Rw to "Oliver stated". North America1000 13:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Link (or explain) connective tissue, pathogenic, anhydrous, The New York Times  Done Added links (diff), and also copy edited a bit after linking The New York Times (diff). North America1000 17:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

ABC News report

 Done Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

Link ABC News, ammonium hydroxide, ware (Market response) Ammonium hydroxide is already linked earlier in the article. A link to ABC News is present. "Wares" does not have an article, because it's a simple word that is a dictionary definition. North America1000 17:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Oh, sorry.  Resolved Sainsf <^>Feel at home 17:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC) the use of ammonium hydroxide is only one of several chemicals --> ammonium hydroxide is only one of several chemicals  Done (diff). Makes sense. North America1000 17:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC) LFTB was referred to as We have discussed this naming of the product nowhere in the main text. LFTB is short for "lean finely textured beef", which is stated in the lead. I have added to the full phrase here to further clarify ("Lean finely textured beef (LFTB) was referred to as ...") (diff). North America1000 17:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)  Done Sainsf <^>Feel at home 18:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC) USDA considered it as meat. Does meat need a link? You do not link it in the lead or at the first mention in the main text. I think "meat" is too common of a term, as per WP:OVERLINK. North America1000 17:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC) That is what I mean. Why is it linked in this line? Sainsf <^>Feel at home 17:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Y Whoops, missed that. Removed the link (diff). North America1000 17:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC) One newspaper reported Which one? Y Rw to "The Concord Monitor" (diff). North America1000 17:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC) On March 25, 2012, "DMY" dates are typically used. Check throughout the article. The topic is mostly reported in U.S. sources, and the topic itself is based in the U.S., which uses a Month/day/year format. As such, it is presently properly formatted. North America1000 12:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)  Resolved Sainsf <^>Feel at home 17:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC) 72 customers, many over the course of one weekend and production decreased --> 72 customers and many over the course of one weekend; production decreased I added a comma here, which actually made the sentence much more readable as-is. North America1000 11:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)  Resolved Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC) What is nadir? Y Clarified (diff). North America1000 17:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC) About 80% of sales  % --> percent as written elsewhere Y Makes sense in this instance. Rw to "80 percent" (diff). North America1000 12:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Plainview, Texas, links? Added a link to Plainview, Texas. North America1000 17:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)  Done Sainsf <^>Feel at home 17:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Many grocery stores and supermarkets Are links needed? They're common terms, but the product is typically sold to end-consumer in these types of markets, so links here are helpful. North America1000 13:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)  Done Sainsf <^>Feel at home 17:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC) including the nation's three largest chains Their names? Largest as of when? The article does not state the names of the grocery chains, so cannot add this. I have copy edited the article to further clarify: "including the nation's three largest chains, announced in March 2012 that ..." North America1000 11:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)  Resolved Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Duplink: United States Department of Agriculture (Market response)  Fixed Removed duplicate link (diff). North America1000 13:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC) forty-seven of fifty states Digits please. Y Rw to "47 out of of 50 U.S. states" (diff). North America1000 13:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Nebraska, and Iowa links? Unlikely necessary, as summarized at WP:OVERLINK. North America1000 12:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)  Resolved Sainsf <^>Feel at home 17:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC) It is bullish Link for bullish? Probably best left as-is. Per WP:LINKSTYLE, "Items within quotations should not generally be linked... " North America1000 13:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC) I have seen links in quotes in many other articles. It is in fact good to link in this case. If this is no absolute rule we can link bullish. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Y All right, linked bullish, which redirects to Market sentiment. May provide clarity for readers who may be unfamiliar with the term. North America1000 13:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC) I think "U.S. Government response" can be better renamed as "Government response", this includes responses by different States and not just the national government's. Y I agree, rw section header to: "Government response". North America1000 13:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Link for Safeway? Optional  Done. Linked Safeway (diff). North America1000 12:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC) USDA commodity dollars What does this mean? Rw/clarified by rewriting to "USDA commodity funds". Also added a link to commodity. North America1000 11:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)  Resolved Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Does school meal need a link?  Done Linked school lunches in the article (diff). North America1000 12:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC) the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) indicated This is another issue. Just say USDA every time once you have introduced it  Done The full name "United States Department of Agriculture" is now only in the lead and first paragraph. I have retained the full name in the image caption to promote clarity in the caption. North America1000 02:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC) beginning in fall 2012 --> beginning in the fall of 2012 I think it's best left as-is. The suggestion above seems to add a bit of unnecessary wordiness. North America1000 17:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Alright  Resolved Sainsf <^>Feel at home 17:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC) the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) indicated, beginning in fall 2012 it would give school districts I think we need to fix some commas here.  Fixed (diff). North America1000 17:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC) What is CBS? Y Rw to CBS News. North America1000 12:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC) BPI claimed $1.2 billion in damages as a result of the ABC reports Is this not a repetition of what is stated earlier in the para? Y Yes, this was entirely repetitive, so I removed this repeat mention. North America1000 17:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Current use

 Done Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 03:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

A general question. How do you differentiate between "Early" and "Current"? Is three years ago still "current"? I feel that the present format still works, per the chronology of what sources have reported about the topic. North America1000 13:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Alright, as you wish.  Resolved Sainsf <^>Feel at home 17:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC) In 2013, LFTB was in an estimated 5% of beef, according to industry officials. Needs clarity. What industry? Which beef? Y Rw to "... was in an estimated 5% of ground beef, according to meat industry officials ...", per the source. North America1000 02:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC) I think "%" should be "percent" as you say elsewhere in the article. Neutral. I don't mind using both the abbreviation and full word in the article, because the abbreviations make it less wordy. North America1000 12:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Alright, as you wish.  Resolved Sainsf <^>Feel at home 17:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Regulation

 Done Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Extended content
Duplink: disinfection  Fixed Only the first mention of the term "disinfection" is now linked in the article (diff). North America1000 12:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Can you explain Baader process? It is a redlink.  Done Expanded this area of the article. North America1000 10:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Legislation

 Done Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 13:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Extended content
for its elimination Say "pink slime" when you begin a section, not "it" Copy edited (diff). North America1000 13:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources

 Done Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

Don't delete refs. before going through the list, it can distort the ref. nos. mentioned here. Y I haven't deleted any references. North America1000 13:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Can all the date formats be converted to DD-MM-YYYY ? Most sources, and the topic itself, is based in the United States, which uses a Month/day/year format. As such, it's best left as-is. North America1000 12:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Alright, but ref. 2 is in a different format. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Y I have updated the source. North America1000 13:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Proper formatting needed in refs. 3, 10  Fixed Refs 3 and 10 now properly formatted. North America1000 12:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Proper formatting needed in refs. 42, 47, 58, 78, 90  Fixed. I have formatted all of the above sources. North America1000 16:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Refs. 2, 4, 20, 24, 28, 35, 38, 40, 61, 64, 83, 89, 94, 95, 96, 100, 103 seem to be deadlinks I fixed Refs 95, 96, 100 & 103, and crossed them out above. Mojoworker (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Y Deadlink templates are now present for ref numbers: 2, 4, 20, 28, 35, 38, 40, 61, 64, 83, 89, 94. North America1000 10:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Y The link for ref #24 is working at this time. North America1000 10:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC) I am not sure if refs. 7, 9, 10, 37, 49 are reliable. Ref #7 is essentially a primary source used to verify content in the article, but it's a reliable primary source reporting what Jamie Oliver said. I have removed this citation from the lead. Note that this removal moved the source to #37 in the references section. North America1000 11:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Ref #9 is from Drovers, a reliable source. From [4]: "Drovers, Farm Journal's leading source for information on the beef industry, provides useful business management and marketing information for all segments of the industry." North America1000 11:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Ref #10 is published by CNN, a reliable source. North America1000 11:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Ref #37 is now ref #36 in the article. It is a primary source (as per the above), and I have added the dead link template to it. North America1000 11:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Ref #49 is reliable, published by CBS New York. North America1000 11:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks a lot for elaborating on this. I agree with your points. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Italics for agency in ref. 8. Please check for the other sources. You can also link the sources like USA Today Actually, periodical publisher names are placed in italics, but not news networks. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles for more information. North America1000 15:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Ref. 25: Caps for e in "editorial"  Fixed (diff). North America1000 13:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC) I could not access refs. 15, 16 I am able to access both. Here's the links: [5], [6]. North America1000 12:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Sorry, seems I had some connection trouble. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)  Resolved. It appears you are able to access the source at this time. North America1000 13:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Ref. 19 seems to be going elsewhere. I am able to access the link here, which is properly formatted in the article. North America1000 13:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Sorry, seems I had some connection trouble. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)  Resolved. It appears you are able to access the source at this time. North America1000 13:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Ref. 68-Reuters, not reuters.com. Similarly in ref. 85  Fixed both. North America1000 15:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Lower case in ref. 98  Fixed (diff). North America1000 14:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Refs. 20, 46, 56, 62, 63, 70, 84 seem to be going elsewhere. Y Updated: Added dead link template to ref #20, 46, 56, 63 and 84. I am able to access ref #62 [7] and #70 [8]. North America1000 15:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC) I am not sure if "dead link" templates should stay in an article. Could we just omit the URLs? And the Yahoo sources are still redirecting to the Yahoo homepage for me. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 16:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Dead links can often be accessed using internet archive services, such as the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. As such, I feel the dead links are best left in place. Also, dead links occasionally become live again. North America1000 16:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC) I could not check refs. 78, 102 and 104. Y Ref #78 opens for me [9], as does ref #104 [10]. I have added the dead link template to ref #102 (diff). North America1000 15:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: This has been an interesting review, thanks for all your patience and cooperation. And also for adding the "Extended content" boxes, it is easier to navigate here! Alright; I have detected no copyvio, the sources look good, the article is very well-written and illustrated as was possible. In my opinion this meets the GA criteria. I am happy to promote this. Cheers! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sainsf: It's been a pleasure collaborating with you on this, and I look forward to the prospect of potential continued collaboration with you in the future. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Misleading picture

What is the point of having a picture of "pink slime"-free ground beef as an illustration? It can only create confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.197.136.239 (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• I moved the image, which was in the lead, further down in the article. It's just an example of ground beef, and the caption now more clearly states that the product does not contain the additive. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Food additive or industrial filler?

Is the so called 'pink slime' a food additive or an industrial filler?---Now wiki (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The product has nutritional value, so it is a "food." Collect (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.---Now wiki (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Pink slime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://documents.nytimes.com/meat-industry-and-government-records
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.omaha.com/article/20120326/MONEY/703269925
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31meat.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406205725/http://www.azfamily.com/news/USDA-defends-pink-slime-144515095.html to http://www.azfamily.com/news/USDA-defends-pink-slime-144515095.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330234146/http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-03/D9TP0N0G0.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-03/D9TP0N0G0.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102193700/http://www.ydr.com/mike/ci_20190538/they-put-what-my-cheeseburger to http://www.ydr.com/mike/ci_20190538/they-put-what-my-cheeseburger
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.freep.com/article/20120508/BUSINESS07/120508017/BPI-closing-3-plants-blaming-pink-slime-uproar
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitness-food/safety/story/2012-03-22/Supermarkets-join-move-away-from-pink-slime-beef-filler/53700356/1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120408041054/http://online.wsj.com/article/AP79d335465a1f4834ab4f20201b3341dc.html to https://online.wsj.com/article/AP79d335465a1f4834ab4f20201b3341dc.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/pink-slime-lawsuit-abc-news_n_1883528.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/10_-_October/ABC_News_wants__pink_slime__lawsuit_moved_to_federal_court/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/Pink%2Bslime%2Bused%2BCanadian%2Bbeef%2Bsays%2Bindustry%2Bvideo/6278498/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Legislation

Why does the article have a section entitled LEGISLATION when no legislation was ever introduced, much less enacted into law? REGULATION would be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarsonsDad (talk • contribs) 04:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 29 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The consensus is that the current name is the common name in relevant sources, and that the proposed name is no more or less neutral than the current one.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Pink slime → Lean Finely Textured Beef – Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy cover's Neutrality in Article titles, specifically that non-neutral but common names (such as Pink Slime) should be redirects rather than article titles (see Wikipedia:Article_titles#Non-neutral_but_common_names. Including the Pink Slime controversy is totally appropriate, but it really shouldn't be an article title. 208.87.239.202 (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support - The common name in the media is not the same as the common name in the industry or academic circles. We should favor an academic viewpoint and the encyclopedic name. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – per WP:COMMONNAME and the discussion in the two previous failed move discussions in Archives 1 and 3 which are linked in the header of this page. Lean Finely Textured Beef is not necessarily a neutral term as noted in the previous move discussions, as well as concerns by some scientists that say "it should have been identified as an additive", and "is not actually beef as it is commonly defined." Mojoworker (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - I would support renaming it if there was a name that was actually neutral. However, "lean finely textured beef" is an industry euphemism and at least as, if not more, POV than pink slime. Also WP:COMMONNAME, which may not trump neutrality, but supports one widely used POV term over another POV term. 184.15.254.105 (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – Both have shades of NPOV, leaving us with the much more common term, preferred for a generalist encyclopedia. (There was an earlier suggestion of disinfected beef gristle puree which is neutral and descriptive but unsourced.) Something like "Recovered meat products" might be used for a broader topic, including mechanically separated meat and products of advanced meat recovery processes. Reidgreg (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• The current title is a little too vague and probably intended to be incendiary (figuratively) while the proposed title is overly euphemistic. As long as this article exists, there will likely be an impasse as to which title is more egregious. Other proposals are terms that are highly uncommon, so merger like the one proposed by User:Reidgreg above is probably the only way out. —  AjaxSmack  15:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Both have an element of POV. The problem with "lean finely textured beef" is that it is no more neutral and something few readers seeking this page would recognise. AusLondonder (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I do not think that the term "pink slime" was ever intended to be used in this way. Per policy, we do not have to use common names when they are "colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious". Also, it seems to me that "lean finely textured beef" is less euphemistic than "pink slime" is dysphemistic. It is certainly closer to an admissible descriptive title. Srnec (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Its time to move it

Over the course of five years, four separate move discussions have resulted in no consensus to rename the article. Please drop the stick and move on. 13:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes i know this was tried in the past (during the "scandal") but it is time to move this article back to Lean finely textured beef OR Finely textured beef trimmings since the very first words in the article are "is a pejorative for". I understand that there is a "common name" rule, but there is also a rule against pejorative naming of articles. Since the scandal and news coverage is long over, can we please take the high road here and move this article to a more industry accurate name? Δρ∈rs∈ghiη (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC) No -- "common name" exists for a reason, and here it's a question of what readers are most likely to search for. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC) i think that readers are most likely to search for the ingredient listed on the label. This article was hastily moved to "Pink Slime" during a time when the pejorative was popular in the news. It was a short sighted move that was defended by a minority of very zealous editors. Since that time labeling standards have begun to emerge http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2014/02/cargill-rolls-out-labels-for-some-finely-textured-beef-products/#.VWSgDflVjYE http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/R42473.pdf and industry names will continue to be the common name, not the pejorative. Δρ∈rs∈ghiη (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC) I agree with Nomoskedasticity that the common name should still be used as that is what people are most likely going to be searching for. --Jasenlee (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC) thats what redirects are for 96.244.12.80 (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC) Pink slime is still what people search for, and what people still call it. Pink slime has been viewed 27261 times in the last 90 days. Lean finely textured beef has been viewed 145 times in the last 90 days. Dream Focus 05:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC) I agree with Aperseghin, the term "pink slime" is not used by the food industry, and it makes the article look very amateur. The article's title should be lean finely textured beef with alternative and/or common names quoted after. Just as in articles about animals or plants we see the scientific name before the popular name. If you guys are worried by what people are searching for, just redirect the searches to this page, no big deal. --Bernardo.fm (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC) — Bernardo.fm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yes, please change the title of this article. As it is agreed to be a pejorative term, it has an inherent bias, and this should be absent from wikipedia. When I saw the link on google after searching "pink slime" I honestly thought it was a link to uncyclopedia or some other spoof site at first. If you are so concerned about the majority of people searching "pink slime", then set up a redirect. Don't make patently specious excuses. The page for "cranefly" is not called "daddy long-legs" despite the fact that most all people I know call it that. Fmc47 (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Agree: move the article and have "pink slime" redirect. Calling LFTB by its slang term only is a disgrace to wikipedia and discredits the encyclopedia. The argument that "pink slime" is the common term is arbitrary. According to who? By what research or scientific study is that claim made? A precedence has been set countless times that wikipedia uses the proper name for something and has it's slang term redirect, regardless how popular the slang term may be. See: Whore (prostitution), Cock (penis) , Buck (US dollar), pot (cannabis), poop (feces), etc.. When was the last time you heard someone refer to a fart as flatulence? The popular term fart redirects to flatulence on Wikipedia. Further more, the term "pink slime" was coined by a person to describe LFTB, and that in a news story taking an unfavorable opinion of the product. The use of the word grew from further media reports from that report. It was never industry standard, and the public use of the term is merely referencing the original media opinion. The product is 100% beef, citric acid or ammonia only used as a method to keep the product from being contaminated. The very term pink slime does not even accurately describe the end product, which more resembles sausage stuffings than anything else. The effort to keep this article as it's pejorative name is clearly political and does not keep with Wikipedia standards nor other encyclopedias standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ima Groinitch (talk • contribs) 22:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC) Trollish username and 60 odd edits over the space of six years. Whose sockpuppet are you? 184.15.236.75 (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC) That's the best counter-argument you can make to their points above? Agree, WTF, I typed in "Pink Slime" looking for the article expecting a redirect to whatever the stuff is really called. It's shocking that the article is titled as such when it clearly states it's pejorative slang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.133.140.139 (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC) It's far from the best counter-argument, but at this point it's the only one that should be necessary - the move to "lean finely textured beef" has been roundly rejected on three separate move requests as less accurate and more POV than pink slime. The only people still agitating for a rename are these strange characters like you who keep popping into this article seemingly out of nowhere to rehash the same tired rejected arguments. 184.15.254.105 (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC) Why is the main article called pink slime? That should be included as a section in the article, or as an "also known as". This clearly violates Wikipedia's policy of neutrality in article titles Wikipedia:Article_titles#Neutrality_in_article_titles. They list two examples that parallel this: "Octomom" should redirect to Nadya Suleman, and "Antennagate" redirects to a section of the article on the iPhone 4.208.87.239.202 (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Pink slime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104132316/http://www.cattlenetwork.com/drovers/columns/Outraged-but-not-over-pink-slime-147044515.html?view=all to http://www.cattlenetwork.com/drovers/columns/Outraged-but-not-over-pink-slime-147044515.html?view=all
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.theithacajournal.com/article/20120323/NEWS01/203230390/Groceries-address-consumers-pink-slime-concerns
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324190637/http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/lifestyle/food/pink-slime-sounds-gross-but-how-does-it-taste to http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/lifestyle/food/pink-slime-sounds-gross-but-how-does-it-taste
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403032624/http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/320893/customers-flee-from-pink-slime to http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/320893/customers-flee-from-pink-slime
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120708021911/http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2012/04/01/database-political-contributions-tied-to-beef-products-inc/ to http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2012/04/01/database-political-contributions-tied-to-beef-products-inc/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141104080919/http://www.redrobin.com/newsroom/article/RedRobinBeefQuality to http://www.redrobin.com/newsroom/article/RedRobinBeefQuality

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pink slime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318031152/http://www.beefproducts.com/history.php to http://www.beefproducts.com/history.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

LFTB is not banned in Canada

Nowhere in the link does it say it is not allowed. There is nothing about the word ammonia in that article. The relevant section says "FTM is an edible product obtained by removing muscle tissue attached to bones by the means of mechanical meat/bone separation equipment that contains:

   no skin;
   no more than 0.15% of calcium;
   no bone particles larger than 1.5 mm in size and a maximum of 20% of the bone particles larger than 1 mm in size; and
   a minimum protein content of:
       10%; or
       if destined for retail sale, 14%.

FTM can be used in the preparation of ground meat or identified as ground meat when:

   it has a minimum protein content of 14%; and
   bones emerging from separation equipment must be essentially intact and recognizable to assure that the bones are not being crushed, ground or pulverized; and
   it complies with the standards set out within Schedule I of the Meat Inspection Regulations, 1990. The term "regular", "medium", "lean" or "extra lean" must be used as appropriate in order to indicate the maximum fat content (i.e. 30%, 23%, 17% or 10% respectively)."

The only time Health Canada has commented on this is in this article, which makes clear that it simply has never been applied for, it would need to be cleared, so since it is not, that is not the same thing as being banned. https://www.thespec.com/news-story/2237256--pink-slime-stops-at-the-49th-parallel/

Therefore "banned" is a weasel word for political purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abracadabra777 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Unsoupported claim

Originally, the claim added here was completely unsourced. The newest version, here, is not much better. The new source discusses LFTB with all of the histrionics the author can muster. Then, the author begins to discuss a case of BSE in the U.S. While the author is trying to imply a connection (without stating there is a connection), that implication is certainly not a reliable source for stating there is a connection, let alone one sufficient to meet WP:MEDRS.

The unregistered editor repeatedly making the claim has been warned repeatedly by two other editors that they need a reliable source. They have not discussed the claim, other than to say they are "deeply offended" to have it called vandalism and threaten to report one of the editors for edit warring.[11]

Tip: If you boldly make an edit and it is reverted, discuss the issue. We call this "bold - revert - discuss". If, rather than discussing it you repeatedly make the claim in two articles and are reverted a total of six times by three editors, accusing one of them of edit warring is probably not going to work.

The applicable policies and guidelines here are: WP:V (anything challenged or likely to be challenged must cite a reliable source), WP:SEEALSO (links in the "See also" section must be relevant), WP:MEDRS (all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge) and, as mentioned, WP:BRD. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Robbins wrote two brief articles and glued them together, apparently hoping to connect LFTB and BSE. Look at the source: Everything before "And now..." is about LFTB without so much as a mention of BSE. After "And now...", it's entirely about BSE. Sloppy smoke and mirrors from an activist does not make for a WP:MEDRS source.

The IP editor is up for a second block here. They've either not read the source or have bought into Robbins' attempt to connect the two. If the editor decides to discuss the issue after this block, this is the place to do it. If they decide to continue restoring the poorly sourced claim, we can make the blocks longer. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Should article topic be changed ?

I found this article after a search in Google for the term "Pink Slime", trying to find out what the substance's "real" name is. In the first para for this article it is noted that the term "Pink Slime" is a popular term for the product known officially as "lean finely textured beef". In light of the public opprobrium and general negative connotations associated with the term "Pink Slime", or any for of food substance that might have the word "slime" in it for that matter, shouldn't the official name be used instead ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.41.52 (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I certainly think so, however for that to happen, there needs to be consensus amoung Wikipedia editors that it should change. There has been over the years 4 discussion held (they are listed in the talk header above) and each time the super-majority felt that the WP:COMMONNAME should be "pink slime". Some have said "lean finely textured beef" is perhaps the industry and academic common name, it sounds too WP:POV as an industry euphemism. So if the industry name was "sanitized ground up leftovers" we would use it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems as though opinions on the subject are intractable on all sides due to differing interpretations of how the various proposed titles relate to WP:NPOVNAME and WP:COMMONNAME.

• Those in favor of 'Pink slime' assert that 'lean finely textured beef' is overly euphemistic industry spin and non-neutral POV. They also assert that pink slime is far more widely used, and appropriate according to COMMONNAME.
• Those who favor 'Lean finely textured beef' assert that 'pink slime' is overly dysphemistic and non-neutral POV. They also assert that as the formal name and the name used in scholarly publications, 'lean finely textured beef' is neutral POV (or at least more neutral than 'pink slime').
• Some - and it seems to be much more common although not exclusive to the 'pink slime' side - have expressed that neither term is ideal for an article title, and that they would support a non-judgmental descriptive name (see WP:NDESC). However, there has yet to be any serious discussion on what said neutral name would be, and others have expressed the opinion that inventing a title for the article would necessarily include Original Research and as such be more against policy than either 'pink slime' or 'lean finely textured beef.'

Although it is not necessarily inappropriate to revisit the discussion since Consensus Can Change, to quote the administrator who closed one of the previous merge discussions, extensive discussion has not resulted in any broad shifting of views, and appears unlikely to do so, particularly in light of the continuing range of mass media articles and television segments identifying the subject by the current title. 184.15.165.186 (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Presence of ammonia or ammonium hydroxide in finished producted

It would be good if someone with either industry or chemistry experience could elaborate on what happens to the ammonium hydroxide produced on/in the beef before packaging. It's not clear if there is residual NH3 or the OH after the extrusion&treatment. I'm assuming the "pencil thin" extrusion is so the gaseous NH3 reaches the largest surface area possible, but it's not mentioned whether the formed OH remains on the surface/permeates the meat (it must, to completely kill microorgs, right? Pencil thin is NOT THAT THIN), or if it decomposes, or is a safe additive or what.

This could clear up a lot of the controversy IMO. It's beef made with ammonia... The presence and safety of ammonia in the final product is probably important. 99.192.12.115 (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

"Ammonium hydroxide" does not really exist on its own. It's just ammonia in water solution, made when ammonia reaches the water in beef. Solubility of any gas, including ammonia, in water reduces sharply when heated. Ground beef is supposed to be cooked, so that should release most of the ammonia. You can probably make a very crude test of ammonia levels by just heating and sniffing. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/AN281 gives useful numbers on ammonia levels. Artoria2e5 🌉 03:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)