- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Health
USDA Buys "Pink Slime" for School Lunches
School is bad enough, what with all the bullying, homework and mean teachers. But now it is about to get much, much worse -- the so-called "pink slime" will soon be part of school lunches.
The Daily reports that the U.S. Department of Agriculture plans to buy seven million pounds of Lean Beef Trimmings (Beef Product Inc. prefers that name to pink slime) of the stuff for the school lunch program. In a statement the USDA said it "meet(s) the highest standard for food safety.”
That may be true, but do you want your kids eating it? The Daily explains the creation process:
Made by grinding together connective tissue and beef scraps normally destined for dog food and rendering, BPI’s Lean Beef Trimmings are then treated with ammonia hydroxide, a process that kills pathogens such as salmonella and E. coli.
The resulting pinkish substance is later blended into traditional ground beef and hamburger patties.
Sounds appetizing.
“We originally called it soylent pink,” Carl Custer, a retired microbiologist from the Food Safety Inspection Service told The Daily. “We looked at the product and we objected to it because it used connective tissues instead of muscle. It was simply not nutritionally equivalent (to ground beef). My main objection was that it was not meat.”
Fast-food leaders McDonald's, Burger King and Taco Bell recently stopped using the pink slime because of increased negative publicity about it, in part due to celebrity chef Jamie Oliver.
Galleries
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter




















Comments
I am in food distribution and
I am in food distribution and firmly believe that LFTB needs to be declared on the label. The problem I have here is the photo attached to this article. It is a chicken product used in making chicken nuggets. Please do some research before you attach a picture to an article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/pink-slime-photo-isnt-what-it-appears-to-be/2012/03/09/gIQApJJd1R_blog.html
I don't think the schools
I don't think the schools should act as restaurants at all - they have one purpose (or should) and that is to teach academics so that the children can survive as adults. The schools are not responsible for fulfilling parental responsibilities. If there are children coming to school without their sack lunch then one could be provided for them. This would involve a discussion with the parents hopefully resulting in an explanation. I would assume that if the child has no food then the adult caring for them has none either - right? If that is the case then it is a situation for the proper authorities. The school is not qualified to act in that situation. The money saved from the absolute junk they feed the children and the labor expended to serve it would be more than adequate to provide excellent sack lunches for everyone if needed. Please think about this before you start attacking me.
You do have some good points.
You do have some good points. I don't see that you're in favor of allowing children to starve, but simply want a more efficient way of helping them.
But schools have been providing lunches for decades. When I was in grade school decades ago, everyone was provided with lunch. As far as I knew, no parents paid anything for it. Today, I think that has changed and the lunch programs must be self-supporting. Perhaps that's why catchup is classified as a "vegetable".
@justathought What is
@justathought What is the main purpose of public education? To teach. Many, many studies show that an undernourished child has difficulty learning. If the school makes sure the poorest kids get at least lunch, then they are more likely to be able to educate these kids enough so they can stay off of welfare. Don't you think it is worth it to extend this small amount of help? If not, then you are as heartless as I said before.
I am in complete agreement
I am in complete agreement with your statement that the school's function is to educate - arm students with the knowledge they need to become productive decision makers which ultimately gives them the freedom to choose the path they travel. I would suggest that you re-read my post and notice that I suggested that the lunch program be reduced to a bagged lunch program which would reduce waste and could be much, much more nutritious that what the children get currently. I want to repeat that the schools should not exist to be surrogate parents but to educate. If a child is in distress the proper authorities should be notified to intervene in the strictest way. I might suggest that anyone who actually thinks that the school lunch program as it exists should visit a public school and look in the trash cans when the lunch period is over - although I can't say I blame the children for not eating what is masquerading as food.
Excellent point and well put.
Excellent point and well put. Yes, it's "socialist" but that's the entire point of socialism, to take care of others so they can begin to take care of themselves. I find it hard to find fault with that idea.
I LOVE Paula Qualls Gurley's
I LOVE Paula Qualls Gurley's suggestion....so on target.
Does anyone think that school
Does anyone think that school administrators and the USDA really care about school children? Nope, they only care about their power base and political connections.
How about, we just do away
How about, we just do away with school lunches, and the parents can have the freedom to send whatever lunches they want with their children.
Parents already have that
Parents already have that freedom. As usual it's the poor kids who will suffer from crap food because they get free or reduced price lunches.
That would be a very, very
That would be a very, very bad idea. For some of the poorest children, school lunches are their main source of food.
Absolute BS. But even if
Absolute BS. But even if that were true, it isn't relevant. It's a parental responsibility to feed one's child, not a school's.
Yes, it's the parents
Yes, it's the parents responsibility to feed their children. What do we do if the parents are unable to do that? Let the kid starve? There are plenty of people, especially given the current economy, who had children then lost their jobs and can't feed their family on their own anymore. Donations to non-profits are down while demand is up. You may not like that some people need government assistance but I for one am not willing to let children starve just because their parents have fallen on hard times.
If the kid can't survive
If the kid can't survive without a school lunch, then clearly that lunch isn't going to save them either. This strain is getting so ridiculously illogical.
If the child gets a
If the child gets a nutritious lunch, that can make the difference between survival and death. It would probably be more than what many people in the world survive on.
For people living in developed countries most have no idea how desperate conditions are in other places.
This is not to say that the "pink slime" should be given to children when better is readily available. But there are many places in the world where they would be delighted to have it.
You really are quite the
You really are quite the heartless moron.
Right, because 1 meal a day
Right, because 1 meal a day is not better than 0 meals a day? I agree that someone here is being illogical.