Public discussion of pink slime – LFTB, yo! -- has denigrated into an Internet-energized caricature faster than the U.S. found itself at war with Spain over Cuba in 1898.

Technology will do that; but the basic framing of the public and political dialogue is the same, with contributions from hacks on many sides in the absence of data.

Is pink slime, or lean finely textured beef – safe and sustainable? Probably.

Does it make other beef safer when added to ground meat to make hamburger? Probably not.

Jim Dickson and colleagues at Iowa State verified the process works back in 2002. Within the food science nerd community, there has been some chatting about the rigor of the study but that’s normal: dispute and dissent, backed by evidence, is what makes science great (Niebuhr, S. and J.S. Dickson. 2002. Impact of pH Enhancement on the Populations of Salmonella, Listeria and Escherichia coli O157:H7 in Boneless Lean Beef Trimmings. Journal of Food Protection 66:874-877).

The politically-inspired formation of public opinion – the rhetoric – is an ancient art a lot easier to engage in rather than the actual grind of generating data.

Food is political, but it should be informed by data; and that data should be public.

There is a paucity of data about pink slime that is publicly available, so statements like it’s safe, or it’s gross, are difficult to quantify.

But many have no problem using pink slime as a launching pad to further validate their own personal agendas, and, I guess, make them feel better.

The cooking tips of Mark Bittman are occasionally useful. But like most entertainers, his forays into social policy sorta suck, error-ridden and conspiracy laden.

From his perch at the New York Times, Bittman once again proclaims industrial production is the root of all evil, because “E. coli, found in the digestive tracts of cattle, is common on factory farms where cattle are fed only grain.”

That’s nothing more than a political opinion, using selective or barely-existent science. Dangerous strains of E. coli happen, in all ruminants, so telling people it’s OK to eat ground hamburger at 120F may appeal to personal choice, until someone barfs. It’s bad science and bad policy. Bittman’s a repeat offender, placing politics and porn before evidence-based safety, and uses pink slime as a launching pad for a screed about antibiotic resistant pathogens in the food supply.

So do activist groups, some of whom say pink slime is nothing, the feds really want to reduce the amount of veterinary inspection at slaughter plants and that’s the real issue.

So do those who rail against media excess, employing rhetoric to write in excessive columns for media, that pink slime’s all a manufactured scare and people should go back to sleep.

Those who have recently discovered the Internet after Al Gore invented it in 1995 sagely state that social media makes everything happen really, really, really fast.

The derogatory phrase, yellow journalism, is credited to newspaper owners Slick Willy Randolph ‘Rosebud’ Hearst and the slightly creepy Joseph Pulitzer. The wiki version is that at the close of the 19th century, those two were fighting a circulation battle in New York City, and made their stories about alleged atrocities in Spanish-Cuba credible by self assertion and providing false names, dates, and locations of skirmishes and atrocities committed by the Spanish. Papers also claimed that their facts could be substantiated by the government.

Beef Product Inc., the makers of pink slime, when not lashing out at the meida, were quick to say government testing validated their views, and U.S. Department of Agriculture types said thousands of tests had not found the dangerous bugs – at least not the ones they were looking for. Relying on government validation builds suspicion rather than trust. If BPI has the safety data, make it public.

Amplification of messages through media is nothing new, especially if those messages support a pre-existing world-view.

In 1988, the Kaspersons and colleagues first formalized the theory of the social amplification of risk, which helps explain why minor technical risks become major public risks (see abstract below). Social media just accelerates the speed at which people can confirm their own pre-existing bias. It’s always been there, now it’s faster. Companies that expect to profit from the sale of food or wares may eventually catch up; maybe even the commentators.

The politicization and follow-the-leader soundbites of pink slime are worthy of a Monty Python skit. And leave that Welsh tart alone.

The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework
Risk Analysis, Volume 8, Issue 2, pages 177–187, June 1988
Roger E. Kasperson, Ortwin Renn, Paul Slovic, Halina S. Brown, Jacque Emel, Robert Goble, Jeanne X. Kasperson, Samuel Ratick
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x/abstract
Abstract
One of the most perplexing problems in risk analysis is why some relatively minor risks or risk events, as assessed by technical experts, often elicit strong public concerns and result in substantial impacts upon society and economy. This article sets forth a conceptual framework that seeks to link systematically the technical assessment of risk with psychological, sociological, and cultural perspectives of risk perception and risk-related behavior. The main thesis is that hazards interact with psychological, social, institutional, and cultural processes in ways that may amplify or attenuate public responses to the risk or risk event. A structural description of the social amplification of risk is now possible. Amplification occurs at two stages: in the transfer of information about the risk, and in the response mechanisms of society. Signals about risk are processed by individual and social amplification stations, including the scientist who communicates the risk assessment, the news media, cultural groups, interpersonal networks, and others. Key steps of amplifications can be identified at each stage. The amplified risk leads to behavioral responses, which, in turn, result in secondary impacts. Models are presented that portray the elements and linkages in the proposed conceptual framework.
 

 Dude it’s beef.

That’s the slogan Midwestern governors came with to a press conference after a tour of the Beef Products Inc. plant in Nebraska yesterday, much like the background audience at a Today Show taping on the streets outside 30 Rock.

It’s beef, but is it meat?

The safety of pink slime, or lean finely textured beef, and the operations of BPI don’t seem to be in question: choice, right-to-know, and what constitutes meat are in play.

Food safety type Michael Batz and others have noted the original beef was whether this beef constituted an adulterated product. According to the regs Batz found, there are nine definitions for meat that is considered “adulterated.” One states, “If any valuable constituent has been in whole or in part omitted or abstracted therefrom; or if any substance has been substituted, wholly or in part therefor; or if damage or inferiority has been concealed in any manner; or if any substance has been added thereto or mixed or packed therewith so as to increase its bulk or weight, or reduce its quality or strength, or make it appear better or of greater value than it is.”

I don’t know. Others can inform on that one. But the PR goes on, laying bare the bicoastal political landscape of the U.S.

Meatingplace.com reports that during an emotionally charged 45-minute news conference that followed a media tour of a Beef Products Inc. plant in South Sioux City, Neb., governors from beef-producing states alternately appealed to and browbeat the media on its coverage of lean finely textured beef.

Nancy Donley, president of STOP Foodborne Illness, whose 6-year-old son died of Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome caused by eating an undercooked hamburger said she was there to “stand tall and in support of our dear friends Eldon and Regina Roth” and their company. She praised BPI’s food safety innovations in keeping the types of pathogens that killed her son out of meat products. “These folks save lives.”

Gov. Rick Perry (Texas) asked ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jim Avila to justify his news reporting which is seen by many as a tipping point in media and social media coverage that led to food retailers and school districts rejecting the product, even though it has never been implicated in a consumer illness.

Avila at first refused to answer, but later pointed out that ABC had never reported that the product was unsafe, but focused on the fact that ground beef products were not labeled to indicate the presence of LFTB. To this point, many of the speakers said the product is simply beef and not a filler or an additive.

The emotional pinnacle of the event came when Avila questioned Donley on her organization accepting financial donations from BPI.

Donley said STOP Foodborne Illness has been grateful to BPI’s support “with no strings attached.” She said BPI has never asked her “for anything — ever.” Her voice shook as she said, “No price can be put on my son’s head. I cannot be bought,” to a round of applause.

Gary Acuff, director, Center for Food Safety Texas A&M University addressed the ammonium hydroxide pathogen intervention BPI uses by noting ammonia is used as a leavening agent, in coffee creamers and in chocolate products. He said tofu contains about four times the ammonia that LFTB does.

Acuff also noted that recovering the extra beef from each animal that is made possible by BPI’s process is a sustainability issue. By some estimates, it would take an additional 1.5 million head of cattle to produce the beef that will be lost if the product is no longer in the market. Gov. Perry said the process extracts 10 to 12 extra pounds of beef from each carcass.

Gov. Terry Branstad (Iowa), who yesterday announced he had convinced Hy-Vee supermarkets to return to carrying products with LFTB, said he planned to engage every other major supermarket chain in similar conversations.

How many scientists wouldn’t have loved that level of government and individual support with technologies such as rBST, genetic engineering and irradiation?

The complete press conference can be found at
http://www.livestream.com/argus_leader_tv/video?clipId=pla_93f78142-699e-44cf-ab00-62f4e864a162.

The Associated Press is reporting that the company that makes "pink slime" is suspending operations at three of four plants where the low-cost beef filler amid a public outcry over concern about the ingredient.

Beef Products Inc. spokesman Craig Letch on Monday told AP about the operations suspensions at plants in Texas, Kansas and Iowa ahead of a public announcement about the plan. The company's plant at its Dakota Dunes, S.D., headquarters will continue operations.

The ammonia-treated additive known by the industry as "lean, finely textured beef" has been used for years but recently became a target of activists seeking to have it banned from supermarkets and school lunches. The U.S. Department of Agriculture decided to allow school districts to stop using it. Some retail chains have pulled products containing it.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

If you believe proponents, critics and prison wardons, disputes about science and facts and personal relationships are failures in communication, in that you don’t agree with me.

It’s based on an authoritarian model and is the oldest excuse out there; all kinds of problems could be solved if everyone just communicated better, especially scientists and others.

For almost 30 years I have been told failures in communication underpin conflict when usually it is failure to commit – to an idea, a belief, a principle.

And it’s not new.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s line on BPI’s pink slime was, "All USDA ground beef purchases must meet the highest standards for food safety. USDA has strengthened ground beef food safety standards in recent years and only allows products into commerce that we have confidence are safe.”

Two hours later, USDA changed its tune, leaking the news that schools will have choice in response to requests from districts.

The official announcement came earlier today. “USDA only purchases products for the school lunch program that are safe, nutritious and affordable – including all products containing Lean Finely Textured Beef. However, due to customer demand, the department will be adjusting procurement specifications for the next school year so schools can have additional options in procuring ground beef products. USDA will provide schools with a choice to order product either with or without Lean Finely Textured Beef.”

Eldon Roth, founder of BPI, issued a statement today again focusing on safety, which is fine, but blamed media coverage. “As parents and consumers continue to make important decisions about the food they and their children eat, we hope that they listen to credible sources outside media sensationalists and take note of the overwhelming support from the government and scientific community who have routinely testified that our lean beef trimmings are 100% beef and are produced, and tested in a way that makes this food very safe. The facts can be found at pinkslimeisamyth.com.”

Facts are never enough.

BPI has followed the well-worn script of fact-based communication, and failure has followed.

The American Meat Institute backed a statement by BPI by saying, “First of all, it shouldn’t be referred to as ‘pink slime.’ That is part of the problem. What we need to do is better communicate the true facts to consumers. The accurate label is beef. It’s just lean, finely textured beef; not ‘pink slime.’”

Uh-huh.

Referring to last year’s E. coli O104-in-sprouts outbreak Germany’s ministerial director and federal director of food, agriculture and consumer protection, Bernhard Kühnle told a recent gathering, “We need to make sure we establish trusted scientists to communicate to the media before there is a crisis …The more days the crisis continued the more experts appeared in the media. Someone said it was certainly cucumbers, and someone else said it was raw milk. Someone even said it was caused by Al Qaeda.”

Yes, if only trusted scientists would communicate better. Didn’t help BPI.

BPI also made the fatal mistake of denying consumer choice.

BPI director of food safety and quality assurance Craig Letch told FoodQualityNews.com, “Long-story short, the whole situation has been a gross-misunderstanding of the product and the processing measures involved with the product. It has directly stemmed from media-outlets trying to sensationalize and build up hype around the product.”

Letch added that consumers do not need to be informed that the product is included in another meat product as it is “meat, 100% lean meat.”

Choice is a good thing. I’m all for restaurant inspection disclosure, providing information on genetically-engineered foods (we did it 12 years ago), knowing where food comes from and how it’s produced.

But I want to choose safe food. Who defines safety or GE or any other snappy dinner-table slogan drop?

Self-proclaimed food activists are no better, claiming their educational efforts won the day. The number of people barfing from food will not be reduced by rhetoric. No one won.

USDA and the companies that previously outlawed pink slime acted expediently to manage a public-relations event. But they unwillingly undercut other efforts to provide safe, sustainable food.

What is USDA going to do about school lunch purchases containing genetically-engineered ingredients, hormones, antibiotics and a whole slew of politically-loaded ingredients?

Commitment means bragging about it. Market microbial food safety and hold producers and processors – conventional, organic or otherwise – to a standard of producing food that doesn’t make people barf. That’s something shoppers will support, instead of being told they can’t choose and have to become better educated about someone else’s limited perspective.