8
Gov. Terry Branstad: The case for 'pink slime'
Governor Terry Branstad pictured in a t-shirt showing his support for the beef industry, accompanied by Ed Greiman and Ross Havens of the Iowa Cattlemen's Association.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
Jeremy Hobson: Have you ever heard of lean finely textured beef? What about pink slime? Well they're the same thing -- but the fact that more people have heard of the latter is what concerns Terry Branstad, the Republican governor of Iowa. The recent controversy over the widely-used ammonia treated beef has already sent one beef producer into bankruptcy.
Governor Branstad joins us now from Des Moines. Good morning.
Terry Branstad: Good morning.
Hobson: Now I can't see you in person, but I hear you're wearing a "Dude, it's beef" t-shirt?
Branstad: That's right, given to me by Lt. Gov. Sheehy from Nebraska when we had the big meeting out there with BPI and went through and showed that it's a very good, clean, USDA-approved process that provides this lean, finely textured beef. This is a very positive campaign to get the truth out, and to counter the vicious smear campaign that's been conducted.
Hobson: Well who's running this "vicious smear campaign?"
Branstad: You know, you've got a celebrity chef; you've got some folks that have traditionally been against the consumption of meat. We've asked the agriculture committee in Congress to look into it and see if they can find out more. But a lot of this has been done, kind of a shadowy thing using the social network to get that out there.
That's why we're going to the agriculture students -- it's their future -- and we want to make sure they can counter it. These young people, they know how to use the social media and to counter the vicious rumors and smear tactics with the truth and scientific evidence.
Hobson: Governor, why shouldn't consumers be grossed out by this stuff?
Branstad: Because it's not true. It's a smear campaign; it's all beef. And when people find out not only it's all beef, it's 95 percent lean, they say, "I would like to buy this product because we know it's better and it's healthier." So, just because somebody calls you a smear, you shouldn't believe it. And that's why this is such a clear-cut issue -- because the scientific evidence is all on our side.
Hobson: Do you think that big companies like McDonald's and Taco Bell have bought into the smears then?
Branstad: I think they have responded to uninformed consumers that have been misled. In the case of McDonald's, they are a world-wide company and they want to make sure their product is uniform throughout the world, so their situation may be somewhat unique. But I think a lot of times, these big groups, they tend to respond.
And that's the reason why we think the best way to counter the smear campaign is with scientific evidence, with the knowledge, and certainly the meat experts at Iowa State University, Texas A&M and elsewhere have done a great job of this. And also we as governors who are interested in the beef industry and are interested in safe food for our consumers I think also have a voice in this as well.
Hobson: Now, some people are going to hear you say this and say, "Wait a minute -- Gov. Branstad is just sticking up for an industry that's important to his state and that donated $180,000 to his campaign over the last two years." How do you respond to that?
Branstad: Well, that's what happens when you confront people with the facts, they tend to attack the people that are delivering the message. I as governor certainly am going to fight for jobs in my state, and I believe in agriculture and I believe in the beef industry. We are fighting back with the truth and with scientific evidence, and the only thing they'll do is personally attack and use smear tactics. That tells you a lot about the character of the people conducting the smear campaign, doesn't it?
Hobson: Gov. Terry Branstad of Iowa, thanks so much for talking with us.
Branstad: You're welcome, thank you.
Is it just me or does enlightenedscience have some valid points here? Caryecoepicurean and Science Momma, you should be ashamed of yourselves. I suggest you return to your introductory biochemistry class, the one you had to take in your undergraduate studies for your bachelor’s degree. Never mind the masters or the doctors of philosophy. Who am I? Like enlightenedscience, I am a soon to be veterinarian and have had my share of general chemistry, biochemistry, organic chemistry, and nutrition lectures. More importantly, I am 4th generation paternally and 5th generation maternally to serve food (raise cattle, produce, grains and milk) to the domestic and international consumer. I have been to a number of packing plants and couldn’t agree more with enlightenedscience. Food off of the floor never enters the food chain! How asinine are you? I would wager the fact that I have been in more chemistry labs than you have packing houses. Even I know not to pour chemicals down the sink! I will touch on the economics of beef production. Before gaining admittance to veterinary school I obtained bachelor degrees in finance and economics.
United States beef producers are producing more pounds of beef with fewer cattle than ever before- the national cow herd is the lowest it’s been since the 1950s. This can be attributed to the resourcefulness, ingenuity, and utilization of technology by not only cattlemen but by feedyard operators and packing companies. Cattlemen have selected genetics that will produce more beef with fewer inputs than the cattle that existed in the 1950s. Unfortunately, individuals such as Pollan et al. have refused to believe that America’s agriculture is as honest as the people who produce the food. Unlike Pollan and his henchmen would like you to believe, people in agriculture have the consumer’s best interest in mind. The number one economic driver for the beef industry is consumer preferences. Consumers set the price. They must be willing and able to pay for the products we have to offer. Why would we want to drive away the consumer by putting a harmful product in the meat case? Thanks to the likes of Pollan the image of agriculture has been distorted from the agrarian roots of our past to the “factory farm” façade which is grossly misleading to the naive consumer and unfair to the individuals who work tirelessly 364.5 days per year (winter breaks, spring breaks, summer vacations and other holidays do not exist for those in agriculture as they do in academia and other 9 to 5 jobs) to provide the safest, most wholesome source of red meat known to man. With the increased efficiency found in products like lean finely textured beef we are able to produce more beef by utilizing the trimmings of beef that would otherwise be rendered and wasted at a very cost effective price to the consumer. When we remove this from the supply pipeline (similar to chemical titrations let’s pretend the price is acid and the supply is base-sorry if that analogy is over the chemists head, I know I am mixing chemistry with economics, pun intended) we will eventually run out of supply (reaction equilibrium) and the prices for the products will increase. When the prices get too high and consumers are unable to pay for the products we are met with what is called resistance. When the resistance is met and consumers quit purchasing the supply will overrun the demand and prices will be forced downward. Consequently, some producers will have to exit the business. Do you see the trend that is being established? When these producers are forced to exit the supply becomes smaller once again and prices will be eventually forced up until resistance is met again. I believe that we can all agree that the human population is only growing. We are going to need all of the food we can get. Fortunately, we have curbed this problem with the increased efficiencies found in products such as lean, finely textured beef and newer cuts that were once deemed uneatable allowing for more pounds of red meat harvested per carcass. Who said Americans are wasteful and unsustainable?
I suspect that school children in Syria, North Korea, or Tibet would gladly eat lean finely textured beef along with a hamburger bun produced by American wheat farmers, lettuce, tomato ketchup, mustard, onion, bacon with potato fries and I bet those things wouldn’t even have to be “organic”- it might be the next best thing to being liberated. We should be thankful for the Americans in agriculture as they allow us to take a lot of the things we have for granted such as a liberty and a very cost effective, safe and secure food supply. Now Caryecoepicurean and Science Momma, you are allowed to have your opinion, I’m not taking that away from you, albeit ignorant, but ignorance is bliss. I believe in America. I believe in Agriculture. Here is a trivia question. Where else are you going to find such a great, cost efficient source of zinc, iron, and protein besides eating a painful amount of vegetables? As for B12 I won’t explain where you have to find it to meet minimal nutritional requirements, only one word is necessary- Coprophagia.
I'm from Iowa, and I'm SO sick of this corporate agribusiness lackey.
I understand his desire to protect an industry upon which Iowa is very dependent. I also suspect it's at least a bit influenced by campaign donations and investments.
What smear campaign? Their is no "campaign". At best/worst, it is simply a result of the media and the public being slow on the uptake and prone to jump on the bandwagon combined with the internet's ability to make things "go viral" when something finally grabs our attention.
The original "pink slime" memo (written by concerned and dedicated USDA microbiologist Gerald Zirnstein) was written TEN YEARS AGO! The "celebrity chef" that Terry constantly refers to is Jamie Oliver. His pink slime video was broadcast one year ago (today), and probably filmed months before that, in the context of a broad campaign to improve the quality of food in public schools.
ABC, for whatever reason, picked up on it in March.
(See http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/04/bpi-and-pink-slime-a-timeline/ for more detail).
The safety question is a red herring. I've heard almost no comments suggesting that LFTB or BLBT are less safe than traditional ground beef.
To many, it's a question of "grossness". Yes, it's beef. So are the rectums, bowels, lungs, glands, and brains of cattle. It's probably possible to make cattle feces safe and nutrition. That doesn't mean everybody wants to eat it. Knowing the FDA, you could probably get them to declare that as beef too (and forbid anybody from labeling it).
It's a question of forthrightness and choice. People have a right to ask and know what's in their food. yes, people are often hypocritical -- yes, they should probably be concerned about what's in their hot dogs too. That's a great idea for the next campaign :-)
I'm tired of politicians who give lip service to patriotism and the Constitution but don't believe in or protect constitutional rights.
I'm tired of politicians who advocate free markets when they can use it as a tool to bust unions or lower wages, but are apoplectic when the free market harms their corporate cronies.
I'm tired of politicians who argue that they have to have the flexibility to offer top-end wages and bonuses to recruit and retain government executives, but treat teachers as ungrateful leeches that are lucky the government tolerates their presence, as expendable commodities that can be replaced by anybody w a pulse and some business experience.
I'm tired of politicians who believe our citizens primary purpose is to server as tools for the enrichment of corporations rather than corporations existing to serve for the enrichment of our citizens.
I'm tired of politicians who fight to fabricate and protect rights of corporations while continually and increasingly reduce the rights of ordinary citizens. To the extent they are willing to criminalize investigation and free speech if it threatens corporations, not with lies, but with truths!
I'm tired of politicians who believe corporations are people but people are not.
Applause to the governor who took a stand for agriculture producers that work every day sustaining the economy and feeding people. Who am I to make comments? I am a PhD Nutritionist, I am a soon to be veterinarian, I am a cattle producer, a 7th generation American farmer, and someone who cares very much about what I eat and the animal products produced for this world.
I respect the comments of the chemists that posted before and they bring up interesting points.
Science Momma states " Stating that I do not want my kids to eat the scraps of food from a slaughterhouse floor is not a smear campaign." How many slaughterhouses have you visited? I'm guessing the answer would be, none. I have been in numerous slaughter plants and it is unfortunate that with the education you have, you would make such an emotionally charged statement. Surely you realize that scraps from the slaughterhouse floor are not used in food?! All meat products produced must pass USDA inspection which includes adherence to animal inspection, microbial testing, residue testing, and following of HACCP guidelines. NO meat touching the floor should enter the food chain!
Caryecoepicurean states " since children deserve to have real food and not industrial treated beef waste" I would be entertained by what your definitions of "real food" and "industrial treated beef waste" are? Since you are a chemist, I'm sure you would realize that through normal metabolism our body is catabolically and anabolically using nutrients to meet our daily needs. What does it matter if the beef looks different from the original cut of meat it came from? Maybe we shouldn't squeeze our oranges for orange juice or puree our tomatoes. I think you will find that your search for a definition of "real food" and "industrial treated beef waste" will become blurred.
I write not to start an argument but to state the following facts:
1) Lean finely textured beef is safe, wholesome, and a great source of protein, vitamin B12, iron, and zinc
2) Eating a balanced diet which includes meat, is not only the healthy thing to do, it is the environmentally sustainable thing to do.
3) A thorough and unbiased literature review will reveal a preponderance of evidence supporting the claims that I state.
Did I miss something here? Companies are going out of business because some vegetarian animal rights group started a smear campaign over beef? Ask any kid if they care about their pink hot dog. Besides the pink meat, which are scraps of the slaughter process there are all kinds of chemical preservatives and added sugars in hot dogs. Hot dogs, sausages, process cured meats, hamburger are using parts left over from the finer cuts of meats. Man has been using the whole animal since the beginning of time. Now go enjoy some good scrapple and sweetbreads.
Another PhD Chemist here. I'm pretty offended by Gov. Branstad's comments. I am neither uninformed nor misled. We raised cattle for beef consumption when I was a child, and I know how delicious and clean steak can be!
Despite that experience, I now follow an increasingly "plant based" diet, and our growing family has reduced our meat consumption. We have made these changes based on peer-reviewed, published scientific studies surrounding genetically modified grains used in animal feed and those analyzing the relationship between diets and obesity or heart disease.
The meat industry continues to cause themselves public relations damage by making comments like Gov. Branstad: "...counter the smear campaign is with scientific evidence, with the knowledge, and certainly the meat experts at Iowa State University, Texas A&M and elsewhere have done a great job of this." Stating that I do not want my kids to eat the scraps of food from a slaughterhouse floor is not a smear campaign. Telling me that you counter my observations with "the knowledge" is meaningless. Calling a processed beef food product does not make it beef. That's a pig wearing lipstick. Which it can do, since I'm not going to eat it now.
This was without a doubt the silliest interview on this topic that I have heard. I am a p.hd chemist and I have looked at his so called scientific evidence. Very simply, it is not independently done or reviewed since it was funded by the beef industry and thus it's results are suspect and would not be printed in any independent journal. This also applies to the USDA's data and opinions. So without attacking Gov. Branstad we can pull the rug out from under his argument just as Jeremy did in his questioning in this interview. As for the smear campaign on social media, this is being supported by people like myself, Micheal Pollan, Marion Nestlé, Tom Philpott and The American Organic Consumers Union just to name a few. These are not uninformed people or groups. In the end, Gov Branstad is welcome to eat pink slime if likes, but I will not, I will not feed it to my daughter and I will continue to support its removal from school lunches since children deserve to have real food and not industrial treated beef waste which regardless what the Govener or the beef industry says is exactly what lean finely textured beef is.
