BPI’s LFTB or “PINK SLIME” – IMAGE RESTORATION THEORY - CASE ANALYSIS 1

BPI’s Lean Finely Textured Beef (LFTB) or “Pink Slime”

Image Restoration Theory Case Analysis

Turnitin Originality Score = 5%

BPI’s LFTB or “PINK SLIME” – IMAGE RESTORATION THEORY - CASE ANALYSIS 2

Brenda BrattonPRPA 610 – Crisis Communication Management

Professor Walter CasonUniversity of Maryland University College

October 12, 2014Abstract

In 2001, Beef Products Incorporated (BPI) began marketing Lean

Finely Textured Beef (LFTB) – cuts of beef from ribeye, sirloin,

and roast trimmings treated with ammonia hydroxide to destroy

possible E.coli and salmonella pathogens – a USDA-approved

process since 1993. In 2002, BPI issued its first of many LFTB

recalls due to E.coli, salmonella, and strong ammonia odor. The

LFTB bandwagon jump-off got worse after that as school systems,

grocery chains, and fast food companies canceled orders for the

product. After negative media coverage about LFTB, BPI was forced

to close three plant and lay off 750 employees. There is a slow

recovery presently and lawsuits against media personalities and

outlets. In essence, with recalls of BPI’s LFTB and the lack of

labeling to give consumers a choice to consume LFTB, or not, BPI

should have seen these crises coming. All the writings were on

the BPI walls.

BPI’s LFTB or “PINK SLIME” – IMAGE RESTORATION THEORY - CASE ANALYSIS 3

Keywords: Pink Slime, BPI, LFTB, Ground Beef, Grocery Chains,

Consumer Outrage, Food Safety, Food Labeling, USDA, FDA, ABC,

Chef Jamie Oliver, Image Restoration Theory, Reputation Recovery

Model, Beef Recalls

Introductory Overview – Crises – Lean Finely Textured Beef (LFTB)

or “Pink Slime”

[BPI,

2012]

In 2011, when BPI’s LFTB product image crises began, LFTB

was being added to 75 percent of American ground beef. Two years

later, BPI had laid off nearly 750 employees and closed three

LFTB processing plants due to public opinion backlashes after

British Chef Jamie Oliver, ABC World News, and a Mom Food Blogger

who launched an anti-LFTB online petition fueled public outrage

(“Pink Slime”/TCE, 2012).

BPI’s LFTB or “PINK SLIME” – IMAGE RESTORATION THEORY - CASE ANALYSIS 4

In BPI’s case, “perceptions” seemed more important than

“reality” as information spread about its LFTB which is

reportedly used as “filler” for ground beef at meat (hamburger)

processing plants, grocery chains, school lunches, and etc.

BPI’s crises compounded once U.S. consumers became outraged

that their ground beef and hamburgers had, for years apparently,

contained Lean Finely Textured Beef (LFTB) or “pink slime”

without their knowledge (the keystone in BPI’s LFTB crises case).

Food processors had not been required by the USDA and FDA – both

government agencies had approved the LFTB ammonia processing to

reduce health hazards of E.coli and salmonella contamination – to

request labeling of the ground beef to give consumers a “choice”

whether they wanted to eat LFTB, or not. Was LFTB being unfairly

maligned? Were consumers of ground beef betrayed (Adams, 2014)?

The threats were serious enough that damages to BPI’s overall

reputation and the negative images of its LFTB product line cost

the company in sales, plants, and in jobs.

Since the March 2012 attacks on LFTB, BPI has implemented a

four-stage reputation recovery plan (rescue, rewind, restore, and

BPI’s LFTB or “PINK SLIME” – IMAGE RESTORATION THEORY - CASE ANALYSIS 5

recover) (Sonia, 2008) and deployed several image restoration

theory tactics (Benoit, 1997).

Summary - Image Restoration Theory and BPI’s LFTB

Image Restoration Theory and Image Repair through Crisis

Communications (carefully-crafted discourse) are strategies Beef

Products Incorporated (BPI) used in counteracting attacks on its

product – Lean Finely Textured Beef (LFTB) or “pink slime”

(Benoit, 1997).

BPI implemented the following image restoration strategies:

Denial – BPI denied that LFTB and the ammonia treatment

to keep the beef from E.coli and salmonella

contamination were unsafe. On March 23, 2012, BPI ran a

full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal calling the negative

media reports that caused the consumer backlash against

LFTB “a campaign of lies and deceit” (Food Safety News,

2012).

Good Intentions – BPI stated, with support from the

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Food

and Drug Administration (FDA), that it processes the

beef (LFTB) from trimmings left over from ribeye

BPI’s LFTB or “PINK SLIME” – IMAGE RESTORATION THEORY - CASE ANALYSIS 6

steaks, sirloin steaks, and other “whole muscle cuts of

beef” – declaring that no bones, fillers, or organs of

beef are used – creating an affordable and nutritious beef

product for ground beef that benefits people (About

LFTB, 2013).

Reducing Offensiveness – BPI funded a website called –

About Lean Finely Textured Beef / Beef Is Beef – to educate and

answer consumer questions about LFTB. This website

reports that LFTB is 100% beef with no fillers,

provides a chart showing how LFTB is made, and graphics

and text to explain the process. One of the strongest

flashpoints of the BPI crises is the ammonia treatment

used in processing LFTB. The Beef Is Beef website reports

that there is “no such thing as ammonia-free beef” and

that ammonia is commonly used to keep consumers safe

from hazardous infections, such as E.coli and

salmonella. Included are Frequently Asked Questions

plus Quality and Taste Test links offering research

findings. The bottom line of messages on this website

BPI’s LFTB or “PINK SLIME” – IMAGE RESTORATION THEORY - CASE ANALYSIS 7

is that Lean Finely Textured Beef IS BEEF, and nothing else

(Beef Is Beef, 2013).

BPI counter-attacked ABC News Seeking Damages

Compensation – A $1.2 billion defamation lawsuit has

been filed against ABC News, news anchor Diane Sawyer,

news segment reporters Jim Avila and David Kerley, USDA

microbiologist Gerald Zirnstein; former BPI QA manager,

Kit Foshee, and Carl Custer, former federal government

food scientist – all of whom BPI charged falsely and

negatively disparaged its LFTB product in public media on

ABC World News. It was USDA microbiologist Gerald

Zirnstein who first called LFTB “Pink Slime.” (Note –

In the mid-nineties, Oprah Winfrey was sued for $10.3

million by Texas cattlemen after she stated during a

discussion of “mad cow disease” on her television show

that she was “terrified” and would stop eating

hamburgers! Winfrey’s television show wielded such

power that the beef industry suffered losses on Wall

Street and the beef industry, overall, was mistrusted

because a vegetarian activist on her show said that

BPI’s LFTB or “PINK SLIME” – IMAGE RESTORATION THEORY - CASE ANALYSIS 8

cattle bones, parts, and sick (downer) cattle were

ground up and fed to cattle that were later getting

sick. Oprah won that case and public opinion was on her

side, too (Powell, 2014)). Interestingly, the judge who

has allowed the BPI lawsuit against ABC News to go

forward is located in South Dakota; known for being

cattle ranch country. ABC News is saying that it

reported fairly because their news segments stated that

the “federal government’s approval of LFTB as safe”

(Jonsson, 2014).

More on BPI’s counter-attack on ABC News – Recently,

five food writers have been called to testify in the

“pink slime” lawsuit BPI has filed against ABC News and

all of their communications with ABC have also been

subpoenaed. Attorneys for both sides requested the

defamation trial begin February 2017 (Cano, 2014).

BPI Laid-off Employee counter-attacked other alleged

LFTB “defamers” – British Chef Jamie Oliver and Mom

Food Blogger, Bettina Siegel, are named in a separate

lawsuit filed by a 58-year-old BPI employee who was

BPI’s LFTB or “PINK SLIME” – IMAGE RESTORATION THEORY - CASE ANALYSIS 9

laid-off, along with about 750 other employees, after

Oliver reported on his ABC Show Food Revolution that “pink

slime” was “s&@t,” should not be allowed in ground beef

served on children’s school lunch menus and at

McDonald’s, and further demonstrated his disgust by

throwing chunks of beef in a washer, pouring ammonia

onto it, and flipping the on switch while his in-studio

audience of both adults and children stood by looking

stunned and shocked (Djmazi, 2013) (Jamie Oliver’s Food

Revolution, 2012). The laid-off employee said that

Oliver “used his celebrity chef media notoriety to

place pressure on American fast food giant, McDonald’s,

and others, to immediately stop using LFTB in retail

food menu products” and that BPI and its employees were

targeted and accused of producing a “product that did

not exist” –namely, “pink slime” (BBC News, 2012). The

Mom Food Blogger’s blog site – The Lunch Tray – had

bloggers pouring onto the site and flocking to sign her

petition she launched at Change.org against the use of

LFTB in school lunches and at fast food restaurants

BPI’s LFTB or “PINK SLIME” – IMAGE RESTORATION THEORY - CASE ANALYSIS 10

(Tereszcuk, 2012). BPI is struggling to recover and

return to “normal” operations and has recently reopened

its Kansas plant (Huffstutter, 2014).

The Plan, the Stakeholders, the Strategy, Effective Messages, and

Tactics

Midan Marketing was hired by its client the National

Cattlemen’s Beef Association (funded by “beef checkout”) to

conduct a market study of consumers’ opinions, attitudes, and

behaviors following the LFTB or “pink slime” coverage on national

media outlets and subsequent public outrage. The actual name of

the study is titled “A Vision for Meat” and it focuses heavily on

LFTB. Findings published in the July 29, 2013 Drovers CattleNetwork

include that only 28 percent of consumers had heard the term Lean

Finely Textured Beef (LFTB) while 81 percent of consumers had

heard of “Pink Slime.” 68 percent of consumers said they were

“concerned” about “pink slime” and 36 percent of consumers said

they were “very concerned.” There were 33 percent of consumers

who checked to see if their grocery story used “Pink Slime,” 34

percent of consumers looked-up LFTB on The Internet, 14 percent

of consumers moved to organic or natural ground beef, 8 percent

BPI’s LFTB or “PINK SLIME” – IMAGE RESTORATION THEORY - CASE ANALYSIS 11

of consumers switched to other supermarkets, and 8 percent of

consumers stopped eating ground beef, altogether. The ammonia

treatment of the LFTB was of high contention among consumers.

But, after researchers informed participants of why ammonia

hydroxide is important in beef production processes to keep

consumers safe and that ammonia is produced naturally in

proteins, concerns about the use of the ammonia product were

eased. The marketing firm recommended that BPI and other beef-

related entities drop the use of the term “pink slime,” forever

(Maday, 2013). It appeared that consumer education was the key to

countering the news media’s portrayal of their product and to

change consumer attitudes and behaviors regarding LFTB, so, BPI

funded a website called – About Lean Finely Textured Beef / Beef Is Beef –

to educate and answer consumer questions about LFTB.

Messages on BPI’s About Lean Finely Textured Beef / Beef Is Beef

include “100% beef, no additives, no fillers,” explanations

detailing “What is Lean Finely Textured Beef?” and “How is LFTB

made?” Other topics on the website include “Is there ammonia in

ground beef?” and “Is LFTB ground beef?” The FAQ’s and links to

additional pages with taste test studies and additional

BPI’s LFTB or “PINK SLIME” – IMAGE RESTORATION THEORY - CASE ANALYSIS 12

information about LFTB, BPI, and its beef relational entities

were successful in their education of consumers. Here are some of

the positive turn-around results that began one year after the BPI

crises:

Huffington Post ran an article dated September 9, 2013

reporting that “’Pink Slime’ Ground Beef Product

Returns to School Lunches in 4 States: Report.”

Illinois, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Texas are

reported to have ordered school lunch products

containing LFTB (Satran, 2013).

ChemInfo News reported on June 16, 2014, that “’Pink

Slime’ Sales were rebounding” – this after LFTB,

processed by BPI, suffered crises from media reports

that caused consumer backlash and sharp sales declines

(Associated Press, 2014).

In a Reuters article, dated August 12, 2014, BPI is

reopening its Kansas plant that was closed after the

“pink slime” publicity and drop in sales to nearly

every outlet who had purchased it prior (Huffstutter,

2014).

BPI’s LFTB or “PINK SLIME” – IMAGE RESTORATION THEORY - CASE ANALYSIS 13

CNN Money reported on August 12, 2014 that “’Pink

Slime’ is back and headed for your burger” – this

article reported that sales dropped by 80 percent and

that after the negative media coverage, McDonald’s and

Safeway told ABC News that they would stop purchasing

LFTB. The piece added that global demand for beef and

U.S. drought conditions have brought about demand for

cheaper meat products (Isidore, 2014).

Stakeholders in the BPI crises include, but are not limited

to:

1. Government Regulators (USDA and FDA)

2. BPI Employees

3. BPI Shareholders

4. Beef Suppliers and Beef Industry Partners

5. Mass Media – both traditional and social media

6. Internet Surfers, esp. “Foodies”

7. Consumer Publics and Opinion Leaders

8. Financial Communities, esp., Wall Street

BPI’s LFTB or “PINK SLIME” – IMAGE RESTORATION THEORY - CASE ANALYSIS 14

Prime Time News Reports and A Cooking Show = Two-Year+ Crises for

BPI

Roles and Actions of the Media – Traditional and Social Media

In 2008, the Washington Post praised BPI for perfecting its

LFTB process for making beef safe by eliminating dangerous

bacteria through the use of ammonia. (Drahl, 2012). It would not

take long for other media outlets to turn the proverbial tide to

a negative fever pitch.

In December 2009, New York Times investigative reporter,

Michael Moss, wrote a piece on Beef Products Incorporated (BPI)

and its use of ammonia to produce Lean Finely Textured Beef

(LFTB) and he used the term, “pink slime” for the first time in

public media; though the negative label was first uttered by a

USDA food scientist (Nestle, 2012).

In 2011, British Chef Jamie Oliver aired his first ABC

network show – Food Revolution – and slammed the use of LFTB in

school lunches. By January 2012, McDonald’s announces it has

stopped adding LFTB to its ground beef while Taco Bell and Burger

King followed suit. In March 2012, The Daily published a piece

citing food scientists Zirnstein and Custer saying that LFTB is a

BPI’s LFTB or “PINK SLIME” – IMAGE RESTORATION THEORY - CASE ANALYSIS 15

“high risk” food product. The next day, a Mom Food Blogger

launches a petition against “pink slime” on Change.org and had

thousands of bloggers on her blog– The Lunch Tray.

On March 7, 2011, ABC World News’ Diane Sawyer anchored a

featured segment reported by Jim Avila about “pink slime” and

that 70 percent of U.S. ground beef contains “pink slime,” but is

labeled “100 percent ground beef.” ABC World News has a 7.5

million viewership in the course of one week. The next day, ABC

World news confirms that grocery chains Fresh & Easy, Whole

Foods, HEB, Costco, and Publix do not sell products with LFTB.

Avila also wrote a piece, “‘Pink Slime’ Outrage: Beef Industry

Responds” to accompany a news broadcast segment by the same name.

Also Avila reported where consumers could buy “pink slime-free”

ground beef (Avila, 2012).

The issue with exemplification during crises and media is

that mass media outlets’ reporters and editors mirror examples of

their associates’ stories – sometimes to compete, but more often

to “keep up” with current events. The crises case of “pink slime”

is a perfect example of this phenomenon (Sellnow & Sellnow,

2014). There was no hard evidence that the processes used to

BPI’s LFTB or “PINK SLIME” – IMAGE RESTORATION THEORY - CASE ANALYSIS 16

produce LFTB were dangerous to public health, but negative

stories about this product were published over and over again,

using the label – “pink slime” – a negative term.

Evaluation

So far, BPI’s recovery efforts have been successful,

especially in educating consumers about LFTB and the ammonia

process used to keep it safe for consumers. Another aspect of

BPI’s crises are directly related to giving consumers the choice

to eat their LFTB product. Dirk Fillpot, spokesman for the food

safety division of USDA, stated that beef companies have

requested that beef labels be changed to inform consumers whether

LFTB is used in the products (Aleccia, 2012).

Post-Crisis Recommendations for BPI

BPI had problems with recalls and returns of its LFTB due to

E.Coli, salmonella, and strong ammonia odors. I would hire

Project Managers to make sure that shipments of BPI products are

correct and properly processed. Since consumer education was the

key to turning negative tides of public opinion, BPI should keep

positive consumer education in its imagery – i.e., websites,

webinars, ground beef labeling, etc.

BPI’s LFTB or “PINK SLIME” – IMAGE RESTORATION THEORY - CASE ANALYSIS 17

Another aspect of LFTB’s appeal through education should be

that there is virtually no waste of beef from trimmings of other

beef cuts, thus, allowing the lowering of beef prices. This is of

critical importance due to the demand for U.S. beef in global

territories and the U.S. drought. These moves should help gain

consumers’ trust (Osland, 2013).

Lawsuits are bad business, period. There is a chance that

there will be other negative spins on BPI’s LFTB processing. ABC

did not report that LFTB was “dangerous,” however, did ABC make

the public “think” that the product was unsafe (Huffstutter &

Graybow, 2013)? Currently, BPI has filed a defamation lawsuit

against ABC World News for $1.2 billion (Jonsson, 2014). In the

meantime, a laid-off BPI worker has filed a defamation lawsuit

against Chef Jamie Oliver and Mom Food Blogger, Bettina Siegel

(BBC News, 2012). In another lawsuit, BPI has been sued along

with Tyson and JBS for an E.coli death that occurred in late

2009. This cannot be good because this implicates BPI in the

processing and shipment of LFTB that was tainted with the deadly

bacteria that cost a 62-year-old man his life (Andrews, 2013).

Potential Benefits

BPI’s LFTB or “PINK SLIME” – IMAGE RESTORATION THEORY - CASE ANALYSIS 18

The potential benefits to BPI are lessons learned about the

power of consumer outrage and the importance of education, up

front, not after everything falls apart.

References

About LFTB. (2013). Beef Is Beef. Beef Products, Inc. Retrieved

September 21, 2014, from

http://beefisbeef.com/resources/details/bpi-supports-

giving-consumers-a-choice

Adams, R. J. (2014). Consumer Deception or Unwarranted Product

Disparagement? The Case of Lean, Finely Textured Beef.

Business & Society Review (00453609), 119(2), 221.

doi:10.1111/basr.12031

Andrews, J. (2013). Lawsuit Filed in E.coli Death; Defendants

Include JBS, BPI and Tyson.

BPI’s LFTB or “PINK SLIME” – IMAGE RESTORATION THEORY - CASE ANALYSIS 19

Food Safety News. January 15, 2013. Retrieved October 11,

2014, from

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/01/lawsuit-claims-

that-e-coli-in-bpi-beef-killed-

minnesota-man/#.VDwk_ZWBHIV

Aleccia, J. (2012). “Pink Slime” in your meat? Labels to tell

you, USDA says. Vitals. NBC News. April 4, 2012. Retrieved

October 8, 2014, from

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/04/11006836-pink-

slime-in-your-meat-labels-to-tell-you-usda-says?lite

Associated Press. (2014). “Pink Slime” Sales Rebounding.

ChemInfo. June 16, 2014. Retrieved September 28, 2014, from

http://www.chem.info/news/2014/06/pink-slime-sales-

rebounding

Avila, J. (2012). What’s Really in Your Hamburger? ABC World News

Tonight. March 7,

2012. YouTube Video. Retrieved, September 28, 2014,

BPI’s LFTB or “PINK SLIME” – IMAGE RESTORATION THEORY - CASE ANALYSIS 20

from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87uBMXdIyjo

Avila, J. (2012). Is “Pink Slime” in the Beef at Your Grocery

Store? ABC World News.Go.

March 8, 2012. Retrieved September 28, 2014, from

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/is-pink-

slime-in-the-beef-at-your-

grocery-store/

Avila, J. (2012). “Pink Slime” Outrage: Beef Industry Responds.

ABC World News Tonight.

March 9, 2012. YouTube Video. Retrieved September 28,

2014, from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n71i2we5z20

Avila, J. (2012). Where You Can Get “Pink-Slime”-Free Beef. ABC

News.

March 9, 2012, 8:19pm. Retrieved October 8, 2014, from

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/where-

you-can-get-pink-slime-free-beef/

BPI’s LFTB or “PINK SLIME” – IMAGE RESTORATION THEORY - CASE ANALYSIS 21

Avila, J. (2012). Where You Can Get “Pink-Slime”-Free Beef

[photograph-BPI]. ABC News.

March 9, 2012, 8:19pm. Retrieved October 8, 2014, from

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/where-

you-can-get-pink-slime-free-beef/

BBC News. (2012). “Pink Slime” lawsuit for Jamie Oliver, ABC and

blogger. BBC News US &

Canada. Retrieved September 28, 2014, from

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-

20701981

Benoit, W.L. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis

communication. Public Relations Review.

Summer 1997. V23, N2, pg. 177(10). Retrieved September

28, 2014, from

http://www.ou.edu/deptcomm/dodjcc/groups/98A1/Benoit.htm

Cano, R.G. (2014). 5 food writers subpoenaed in “pink slime”

lawsuit. Retrieved September 28, 2014, from

BPI’s LFTB or “PINK SLIME” – IMAGE RESTORATION THEORY - CASE ANALYSIS 22

http://news.yahoo.com/5-food-writers-subpoenaed-pink-slime-

lawsuit-HNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDUwMl8x

References, cont’d.

Djmazi. (2013). Jamie Oliver VS Fast Food, Food Revolution, Pink

Slime, McDonald’s.

YouTube Video. Retrieved September 28, 2014, from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbPK9mF4xqU

Drahl, C. (n.d). pink slime. Chemical & Engineering News, 90(17), 40.

Retrieved September 28,

2014, from

http://cen.acs.org/articles/90/web/2012/04/Pink-Slime.html

Food Safety News. (2012). BPI and Pink Slime: An Updated

Timeline. Food Safety News. News

Desk. September 17, 2012. Retrieved October 8, 2014,

from

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/09/bpi-and-pink-

slime-an-updated-

timeline/#.VDUuj5WBHIU

BPI’s LFTB or “PINK SLIME” – IMAGE RESTORATION THEORY - CASE ANALYSIS 23

Huffstutter, P.J. & Graybow, M. (2013). Special Report: Did Diane

Sawyer smear “pink slime?”

Reuters. March 4, 2013. Retrieved October 11, 2014,

from

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/04/us-usa-

media-abc-bpi-

idUSBRE92313720130304

Huffstutter, P.J. (2014). Beef Products Inc. reopens as ‘pink

slime’ lawsuit proceeds. Reuters.

August 12, 2014. Retrieved October 8, 2014, from

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/12/us-usa-

beef-bpi-reopening-

idUSKBN0GC26220140812

References, cont’d.

BPI’s LFTB or “PINK SLIME” – IMAGE RESTORATION THEORY - CASE ANALYSIS 24

Isidore, C. (2014). “Pink Slime” is back and headed for your

burger. CNN Money. August 13,

2014. Retrieved September 21, 2014, from

http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/13/news/companies/pink-

slime/index.html

Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution. (2012). Partners in ‘Slime.’ The

Story So Far. March 16, 2012.

Retrieved September 28, 2014, from

http://www.jamieoliver.com/us/foundation/jamies-

food-revolution/news-content/pink-slime-the-story-so-

far

Jonsson, P. (2014). “Pink Slime” lawsuit moves forward: Could ABC

News be held liable?

Christian Science Monitor. March 28, 2014. Retrieved October

8, 2014, from

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0328/Pink-

slime-lawsuit-moves-forward-

Could-ABC-News-be-held-liable-video

BPI’s LFTB or “PINK SLIME” – IMAGE RESTORATION THEORY - CASE ANALYSIS 25

Manday, J. (2013). Case study in crisis communications. Drovers

CattleNetwork. July 29, 2013.

Retrieved September 21, 2014, from

http://www.cattlenetwork.com/cattle-news/Case-

study-in-crisis-communications-217459821.html

Milford, P. & Singh, S.D. (2012). AFA Foods Files Bankruptcy

Citing “Pink Slime” Coverage.

Bloomberg. April 2, 2012. Retrieved October 11, 2014,

from

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-02/afa-foods-

files-bankruptcy-citing-pink-

slime-coverage.html

References, cont’d.

Nestle, M. (2012). Pink Slime: What’s Really at Stake. The Atlantic.

April, 4, 2012. Retrieved October 8, 2014, from

BPI’s LFTB or “PINK SLIME” – IMAGE RESTORATION THEORY - CASE ANALYSIS 26

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/04/pink-

slime-whats-really-at-stake/255378/?single_page=true

Osland, A. (2013). HOW CAN BPI RESTORE CONSUMER CONFIDENCE IN

PINK SLIME?

Journal of Critical Incidents, 6129-132.

'Pink slime' closes three plants. (2012). TCE: The Chemical Engineer,

(852), 16.

Powell, D. (2014). Oprah redux still; BPI sues others for pink

slime defamation. BarfBlog. July,

30, 2014. Retrieved October 11, 2014, from

http://barfblog.com/tags/bpi/

Satran, J. (2013). ‘Pink Slime’ Ground Beef Product Returns To

School Lunches in 4 States: Report. Huffington Post. September

10, 2013. Retrieved September 28, 2014, from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/10/pink-

slime_n_3900851.html

BPI’s LFTB or “PINK SLIME” – IMAGE RESTORATION THEORY - CASE ANALYSIS 27

Sellnow, D. D., & Sellnow, T. L. (2014). The Challenge of

Exemplification in Crisis

Communication. Journal of Applied Communications, 98(2), 53-

64.

Sonia. (2008). Reputation Management – 12 Steps to Recover

Tarnished Reputations and Move on with Growth and

Prosperity. May 29, 2008. Retrieved October 13, 2014, from

http://www.neuconcept.com/2008/05/29/reputation-management-

12-steps-to-recover-tarnished-reputations-and-move-on-with-

growth-and-prosperity/

References, cont’d.

Tereszcuk, A. (2012). You Are What You! How One Mom Won Crusade

Against ‘Pink Slime.’ Radar Online. March 27, 2012. Retrieved

September 28, 2014, from

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/03/pink-slime-mom-

bettina-siegel-anderson-cooper/

BPI’s LFTB or “PINK SLIME” – IMAGE RESTORATION THEORY - CASE ANALYSIS 28