This is not an accurate statement because what is tiny to one person is not tiny to another. It also infers that the ammonia is only on the untreated meat for "less than a second", which in fact is the ammonia product is actually inside the finished treated product.
This was obviously written by the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.26.179 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 9 September 2011 UTC
When defining the process - wouldn't the company be more inclined to know how the process actually works? The various false and misleading reports have already been debunked by science, industry, and academics and described by some as media hyped scare tactics. Is it then fare to promote or republish these false reports? I would like 67.171.26.179 to advise how he knows the specifics of how the ammonia is applied and how he can prove it is any different than what the company states. The companies process definition has been verified by reputable sources. I would like 67.171.26.179 to expand. Also,tiny has one meaning "small". If the company and the reputable reports all describe it as such - how can that be subject for debate - unless of course that person has information to the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.172.199.26 (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the multiple issues tag, which had classified this article as a peacock, advertisement, and needing improved references.
This article has plenty of references for one of its size and does not read like an advertisement if you ask me. I have changed some of the language to be more neutral & less passive, and I don't believe it qualifies as a peacock article.
I'm not even sure it needs to be checked for neutrality, because facts kind of speak for themselves. It may, however, give too much weight to the ammonia process. What does the Wikipedia community think? SweetNightmares (awaken) 17:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)