NPR reports that Beef Products Incorporated, the company that makes “finely textured beef” (a chemically-treated paste made from non-muscle cow parts used as a filler in ground beef), will be closing three of its production plants this month. Dozens of food manufacturers, grocery store chains, restaurants, and school districts have announced they never did or will no longer use the product. This after just two months of media coverage and activism around the product, kicked off by an ABC News report on March 7th.
The swiftness and sureness of this victory against this product is a testament to the value of the right language and one good image. In case you haven’t caught on yet, finely textured beef is better known as “pink slime.” Between that nifty pejorative and images of a long coil of bright pink…substance, which you probably saw, finely textured beef never had a chance. This is “mechanically separated chicken” (made with a similar but not identical process); it appears to have become synonymous with pink slime, correctly or no.
This is the power of framing. The product at issue is not “slime,” it’s cow-part paste. Of course, it’s not “beef” either, it’s cow-part paste. Both are discursive frames; it’s a classic “he said, she said” social movement framing battle (along the lines of “life” vs. “choice”). The outcome of the contest depended, in part, on which language captured the public’s imagination. And… well… we saw how that went.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 67
Lunad — May 23, 2012
I was under the impression that the "pink slime" was muscle tissue - just the parts closest to the bone that couldn't be cut off easily with a knife.
Yrro Simyarin — May 23, 2012
And proof once again that the easiest way to freak people out is to get them to think too hard about what they're eating.
Geoff Smith — May 23, 2012
"Victory" in that a perfectly decent source of inexpensive protein and nutrients from parts that would otherwise be waste and the loss of quite a few jobs, so... yay?
I'n not sure what the outcry here was... as near as I can tell this stuff is practically no different than sausage or pate. I'm sure that, properly cooked, it's delicious and probably worked great as a filler or base for stock or something.
I can't believe this stuff gets such an uproar but head cheese is allowed to continue existing! heheheheh
Jamie — May 23, 2012
It's not just the framing, there were also celebrities coming out against the stuff. Who exactly was in favor of it, besides faceless corporations?
Tom Megginson — May 23, 2012
Lisa, you fell into a trap with that image. It's chicken paste, not beef.
Here's some background.
http://workthatmatters.blogspot.ca/2012/03/pink-slime-producer-fights-back-in-food.html
pleaseletsfixthis — May 23, 2012
Pink is a color associated with "she" though, no? In other words, the "she said" perspective would normally be the side objecting to this product, but in characterizing it as "pink" it seems like the "she said" is also objecting to the "she".
leontine — May 23, 2012
I'd say that based on the definitions of the various words, this is both "slime" and "beef". (And also "cow-part paste"). I think most people would prefer to eat beef that is not also slime. And would not eat slime, even if they knew it was also beef. Therefore pointing out that it is, in fact, slime, as well as beef, is not just framing the issue; it's telling you something about your food that you might actually like to know.
[Tom's right though; it's actually chicken. So, for "beef", read "chicken". Yeah.]
Erational — May 23, 2012
It says something very revealing about the internalization of cultural norms that most of the same people freaked out by the thought of eating this because it's "slime" are not at all disturbed by the thought of eating similar dead bodies of animals in non-slimy form. I find 'slime' much less repugnant than 'corpse', frankly -- I'd give 'tofu slime' a fair chance, if it existed.
KM — May 23, 2012
Nobody actually seems to know exactly what "pink slime" is and to be honest, the specifics of the substance are irrelevant- that's the point of framing in this particular situation. What was originally framed as something recognizable and common (in this case, beef- 'finely textured' is the descriptor that sits in place as a way of dissuading skepticism as it is still framed as beef, a substance we all know) was then exposed and reframed as something unknown that we do not want to be putting in our bodies. Thus the meaning of the way we are talking about the same substance is able to shift so drastically in a relatively short period of time.
Other social movements that are particularly excellent at framing and changing social meaning via language- the Christian far-right.
Ficus — May 23, 2012
Is treating food with ammonia safe? Just curious.
Hans Be — May 27, 2012
there is one more point in this case. i think the pink slime is also labeled like this because it is a powerful symbol for the alienation people experience in industrialized societies. it is just impossible to take a look at the way products are made, so products are disconnected representations of something. in this sense a steak or a hot dog loses a lot of references to the source it is made of, what we buy is a processed kind of food that stands for itself. corporations try to fix this by imitating "real-world"-shapes and tastes. so they make sausages from meat-paste to remind you of what it really is or should be (and of course because the form of the sausage is viewed as valuable by many people).
the point i try to make is that "pink slime" is a very strong illustration for the alienated relationship between people and food. the slime is made of meat but most people would not think of that by just seeing the picture in the article. it could be anything (e.g. candy).
Paris Hilton or Death: You Decide | SociologyFocus — January 9, 2013
[...] last summer grocery stores around the country pulled meat products containing a particular beef filler. While the use of this filler is not new nor was it a secret to the public, when the discursive [...]