USDA says schools can opt out of ground beef containing "pink slime."

ABC World News (3/15, story 6, 1:55, Muir) reported, "The USDA is telling schools this fall they can choose ground beef without" so-called pink slime, a "filler used to pump up the meat." Schools will be able to "buy patties with or without the pink slime, also known as lean, finely textured beef." ABC News' Kerley noted, "The USDA is clear in saying, pink slime is safe."

        The Los Angeles Times (3/16, Hubbard) reports, "The USDA has officially said that schools will be able to choose whether they serve" ground beef containing "pink slime," which is "beef scraps and connective tissue treated with ammonium hydroxide." However, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, "a consumer advocacy group, does not believe pink slime poses a safety concern. What officials there are looking at is whether 'the stuff in pink slime is nutritionally less useful or less digestible,'" according to attorney Sarah Klein, who "said the agency had plans to sample and test it."

        The Boston Globe (3/15, Johnson, Rocheleau) points out, "Joan Salge Blake, a registered dietitian and clinical associate professor at Boston University's Sargent College of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences, likens the process to a high-tech way of trimming as much fat as possible from a steak. 'It's meat,' she said, 'and it's up to you if you want to eat it. Sort of like you buy organic, or you don't buy organic.'"

        USA Today (3/16, Weise) reports, based on the AP's coverage, "In an announcement Thursday, the USDA said it 'only purchases products for the school lunch program that are safe, nutritious and affordable -- including all products containing lean finely textured beef.'" Of note, "Carl Custer, a retired USDA microbiologist," commented that the product is "probably safer than raw ground beef" if it has been "treated correctly to inactivate the microorganisms...that multiply during the low-temperature rendering process."

        Bloomberg News (3/16, Armour) reports, "While the agriculture department and the Food and Drug Administration say the product is safe, critics object because they say it is unappetizing, made of inferior parts, and may harbor pathogens like E. coli." Also covering the story are the Miami Herald (3/16, Recio) and McClatchy (3/16, Recio).