Everything about food, from matching food and wine to recipes, techniques and trends.

1 lb. of hamburger in the 70's versus 1 lb. of hamburger now

Moderators: Jenise, Robin Garr, David M. Bueker

no avatar
User

Karen/NoCA

Rank

Hunter/Gatherer

Posts

6579

Joined

Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:55 pm

1 lb. of hamburger in the 70's versus 1 lb. of hamburger now

by Karen/NoCA » Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:25 pm

Every now and then, I like to pull out old family recipes I cooked in the 70's when the kids were all at home and still dependent upon us for food and transportation. Today was such a day, and while browsing, I came across a Taco Casserole we all enjoyed, using one lb. of hamburger. As I was sautéing the onions, burger and garlic, I recalled that 1 lb. fed the 5 of us nicely. No one complained about not having enough food. After I added the sauce ingredients, I realized there was not enough meat and I had a soupy dish, so I defrosted 1 lb. of Bison and added that, now it was fine. How could this be? Wasn’t one lb. of beef in the 70's the same as it is now? Also, the spices I added were too strong, another reason for adding another lb. of meat. I realize that I now buy my spices from Penzey, and I know they are much fresher and stronger than the Spice Islands I purchased back then. But the meat puzzled me. I have run across this with other recipes I used to make from the 70's....they just don't turn out the same as I remember them. Gene has noticed it too. It has more to do with texture and how everything comes together as it should, rather than taste.
no avatar
User

Paul Winalski

Rank

Wok Wielder

Posts

8497

Joined

Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:16 pm

Location

Merrimack, New Hampshire

Re: 1 lb. of hamburger in the 70's versus 1 lb. of hamburer now

by Paul Winalski » Wed Jun 03, 2009 3:04 pm

The beef we get these days probably has a higher moisture content than it did in the 1970s.

-Paul W.
no avatar
User

Bob Henrick

Rank

Kamado Kommander

Posts

3919

Joined

Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:35 pm

Location

Lexington, Ky.

Re: 1 lb. of hamburger in the 70's versus 1 lb. of hamburer now

by Bob Henrick » Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:55 pm

Karen/NoCA wrote:Every now and then, I like to pull out old family recipes I cooked in the 70's when the kids were all at home and still dependent upon us for food and transportation. Today was such a day, and while browsing, I came across a Taco Casserole we all enjoyed, using one lb. of hamburger. As I was sautéing the onions, burger and garlic, I recalled that 1 lb. fed the 5 of us nicely. No one complained about not having enough food. After I added the sauce ingredients, I realized there was not enough meat and I had a soupy dish, so I defrosted 1 lb. of Bison and added that, now it was fine. How could this be? Wasn’t one lb. of beef in the 70's the same as it is now? Also, the spices I added were too strong, another reason for adding another lb. of meat. I realize that I now buy my spices from Penzey, and I know they are much fresher and stronger than the Spice Islands I purchased back then. But the meat puzzled me. I have run across this with other recipes I used to make from the 70's....they just don't turn out the same as I remember them. Gene has noticed it too. It has more to do with texture and how everything comes together as it should, rather than taste.


Carrie, if you check the packaging of meats purchased from a regular grocery store, you might notice a statement on the label reading something like "contains up to 12% solution". Solution is basically salt water, ergo one pound of meat is 88% meat, and 12% salt water which cooks off while cooking. I have for the last several years boycotted the meat market of several store for that very reason. Another dead giveaway is the "solutionized" meat doesn't brown, it grays.
Bob Henrick
no avatar
User

Larry Greenly

Rank

Resident Chile Head

Posts

7036

Joined

Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:37 am

Location

Albuquerque, NM

Re: 1 lb. of hamburger in the 70's versus 1 lb. of hamburer now

by Larry Greenly » Thu Jun 04, 2009 9:14 am

With all the downsizing going on, the pound is now 12.25 oz., a value size. :mrgreen:
no avatar
User

Dave R

Rank

On Time Out status

Posts

1924

Joined

Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: 1 lb. of hamburger in the 70's versus 1 lb. of hamburer now

by Dave R » Thu Jun 04, 2009 9:45 am

Bob Henrick wrote:
Carrie, if you check the packaging of meats purchased from a regular grocery store, you might notice a statement on the label reading something like "contains up to 12% solution". Solution is basically salt water, ergo one pound of meat is 88% meat, and 12% salt water which cooks off while cooking. I have for the last several years boycotted the meat market of several store for that very reason. Another dead giveaway is the "solutionized" meat doesn't brown, it grays.


Robert,

I know they have been doing that to pork for quite a while. Are they now doing that to beef? I have not noticed anything on the beef packaging (it is very obvious on the pork packaging) but it would explain some of the results I have had with ground beef.
Conjunction Junction, what's your function?
Hooking up words and phrases and clauses.
Conjunction Junction, what's your function?
Hooking up cars and making 'em function.
no avatar
User

Bob Henrick

Rank

Kamado Kommander

Posts

3919

Joined

Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:35 pm

Location

Lexington, Ky.

Re: 1 lb. of hamburger in the 70's versus 1 lb. of hamburer now

by Bob Henrick » Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:06 pm

Dave R wrote:
Bob Henrick wrote:
Carrie, if you check the packaging of meats purchased from a regular grocery store, you might notice a statement on the label reading something like "contains up to 12% solution". Solution is basically salt water, ergo one pound of meat is 88% meat, and 12% salt water which cooks off while cooking. I have for the last several years boycotted the meat market of several store for that very reason. Another dead giveaway is the "solutionized" meat doesn't brown, it grays.


Robert,

I know they have been doing that to pork for quite a while. Are they now doing that to beef? I have not noticed anything on the beef packaging (it is very obvious on the pork packaging) but it would explain some of the results I have had with ground beef.


Dave yes they are doing it to beef and have been for quite some time. I first noticed it at a local Wal-mart Superstore and I called Wal-mart HQ in Arkansas, and was told that they were not getting many complaints about it so it would probably continue. I think (not just Wal-mart) but retail tends to push the limit to see what the market will bear. People do NOT read the label on what they buy.
Bob Henrick
no avatar
User

Paul Winalski

Rank

Wok Wielder

Posts

8497

Joined

Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:16 pm

Location

Merrimack, New Hampshire

Re: 1 lb. of hamburger in the 70's versus 1 lb. of hamburger now

by Paul Winalski » Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 pm

It does state on the label when they add saline solution, I hope.

-Paul W.
no avatar
User

Bob Henrick

Rank

Kamado Kommander

Posts

3919

Joined

Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:35 pm

Location

Lexington, Ky.

Re: 1 lb. of hamburger in the 70's versus 1 lb. of hamburger now

by Bob Henrick » Thu Jun 04, 2009 6:50 pm

Paul Winalski wrote:It does state on the label when they add saline solution, I hope.

-Paul W.


It does Paul, in fact it says "contains up to 12 percent solution", but it doesn't say what the solution is, that took some digging. Now if we were to talk chicken, it would say "contains up to 15% real chicken broth" Don't know how they came about their chicken broth. I have long been a non believer in the Organic term used on meats because I have never believed it was worth the extra cost. I might have to rethink that position soon. Of course I suppose it could still say organic if the broth or solution was organic too. :-)
Bob Henrick
no avatar
User

Paul Winalski

Rank

Wok Wielder

Posts

8497

Joined

Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:16 pm

Location

Merrimack, New Hampshire

Re: 1 lb. of hamburger in the 70's versus 1 lb. of hamburger now

by Paul Winalski » Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:12 am

The usual solution used to "enhance" meat seems to be sodium phosphate.

-Paul W.
no avatar
User

Bob Henrick

Rank

Kamado Kommander

Posts

3919

Joined

Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:35 pm

Location

Lexington, Ky.

Re: 1 lb. of hamburger in the 70's versus 1 lb. of hamburger now

by Bob Henrick » Fri Jun 05, 2009 6:29 pm

Paul Winalski wrote:The usual solution used to "enhance" meat seems to be sodium phosphate.

-Paul W.

Paul, you are on target with what enhancement is, but for the consumer just what does it add that makes it worth the cost? Mostly it is salt water, and if it is 12% salt water, a 4 pound roast has about 1/2 pound of the weight as salt water. At $4.00 per pound, that is pretty darn expensive salt water, not to mention that the meat is nearly impossible to brown. (and Daniel Rogov thinks he is a curmudgeon!)
Bob Henrick
no avatar
User

Paul Winalski

Rank

Wok Wielder

Posts

8497

Joined

Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:16 pm

Location

Merrimack, New Hampshire

Re: 1 lb. of hamburger in the 70's versus 1 lb. of hamburger now

by Paul Winalski » Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:09 pm

Bob,

Those were exactly the points I made to the store manager at Shaw's (our most conveniently located local supermarket) when the chain switched over from real pork to the Swift's Premium Guaranteed Tender (TM) "enhanced" pork. I said I objected to paying pork prices for salt water. The store manager said that the changeover was something that Shaw's corporate did without any input from the store managers, and it was completely outside his control. He personally thought it was a bad idea for all of the reasons I had enumerated, but there was nothing he could do about it. I told him that I was a loyal Shaw's customer, but until they started selling real pork again I would not be shopping there anymore. Fortunately one chain in our area (Market Basket) still does have a full service butcher shop and sells real meat and poultry. I make it a point of shopping there and I told the meat department manager the reason why.

BTW, note that they tell you that up to 12% of what you buy is salt water, but they don't tell you the concentration of sodium phosphate in the solution, so it's impossible to judge just how much salt they've added.

The advantage of "enhanced" meat seems to be entirely on the food distributor's side--it keeps longer than real fresh meat. And of course the distribution chain effectively jacks up the price by up to 12%.

-Paul W.
no avatar
User

Jenise

Rank

FLDG Dishwasher

Posts

43596

Joined

Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:45 pm

Location

The Pacific Northest Westest

Re: 1 lb. of hamburger in the 70's versus 1 lb. of hamburer now

by Jenise » Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:57 am

Bob Henrick wrote:Dave yes they are doing it to beef and have been for quite some time. I first noticed it at a local Wal-mart Superstore


Have never seen 'enhanced' beef, but then I don't shop at Walmart.
My wine shopping and I have never had a problem. Just a perpetual race between the bankruptcy court and Hell.--Rogov
no avatar
User

Bob Henrick

Rank

Kamado Kommander

Posts

3919

Joined

Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:35 pm

Location

Lexington, Ky.

Re: 1 lb. of hamburger in the 70's versus 1 lb. of hamburer now

by Bob Henrick » Sun Jun 07, 2009 5:47 pm

Jenise wrote:
Bob Henrick wrote:Dave yes they are doing it to beef and have been for quite some time. I first noticed it at a local Wal-mart Superstore


Have never seen 'enhanced' beef, but then I don't shop at Walmart.


Jenise, Wal-Mart for all their ways that Pi$$ people off, are not the only place that sells meat (beef) with solution. I wonder if specialty stores do, and just don't tell you thinking they won't get caught. A local upscale meat market here buys a lot of their meat from Sam's Club. Go Figure!
Bob Henrick
no avatar
User

Jenise

Rank

FLDG Dishwasher

Posts

43596

Joined

Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:45 pm

Location

The Pacific Northest Westest

Re: 1 lb. of hamburger in the 70's versus 1 lb. of hamburer now

by Jenise » Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:13 am

Bob Henrick wrote:Jenise, Wal-Mart for all their ways that Pi$$ people off, are not the only place that sells meat (beef) with solution. I wonder if specialty stores do!


I suspect not. I know darned well that I'd know it the minute I put it on the fire, if in fact I bought such a thing unknowingly. It wouldn't brown, for one, and it would sweat more. Never have I bought beef that did that, and I remember well the different behavior of adulterated pork. Up here, Fred Meyers carries the pork because Freddie is part of the Kroger chain and they put "Moist & Tender" pork in all their stores, but they have yet to do it with beef so far as I know (although I don't buy groceries there). But no one else does. And beef? They'd get run out of town.
My wine shopping and I have never had a problem. Just a perpetual race between the bankruptcy court and Hell.--Rogov
no avatar
User

Bob Henrick

Rank

Kamado Kommander

Posts

3919

Joined

Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:35 pm

Location

Lexington, Ky.

Re: 1 lb. of hamburger in the 70's versus 1 lb. of hamburer now

by Bob Henrick » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:40 am

Jenise wrote:I suspect not. I know darned well that I'd know it the minute I put it on the fire, if in fact I bought such a thing unknowingly. It wouldn't brown, for one, and it would sweat more. Never have I bought beef that did that, and I remember well the different behavior of adulterated pork. Up here, Fred Meyers carries the pork because Freddie is part of the Kroger chain and they put "Moist & Tender" pork in all their stores, but they have yet to do it with beef so far as I know (although I don't buy groceries there). But no one else does. And beef? They'd get run out of town.


I do not know whether Kroger sells Enhanced Beef locally or not, but I don't shop[ at Kroger a lot because of their damned "card" requirement I will take a look at packaged beef there today and see if any carries the now famous "contains up to xx% solution" label. I buy most of my beef at Sam's Club which sells only USDA choice angus that is not enhanced beef. I do buy some large cuts of beef from a local distributor who will sell to the public, but one usually has to buy in bulk from him. An example is ground chuck 85/15 lean to fat ratio is sold in a 10 pound package. I buy that and repackage it in one pound vacuum packed packages.Here is a link to a study on the subject of enhanced meats, designed for the Beef people. http://www.beefusa.org/uDocs/Enhanced%2 ... _12_03.pdf

Addendum: I checked a local Kroger store this afternoon, and the meat cutter (he is not a butcher) told me that none of the beef is enhanced, but that all pork and fowl are enhanced. I refuse to buy chicken with "up to 15% real chicken broth"
Last edited by Bob Henrick on Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bob Henrick
no avatar
User

Robin Garr

Rank

Forum Janitor

Posts

21716

Joined

Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:44 pm

Location

Louisville, KY

Re: 1 lb. of hamburger in the 70's versus 1 lb. of hamburer now

by Robin Garr » Tue Jun 09, 2009 11:47 am

Bob Henrick wrote:I don't shop[ at Kroger a lot because of their damned "card" requirement

Okay, I'll bite. Why not?

We don't shop at Kroger much because we're increasingly trying to be locavores, and it's easier than ever to do that and eat very well around here, provided that you're willing to pay a little extra for local production, health and quality as well as supporting local farmers and merchants.

But when we do go to Kroger for paper towels and staples, I can't say I object to letting them know what I buy in exchange for some good discounts. This doesn't exactly strike me as a massive invasion of privacy.)
no avatar
User

Bob Henrick

Rank

Kamado Kommander

Posts

3919

Joined

Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:35 pm

Location

Lexington, Ky.

Re: 1 lb. of hamburger in the 70's versus 1 lb. of hamburer now

by Bob Henrick » Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:43 pm

Robin Garr wrote:
Bob Henrick wrote:I don't shop[ at Kroger a lot because of their damned "card" requirement

Okay, I'll bite. Why not?

We don't shop at Kroger much because we're increasingly trying to be locavores, and it's easier than ever to do that and eat very well around here, provided that you're willing to pay a little extra for local production, health and quality as well as supporting local farmers and merchants.

But when we do go to Kroger for paper towels and staples, I can't say I object to letting them know what I buy in exchange for some good discounts. This doesn't exactly strike me as a massive invasion of privacy.)


Robin, it isn't completely the invasion of privacy that I object to, but rather it is that the ONLY time the card does me any good is on items that they have advertised or unadvertised on sale. I am somewhat dismayed with the though of Kroger tracking what I buy, but have long since given in on that. I usually find too that I can beat Kroger prices if I am not real picky with where I shop.
Bob Henrick
no avatar
User

Karen/NoCA

Rank

Hunter/Gatherer

Posts

6579

Joined

Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:55 pm

Re: 1 lb. of hamburger in the 70's versus 1 lb. of hamburger now

by Karen/NoCA » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:03 pm

Kroger's has a "card requirement" How can that be? Are you saying you cannot shop there unless you have a tracking card? Safeway and a locally owned store here in Redding have cards, but they are not a requirement. We do carry the Safeway card because it gives us 10 cents off on a gallon of gas, and 20 cents off in other states we've traveled. The locally owned store has great deals on wine when you use your card. Sometimes up to $4.00 off on bottles.
no avatar
User

Bob Henrick

Rank

Kamado Kommander

Posts

3919

Joined

Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:35 pm

Location

Lexington, Ky.

Re: 1 lb. of hamburger in the 70's versus 1 lb. of hamburger now

by Bob Henrick » Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:07 pm

Karen/NoCA wrote:Kroger's has a "card requirement" How can that be? Are you saying you cannot shop there unless you have a tracking card? Safeway and a locally owned store here in Redding have cards, but they are not a requirement. We do carry the Safeway card because it gives us 10 cents off on a gallon of gas, and 20 cents off in other states we've traveled. The locally owned store has great deals on wine when you use your card. Sometimes up to $4.00 off on bottles.


Karen, the Kroger card requirement is not to say that one can not shop there without the card, but rather that one can not get the "sale" price without showing and having the card scanned. This is Kroger's (and other stores) way of tracking what a particular customer buys. In my opinion either an item is on sale to everyone, or it is not on sale at all. to restrict the sale price to a particular card carrying customer does not sit well with me.
Bob Henrick
no avatar
User

Paul Winalski

Rank

Wok Wielder

Posts

8497

Joined

Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:16 pm

Location

Merrimack, New Hampshire

Re: 1 lb. of hamburger in the 70's versus 1 lb. of hamburger now

by Paul Winalski » Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:47 am

I don't object to a supermarket tracking what I buy. I don't see that as any different from the old style general store where the shopkeeper knew everyone by name and knew what they bought. What I object to is the supermarket selling this information to marketing and advertising firms.

-Paul W.
no avatar
User

Bob Henrick

Rank

Kamado Kommander

Posts

3919

Joined

Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:35 pm

Location

Lexington, Ky.

Re: 1 lb. of hamburger in the 70's versus 1 lb. of hamburger now

by Bob Henrick » Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:29 am

Paul Winalski wrote:I don't object to a supermarket tracking what I buy. I don't see that as any different from the old style general store where the shopkeeper knew everyone by name and knew what they bought. What I object to is the supermarket selling this information to marketing and advertising firms.

-Paul W.


Paul, I would think that the selling of the information was the reason this "tracking" began in the first place. I still maintain though that if a store puts merchandise "on sale" then that price is THE price, regardless of a "card".
Bob Henrick
no avatar
User

Larry Greenly

Rank

Resident Chile Head

Posts

7036

Joined

Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:37 am

Location

Albuquerque, NM

Re: 1 lb. of hamburger in the 70's versus 1 lb. of hamburger now

by Larry Greenly » Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:57 am

I'm with you. It's another case of "1984" coming truer. But I, too, eventually gave up. I'd rather buy a gallon of milk for $1.69 than $3.99.
no avatar
User

Dave R

Rank

On Time Out status

Posts

1924

Joined

Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: 1 lb. of hamburger in the 70's versus 1 lb. of hamburger now

by Dave R » Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:06 am

I could not possibly care less if the grocery store knows/tracks what I am buying. But then again I am not buying jug wine or cheap beer so I have nothing to hide.
Conjunction Junction, what's your function?
Hooking up words and phrases and clauses.
Conjunction Junction, what's your function?
Hooking up cars and making 'em function.
no avatar
User

Bob Henrick

Rank

Kamado Kommander

Posts

3919

Joined

Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:35 pm

Location

Lexington, Ky.

Re: 1 lb. of hamburger in the 70's versus 1 lb. of hamburger now

by Bob Henrick » Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:27 am

Dave R wrote:I could not possibly care less if the grocery store knows/tracks what I am buying. But then again I am not buying jug wine or cheap beer so I have nothing to hide.


Dave, It seems that no one is grasping the fact that my biggest complaint to the "card" is that one must have the "card" in order to get the "sale" price. An item either has a one for all price, or it should have, or this is a form of discrimination. It also is a form of data gathering that is, or could become, rather intrusive. I am not trying to hide what I am buying, contrary to an impression I might have somehow given.
Bob Henrick
Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot, Google AgentMatch and 0 guests

Powered by phpBB ® | phpBB3 Style by KomiDesign