'Pink slime' beef off US school menu

 
Boneless lean beef trimmings produced by Beef Products Inc Some liken the boneless beef to pet food, but others say it is not a nutritional concern

Schools across the US are to be allowed to stop serving so-called "pink slime" beef to their pupils at mealtimes.

In a statement, the US Department of Agriculture said schools buying beef from a central government scheme could now choose from a range of options.

The term has become used to describe a type of beef trimming commonly found in school and restaurant beef in the US.

Reports it was widely used in schools prompted a popular outcry, although the beef is certified as safe to eat.

Social media campaigns and an online petition sprung up to oppose the use of the product. The beef's producer led a campaign to explain it was nutritional and safe.

Last year, British celebrity chef Jamie Oliver publicly criticised the product on his now-defunct US TV show, and McDonald's recently said it would phase out the use of "pink slime" in its burgers.

Centrifugal beef

The US agriculture department said on Thursday it would now offer alternatives to the beef - officially called lean finely textured beef - for schools buying meat through its programmes.

The department (USDA) said the change was "due to customer demand".

"USDA continues to affirm the safety of Lean Finely Textured Beef product for all consumers and urges customers to consult science based information on the safety and quality of this product," it added.

School administrators reacted positively to the change.

"Our district has long advocated for purity and disclosure in food products. And we will definitely be moving to the pure ground beef when that becomes available," John Schuster, spokesman for Florida's Miami-Dade school system, told the Associated Press.

"Pink slime" - a term reportedly coined by a microbiologist working for the US government - is a form of lean beef formed by reclaiming the small parts of meat from leftover cuts with a high fat content.

The beef is spun in a centrifuge to separate the meat from the fat, before the final product is treated with a puff of ammonium hydroxide gas to kill any bacteria.

Produced in bulk by a firm in South Dakota, the pejorative nature of the term "pink slime" has coloured the debate, some experts say.

It is "unappetising", Sarah Klein, of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, told the Los Angeles Times, "but perhaps not more so than other things that are routinely part of a hamburger".

"What pink slime reveals to us," she told the newspaper, "is the unsavoury marriage of engineering and food, but it's present in a lot of the products we eat."

 

More on This Story

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    +4

    Comment number 143.

    Whilst it may sound unappetising, the important question is what will this beef be replaced by? If it's by another meat product, then it'll doubtless become more expensive, which will mean some kids won't be able to afford it. Some people seem to forget just how poor parts of America are; there is demand for this type of food for a reason, and even unhealthy food is far better than no food at all.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 139.

    I am so glad I stopped eating meat years ago. this muck sounds disgusting - and the US are feeding it to their children.
    Not surprised that McDonalds use it. People should ask how they can produce a 'burger' for so little. We eat so much processed food these days that we do not have any real idea what we are eating half the time. For many cooking means reheating these days

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 137.

    The problem with 'pink slime' is that it is tasteless because it has virtually no fat (the prime source of flavour in beef), also the processing makes it impossible to know what is in it. The answer is simple, don't eat any processed food, do it yourself - it's a fundamental skill. One gets the distinct impression that an awful lot of people don't eat anything that is recognisable as food!

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 123.

    The article hasn't really done the story true justice.
    This meat isn't being replaced simply because it is the rubbish cuts from the cow. The true reason there has been so much campaigning against this product is the way it is treated. The meat is basically 'bleached', using a chemical that is illegal in food production. But since it provides cheap meals for schools - the govt overlooks it.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 120.

    I've nothing against MRM. It's not the choicest "cut" of meat, but I've eaten and will almost certainly eat MRM again.

    I am slightly confused that some people (some celebrity chefs, mainly) espouse using the various unpopular offcuts and offal of animals, yet are aghast at MRM. Surely it's just another way of using more of the animal carcass?

 

Comments 5 of 12

 

More US & Canada stories

RSS

Features

  • Two women in  JohanesburgYour pictures

    Readers' photos on the theme of South Africa


  • Worcestershire flagFlying the flag

    Preserving the identities of England's counties


  • Female model's bottom in leopard skin trousers as she walks up the catwalkBum deal

    Why budget buttock ops can be bad for your health


  • The OfficeIn pictures

    Fifty landmark shows from 50 years of BBC Two


  • French luxury Tea House, Mariage Freres display of tea pots Tea for tu

    France falls back in love with tea - but don't expect a British cuppa


BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.