(NaturalNews) If you’re in the beef business, what do you do with all the extra cow parts and trimmings that have traditionally been sold off for use in pet food? You scrape them together into a pink mass, inject them with a chemical to kill the e.coli, and sell them to fast food restaurants to make into hamburgers.

That’s what’s been happening all across the USA with beef sold to McDonald’s, Burger King, school lunches and other fast food restaurants, according to a New York Times article. The beef is injected with ammonia, a chemical commonly used in glass cleaning and window cleaning products.

This is all fine with the USDA, which endorses the procedure as a way to make the hamburger beef "safe" enough to eat. Ammonia kills e.coli, you see, and the USDA doesn’t seem to be concerned with the fact that people are eating ammonia in their hamburgers.

This ammonia-injected beef comes from a company called Beef Products, Inc. As NYT reports, the federal school lunch program used a whopping 5.5 million pounds of ammonia-injected beef trimmings from this company in 2008. This company reportedly developed the idea of using ammonia to sterilize beef before selling it for human consumption.

The rest of the story (if you can stomach it) …


Comments on: "Window cleaning chemical injected into fast food hamburger meat" (3)

  1. This “pink slime” is yet another of the undisclosed non-food “ingredients” in what passes for “food” these days in America. The New York Times ran a follow-up article two days later – the proud rebuttal by the prominent companies which use this slime: http://tinyurl.com/yzm3wpl .

    Remember the slogan “You are what you Eat”?

  2. This quote is from the article Sue linked:

    ”We tend to trust, more than any country in the world, the (government) food inspections,” he said.

    Ammonia in burgers, among other things, is what we get for handing power over to government and “experts”, and expecting them to take care of us. Tell Big Brother and McDonalds, etc. no thank you. Vote with your dollars, and cook organic, grass fed at home.
    I’ve read that all the e coli we hear about in recent years is a result of feed lot beef: they are fed an unnatural diet (grains), which makes them ill (same way that inappropriate diet makes us ill), and besides requiring routine anti-biotics, this diet encourages the growth of dangerous strains of e coli to multiply in cows gut, which ends up in the cow’s waste and ultimately in our water supply.

    Thank you to health ranger, Mr. CS and others who help us to educate ourselves.

  3. As the NYT reports, “Federal officials agreed to the company’s request that the ammonia be classified as a ‘processing agent’ and not an ingredient that would be listed on labels.”

    Now the NY Times is also reporting on BPA, “used siince the 1960s to make hard plastic bottles, sippy cups for toddlers and the linings of food and beverage cans, including the cans used to hold infant formula and soda. Until recently, it was used in baby bottles, but major manufacturers are now making bottles without it. Plastic items containing BPA are generally marked with a 7 on the bottom for recycling purposes.”

    As usual, the FDA is way behind the curve in acknowledging the information regarding its toxic effects as it leaches into the food or beverage & is just now mounting a study.

    But what has me baffled is how the FDA classified it as a “food additive” – in contrast to the ammoniated beef where ammonia is considered a “food processing agent” – or substances actually listed as “ingredients”. Sort of implies that they’ve known it interacts with the food or beverage, doesn’t it? Yet even as a “food additive”, you won’t find it listed on any can or plastic container.

    In the NY Times article, an FDA spokesman said he hoped BPA’s status could be changed to “food contact substance.”

    While the FDA ponders its technical terms & often ignores scientists on its own payroll as well as independent (non-commercial) scientists, it’s sticking to its story that there’s no proof BPA is harmful to humans. Perhaps the $30 million it’s now earmarked to study BPA’s effects will convince the FDA otherwise?


    Another good reason to educate ourselves rather than trusting the FDA to safeguard our health.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s