When “pink slime” hit the media, outrage ensued. Many were disgusted and appalled that their meat was full of cow parts that were grosser than other cow parts, necessitating ammonia treatment to kill bacteria (a practice that has been occurring for over 40 years).

But now an analysis in the Washington Post of the effects of banning “pink slime” (could there be a grosser name?) reveals the negative impact such a ban would have both on cows (between 300,000 and 1.5 million more would be killed) and the environment (because of the impact raising cows for consumption has on the environment.)

Sometimes what seems obvious – that “pink slime” shouldn’t be in food – turns out not to be so obvious. When considering what does the most good and the least harm (the MOGO principle), “pink slime” comes out ahead of a ban; yet there’s another obvious choice (less encouraged in the media) that is MOGO. By reducing consumption of animals and animal products in general, there’s less pink slime, less slaughter of animals, less global warming, and less pollution.

For a humane world,

Zoe Weil, President, Institute for Humane Education
Author of Most Good, Least Harm, Above All, Be Kind, and The Power and Promise of Humane Education
My TEDx talk: “The World Becomes What You Teach“

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Filed under: food and diet, food policy, MOGO (Most Good) Tagged: | animal cruelty, environmental protection, factory farming, food choices, global warming, Most Good Least Harm, pink slime