Did You Hear the One About #PinkSlime ...?

Of course you did!


We all heard about it in the news. But, did we really pay attention? I sure didn't expect to study it in a legal master's degree program on agriculture law. We did. Here's why:

You might think that the hamburger you buy at the grocery store is ground beef. But, it's actually a bit more than ground beef. Sometimes more is better. Sometimes it isn't. You be the judge.

"Pink slime" is a less-than-flattering term for lean finely textured beef and boneless lean beef trimmings. Let's call it "PS."

PS is a meat by-product used as a food additive to ground beef as a filler. During the process of production, fat is removed from beef trimmings by the use of heat and centrifugal force. This turns it into a paste. This paste is then exposed to ammonia gas. Then it is processed and sold as ground beef.

PS is not allowed to be imported in Canada or the UK. It is banned from human consumption in the European Union. Not so the United States. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved the product for limited human consumption.

Interestingly, the term "pink slime" was coined by a former USDA microbiologist. His opinion was that the filler wasn't really beef, regardless of our government's approval.

What caused the furor was the news coverage it received. The words "pink slime" made their public debut in a 2009 New York Times story. The story quoted from an email written by the USDA microbiologist, who was frustrated that the additive was being left of of labels for ground meat. The story probably caused some consternation and turned a few stomachs, but all was quiet on the litigation front.



Then in 2012, ABC's on-air news coverage of the issue gathered considerable attention. Although ABC made it clear that so-called "pink slime" was not unsafe, they did report that Beef Products Inc. (BPI), the primary manufacturer, did not label the ingredient when it was included in its beef.

Not long after these on-air reports, a petition to keep the product out of public school cafeterias was circulated and fast food companies and supermarket chains stopped selling ground beef that contained it. BPI's business was hit hard, causing plant closings. They immediately sued ABC (and others).

They sued for defamation, a disinformation campaign, and intentional malignment ... and basically because ABC's news coverage caused them to lose money. This case was in litigation for five years and was scheduled for trial in June. BUT the parties settled after the second week of trial, on June 28.

As I was reading the news report as part of my homework, I expected to read that BPI dismissed the case and decided to let ABC off the hook because they had not reported the product was unsafe. And because truth is a defense against defamation. And because ABC claimed that it accurately presented views and information from "knowledgeable sources on a matter of keen public interest."

Wrong! I was so wrong.



The parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement that reportedly included ABC paying $177 million, we assume to BPI.

I would have given almost anything to have been a mouse in the corner during the settlement discussions. I wonder why ABC agreed to pay, and how they decided how much to pay.

I would also have loved to be that same mouse in the corner when the USDA decided that BPI did not need to include ingredients in a product label for what we all think is just plain old hamburger. I wonder why the USDA decided that all information did not need to be on the label. I wonder what the criteria was, or what guidelines they used.

This brings me to why we read about this case in Food Law. We are studying food safety and government regulation - and the responsibilities of each federal agency. We learned that the USDA is responsible for inspection and safety of all beef products. This case was part of our review of inspection and labeling issues.

I don't know about you, but I like to know the ingredients contained in products I buy, especially if 70% of what I am buying isn't what I think I am buying. Especially when I am buying products for consumption. I may still choose to buy the product, but I like to know what I am buying. How can I decide if more is better, if I don't know what the more is?

I don't know about you, but I am committed to buying beef from a grower I can look directly in the eye and ask about the ingredients. Or go without.

I don't know about you, but I have relied on our government agencies to protect us in matters of food safety and food labeling.

I don't know about you, but I am questioning everything.

For more on food safety and "hamburger" here are some eye-opening videos: tainted meat, and food safety.

Until next week, back to the books ...

Susan Burns
P.S.  To make sure you don't miss an update, fill out the form on the top right of the page. #DoIt


Comments

Popular Posts