Misleading title. What Jamie Oliver has done is note that McDonald burgers in the US are not fit for human consumption until they've been processed.<p>But he missed a much bigger scoop! The same is true of McDonald's burgers in every country! In fact, burgers from every chain aren't fit for human consumption without processing (at a minimum, cooking). Hell, without at least <i>some</i> processing, the burger would still be walking around going "moo" and emitting greenhouse gasses.<p>So the issue isn't "you can't eat it until it's been processed"; that's a given. The question is "what processing is okay", and in particular, "is using ammonium hydroxide safe". And according to the FDA, the UN, the WHO, and most EU countries, it is:
<a href="http://www.foodinsight.org/Resources/Detail.aspx?topic=Questions_and_Answers_about_Ammonium_Hydroxide_Use_in_food_production" rel="nofollow">http://www.foodinsight.org/Resources/Detail.aspx?topic=Quest...</a><p>And that seems to pretty much cover it. "The food industry uses ammonium hydroxide as an anti-microbial agent in meats, which has allowed McDonald’s to use otherwise “inedible meat.”" True, but they also use <i>cooking</i>, which also allows the consumption of otherwise "inedible meat". Is cooking safe? Science says yes. Is ammonium hydroxide safe? Science, again, says yes.<p>Edit: Also, if we're going to go off of "it sounds scary, it must be bad", all burgers contains sodium chloride, and chlorine is a very toxic, dangerous gas! It will kill you if you breathe it! That's the real scandal! The truth is out there! Fight Big Chlorine!
> <i>On the official website of McDonald’s, the company claims that their meat is cheap because, while serving many people every day, they are able to buy from their suppliers at a lower price, and offer the best quality products. But if “pink slime” was really the “best quality” that McDonalds can muster in the US, then why were they able do better in Latin America and Europe? More to the point, why can they apparently do better now in the United States?</i><p>Is the author genuinely confused, or even under the impression that <i>anyone</i> might be confused, by that statement from McDonalds, into thinking that the meat they use is the absolutely very best meat possibly available? That when you're paying $1 for a burger, you probably aren't getting quite the same quality as when you buy a nice fillet in a good restaurant, and that "best quality" was not only standard marketing hyperbole, but also was a reference within the context of their goal of being better than their rivals?
> Most disturbing of all is the horrifying fact that because ammonium hydroxide is considered part of the “component in a production procedure” by the USDA, consumers may not know when the chemical is in their food.<p>I can understand McDonalds goes for the maximum profit. You get what you pay for. But I (naively) thought every company would be required by law to <i>at the very least</i> tell their clients when there's chemicals in the bloody food. That's the part of this I can't understand.
Reminds me of the Ammonia the tobacco industry started adding to cigarettes. Not to kill germs but to increase the amount of nicotine contained in the vapor smokers inhale. That cost them quite a lot of money (after 30 years). I'd say obesity is becoming just as dangerous as smoking...
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/minnesota.tobacco/" rel="nofollow">http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/minnesota.tobacco/</a>
For any ChemE out there, is ammonium hydroxide a stable chemical compound? Or does it revert quickly to an inert form in the presence of air, water, and light?<p>The question arises from analogy with chlorine. To remove chlorine from tap water, all that is needed is to let a glass sit on the counter for a while.
My knowledge of modern chemistry (and chemical manufacture) is a little sketchy but, at a crude level, isn't this just taking unfit meat, soaking it in piss and then passing it off as safe?