The image is used to illustrate the key theme of the article, which serves to significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, whereas its omission would be significantly detrimental to that understanding. Furthermore, use of the image in the article fully complies with Wikipedia Non-free content policy and Non-free content criteria and fair use under United States copyright law.

Furthermore, there has been significant discussion on the talk page about having an accurate image of the product in the article:

• Talk:Pink slime/Archive 5 § Product is not banned in the european union
• Talk:Pink slime/Archive 4 § External links
• Talk:Pink slime/Archive 4 § Query
• Talk:Pink slime/Archive 2 § Picture
• Talk:Pink slime/Archive 2 § Infobox photo not beef, it's chicken.

The nomination for deletion (diff) comes across as a knee-jerk, drive-by reaction (e.g. see a similar style nomination here) without actual consideration or due diligence given by the nominator regarding how the image actually significantly improves the educational value of the article, nor how omission of the image would be beneficial relative to the overall topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Based on the lead section, the image shows a product which at least appears to be sold in the United States. It should therefore be possible to go to the United States and take a photograph of this product. The picture therefore fails WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• The likelihood of a free equivalent image of the product being created is very slim to none. Consumers don't have access to the product in its finished form. The only access consumers have to it is when it's already mixed in with ground beef, which makes it indistinguishable from the ground beef itself.

Furthermore, as of at least March 2013, the product's primary manufacturer won't let reporters in its plants at this time or even speak to the media. See this article, where it states:

Before all the coverage, BPI routinely let reporters inside its plant. Today, the Roth family and BPI employees generally won’t speak to members of the media, even by phone. In fact, most of the players in the “pink slime” story — including the scientist who coined the term, the celebrity chef Jamie Oliver who “manufactured” pink slime on his show, ABC News, laid-off BPI employees, and BPI itself — are communicating almost exclusively through lawyers or representatives, if they are willing to address the topic at all.

Essentially, the only images available are those that were taken by mass media around three years ago before BPI shuttered them out. As stated above, consumers have no access to the product, so they won't be able to take a picture of it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Consumers don't have access to the product in its finished form That's no different from typical scientific images where it may only be possible for scientists to create replacements. We wouldn't accept non-free scientific images if a scientist could create a free replacement.

Essentially, the only images available are those that were taken by mass media around three years ago before BPI shuttered them out. Images taken by mass media typically fail WP:NFC#UUI §7, thus failing WP:NFCC for two reasons. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that WP:NFC#UUI §7 pertains to photos from a press agency or photo agency. This is not a photograph, it is a screenshot. As such, WP:NFC#UUI #7 does not apply to this content whatsoever. Furthermore, at Wikipedia:Non-free content § Acceptable use § Images regarding the acceptable use of non-free content it states, "Video screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question (i.e., films, television programs, and music videos)." For starters, see Pink slime § ABC News report. This is a screen shot from a television program that is quite clearly aligned with critical commentary and discussion about the topic. As such, it qualifies as an acceptable use of non-free content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding "We wouldn't accept non-free scientific images if a scientist could create a free replacement": As explained above, the product's primary producer will not allow anyone access to the product to photograph it. As such, it's virtually certain that the company would not allow its employees to photograph it and then upload the image to Wikimedia commons. If this were to occur, such employees would likely face termination from the company. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)