Give horsemeat-tainted food to poor - German minister

Reekwind

Grayson wrote: »

I'm pretty certain that politicians would not get in trouble for saying horse can be sold if it's labeled horse, beef can be sold if it's labeled beef etc...

Not any meat, this meat that has already been taken off the shelves. It would be a massive story if a politician seriously suggested that a packet of Iceland 'beefburgers' was returned to the shelves with a sticker on it saying 'Horsemeat, certified safe'. I strongly suspect that giving it to the poor is a lot less controversial

That's assuming of course that it is even possible to certify this meat so as to meet the relevant safety standards; probably an impossible task given the murkiness of the supply chain

Doobs

Given that thousands of people starve to death every day, i think the mere thought of simply destroying the horse meat should be punishable by death in all honesty :P

Evilsbane

Reekwind wrote: »

That's assuming of course that it even is possible to certify this meat so as it met the relevant safety standards, probably an impossible task given the murkiness of the supply chain

Agreed. In all likelihood the meat is OK to eat, but they can't skip the due diligence just because it's not being sold.

But the amount of food that gets thrown out by supermarkets and fast food restaurants every day is disgusting; I believe there is genuinely enough food in this world for everyone, if only the First World was better at sharing.

Rasheed

Reekwind wrote: »

Now imagine how disgusted you'd be when someone said that this meat wasn't safe enough for stocking in supermarkets but it was okay if someone like you ate it. Because, you know, the poor are different from you and me

It's safety standards for those who can afford them

We were assured there was no safety issue. The supermarkets got rid of them because they were wrongly labelled and to distance themselves from the controversy.

If I couldn't afford meat, and it's not a concept that's too alien to a lot of people, I wouldn't be too proud to not take/ buy cheaply, meat that wasn't labelled correctly. I think the politician was dead right to say it should have been donated to the poor.

If they wanted it, nobody's going force them.

johnr1

Isn't this what tesco, birdseye, aldi, et all tried to do;)

(Thinly veiled "I shop in M&S cos I'm not poor" type wisecrack)

Reekwind

Rasheed wrote: »

We were assured there was no safety issue. The supermarkets got rid of them because they were wrongly labelled and to distance themselves from the controversy

No, the products were withdrawn because it is illegal to sell food whose ingredients are unknown and not displayed correctly. That this fiasco has not led to serious health issues is a matter of luck

There is a world of difference between assurances of a low probability of harmful effects from this meat and having a food properly certified as safe. The truth is that no one knows what went into these products; we don't know what was in the horses, how they were processed or by whom. You cannot say with certainty that this food is safe

And if that guarantee cannot be given then the food cannot be legally sold. If it's not good enough for sale then it's not good enough for charity. The last outcome we need from this is two-tier food safety standards; standards for the rich and standards for the poor

Chemical Burn

JupiterKid wrote: »

This statement reminds me of the infamous "let them eat cake" one attributed to the last French queen, Marie Antoinette.

If this man is so eager not to waste the dodgy horse meat then perhaps he can eat it.

Beggars can't be choosers.

darkhorse

Smidge wrote: »

Psstt.....








You do know she didn't say that? :-)

She did in the version of the film that I seen.

darkhorse

marcsignal wrote: »

looks like we've all been eating it for ages

Well, it would explain why I've been able to run faster as I got older.

darkhorse

stateofflux wrote: »

but i have never seen a 'starving' emaciated person in ireland ever or a poor person ever

where have ya looked?

Lawrence1895

If it's good quality meat, not full of medications, why not?

There is areas in Germany, where you can find dedicated horse butchers, tried it myself, it's not that bad.

Dyr

Give it to school kids, that way fritz can test his theory on his own offspring.

darkhorse

Reekwind wrote: »

There is a huge amount of food safety legislation specifically designed to ensure that unidentified foodstuffs do not get into the food chain. That's there for a reason. Because this meat has not gone through the correct checks.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, the checks are there for a reason. Also, if there was no checks on it, what's to stop some cowboys adding dogs or cats?

My name is URL

VinLieger wrote: »

I dont think so yes there was the worry of bute being in them but that was an isolated case as far as i know.

Almost sure I heard a few other antibiotics / hormonal drugs etc mentioned that may pose a risk to humans. They're restricted in meats destined for human consumption, but who knows what stuff is contained in the fraudulent products.

It's a completely unworkable idea to give it to the poor. Every single meal would need to be tested in order to cover the asses of those handing it out.

Rasheed

Reekwind wrote: »

No, the products were withdrawn because it is illegal to sell food whose ingredients are unknown and not displayed correctly. That this fiasco has not led to serious health issues is a matter of luck

There is a world of difference between assurances of a low probability of harmful effects from this meat and having a food properly certified as safe. The truth is that no one knows what went into these products; we don't know what was in the horses, how they were processed or by whom. You cannot say with certainty that this food is safe

And if that guarantee cannot be given then the food cannot be legally sold. If it's not good enough for sale then it's not good enough for charity. The last outcome we need from this is two-tier food safety standards; standards for the rich and standards for the poor

Nobody is going to force the burgers down anyone's neck.

Ever hear that beggars can't be choosers? If I was hungry, couldn't afford meat but could have the burgers, I take the hand off them for free ones. If a person wanted to get these burgers free of charge or at a reduced rate, let them at it. If a person wanted to take the assurance that there is no health
issue with the meat and it tasted alright, off with them.

The thing is the choice. Ask people, instead of tossing the lot in the bin.

Noreen1

Rasheed wrote: »

Nobody is going to force the burgers down anyone's neck.

Ever hear that beggars can't be choosers? If I was hungry, couldn't afford meat but could have the burgers, I take the hand off them for free ones. If a person wanted to get these burgers free of charge or at a reduced rate, let them at it. If a person wanted to take the assurance that there is no health
issue with the meat and it tasted alright, off with them.

The thing is the choice. Ask people, instead of tossing the lot in the bin.

The question is, how can anyone believe assurances that there is no health risk, when the source of the meat is completely unknown?

That being the case, the suggestion to feed it to the poor is disgusting, imo.

If it's unfit for the exalted "rich" to eat, then it's equally unfit for the poor - unless the poor are regarded as "disposable".
I'm not suggesting you think that way, but I would suggest that public figures, such as a certain German minister, should put their brains into gear before opening their mouths.............

steddyeddy

Rich and poor people have been eating horsemeat for years. There's nothing wrong with it. Throwing it out seems worse.

Richard Hillman

Send it off to ****ethiopiastan and tell them thats their food aid for the year.

csallmighty

Reekwind wrote: »

There are two problems:

The first is the broader issue. For most people the problem was not that they were eating horse but that they're eating misidentified meat of unknown origin that has illegally made its way into the food chain. We simply don't know to what degree this meat is dangerous

Its not acceptable if the meat posed a serious health risk.

But wasn't a large percentage of the meat destined for the horse meat market but it was then packaged as beef.

But the particular problem with this minister, and some of the posts in this thread, is the casual snobbery on display. If this food is good enough for the poor to eat then it's good enough to be stocked in Tesco. There is something badly wrong with the idea that we give horsemeat (or, potentially dangerous unidentified foodstuffs) to the poor while the better off dine on safe, certified beef

Hey I just said that I would gladly eat it too and so did a few other posters.

Also, If you were walking down the street and saw a poor homeless man eating left overs out of a bin would you tell him to stop because it could be dangerous?

I think the same would apply to the horse meat.

Queen-Mise

orestes wrote: »

It's not bloody toxic, wasting that much food when there are people who would happily eat it is idiotic.

But how do you know it is not toxic. We have no idea where it came from, therefore, it cannot be trusted nor eaten.

My name is URL wrote: »

It's a completely unworkable idea to give it to the poor. Every single meal would need to be tested in order to cover the asses of those handing it out.

Exactly so - who knows where these horses have came from. Because you can be damn well sure it wasn't high class horses that went into them.

Noreen1 wrote: »

If it's unfit for the exalted "rich" to eat, then it's equally unfit for the poor - unless the poor are regarded as "disposable".

Exactly this. If it is safe, then theoretically no problem with it, but how do we know it is safe.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Rich and poor people have been eating horsemeat for years. There's nothing wrong with it. Throwing it out seems worse.

The problem again isn't the horsemeat - not all horses are suitable for eating. And I don't think the people behind the horsemeat were the most ethical either.

Bruthal

Truncheon Rouge wrote: »

If its not toxic/harmful then go for it.
Ask a homeless/hungry person.


I don't eat beef myself (for some time now) but whats so disgusting about horse-meat vs cow meat.

people eat pig.

Just like the rest of us by the looks of things lately

Elfinknight

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

It's a bit disturbing to see some peoples attitude to this horsemeat scandal, you'd swear this horsemeat was prime cuts of horse that has been specially raised for consumption. The harsh reality is that the majority of this meat probably comes from knackers yards(no, I'm not referring to travellers) where carcasses have been picked up to be destroyed.

And do you really believe that the beef in the mince and burgers is any different?

In Exile

Rasheed wrote: »

Nobody is going to force the burgers down anyone's neck.

Ever hear that beggars can't be choosers? If I was hungry, couldn't afford meat but could have the burgers, I take the hand off them for free ones. If a person wanted to get these burgers free of charge or at a reduced rate, let them at it. If a person wanted to take the assurance that there is no health
issue with the meat and it tasted alright, off with them.

The thing is the choice. Ask people, instead of tossing the lot in the bin.

I think you are missing the main point about giving them to the poor.

It doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong to throw out the food and it also doesn't matter whether the companies involved knew what was happening or not.

Take a hypothetical situation where the head honcho of Tesco wanted more than anything to give all the burgers to the poor. He knows such a move would be greatly welcomed by all the charities and it would really help them out. Taking a very simplistic view of things then he should hand over all of them, right?

However, assuming Mr Tesco has no idea where the horse meat came from, he has no idea what potential risk the burgers would pose to the people who eat them.
So he now has two problems. First, he has no idea what sort of health problems he may inflict on people who eat them regularly(you can use the argument that people have been eating them for ages and nothing has happened. That may be because the meat is fine or just sheer good luck)

The second problem posed to Mr Tesco, and the most important one faced by all of these businesses, is money. If something happens to anybody from here on where they develop some health problem due to whatever is in the mince, they will be faced with monumental legal bills.

You also use the phrase "beggars can't be choosers". While that may be true to an extent, it is not beggars who decide the fate of the foods, it is big businesses. Assuming the above scenario again and Mr Tesco gets the charities and anyone who eats one of these burgers to sign a waiver saying they do so at their own risk and Tesco cannot be held responsible.

That is all well and good in theory, but what happens if someone gets some rare infection and to put it bluntly, is fcuked for the rest of their lives. While Tesco can wipe its hands and say, "well we they knew what they were eating. We warned them", imagine what it would do to their brand image.

While all these companies are going to suffer at the moment because of this, if any of them has something bad happen because of their foods they are finished.

At the end of the day, unless they can guarantee that the animals used as mince were clean, healthy and fit for human consumption, then the only thing they can do with them is destroy everything.

Rasheed

In Exile wrote: »

I think you are missing the main point about giving them to the poor.

It doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong to throw out the food and it also doesn't matter whether the companies involved knew what was happening or not.

Take a hypothetical situation where the head honcho of Tesco wanted more than anything to give all the burgers to the poor. He knows such a move would be greatly welcomed by all the charities and it would really help them out. Taking a very simplistic view of things then he should hand over all of them, right?

However, assuming Mr Tesco has no idea where the horse meat came from, he has no idea what potential risk the burgers would pose to the people who eat them.
So he now has two problems. First, he has no idea what sort of health problems he may inflict on people who eat them regularly(you can use the argument that people have been eating them for ages and nothing has happened. That may be because the meat is fine or just sheer good luck)

The second problem posed to Mr Tesco, and the most important one faced by all of these businesses, is money. If something happens to anybody from here on where they develop some health problem due to whatever is in the mince, they will be faced with monumental legal bills.

You also use the phrase "beggars can't be choosers". While that may be true to an extent, it is not beggars who decide the fate of the foods, it is big businesses. Assuming the above scenario again and Mr Tesco gets the charities and anyone who eats one of these burgers to sign a waiver saying they do so at their own risk and Tesco cannot be held responsible.

That is all well and good in theory, but what happens if someone gets some rare infection and to put it bluntly, is fcuked for the rest of their lives. While Tesco can wipe its hands and say, "well we they knew what they were eating. We warned them", imagine what it would do to their brand image.

While all these companies are going to suffer at the moment because of this, if any of them has something bad happen because of their foods they are finished.

At the end of the day, unless they can guarantee that the animals used as mince were clean, healthy and fit for human consumption, then the only thing they can do with them is destroy everything.

But seriously how do you know we're not eating this stuff for years? How do you know that every frozen lasagne, frozen burger, burger out of Burger King hasn't been tainted? You don't. Possibly is wasn't, but possibly it was. You think that it was 'sheer good luck ' that nobody got sick before this? I say bollox, that meat has been used for how long and no ill effects have been proven to come from it. How can you guarantee the mince is good? Unless you kill your own stock or buy from a reputable butcher, you haven't a hairy notion.

And I have to laugh at the notion that people think because it's beef, it's going to be fine. Yes there are restrictions on medication you give to cattle, but there are ways and means around that, that you and I would never know about when tucking into our steak.

Why would the government say the burgers posed no health risk if they did? What would the government put themselves at risk like that? What was stopping me saying I had a pack of frozen Tesco burgers in my freezer, knew they might contain horse, accepted what the government said and ate them anyway? And then getting some 'mystery illness'. Then blame the government and they're in the shiite.

Rasheed

Noreen1 wrote: »

The question is, how can anyone believe assurances that there is no health risk, when the source of the meat is completely unknown?

That being the case, the suggestion to feed it to the poor is disgusting, imo.

If it's unfit for the exalted "rich" to eat, then it's equally unfit for the poor - unless the poor are regarded as "disposable".
I'm not suggesting you think that way, but I would suggest that public figures, such as a certain German minister, should put their brains into gear before opening their mouths.............

Meat has been resourced unknown for years. Those quality checks have only come into effect in recent enough years.

So give the choice to the 'rich' too. If someone wanted to eat those burgers, let them. I'd eat them in a heartbeat if I was used of eating them.

The biggest health risk with those burgers and lasagne is the high fat and salt content.

Reekwind

csallmighty wrote: »

But wasn't a large percentage of the meat destined for the horse meat market but it was then packaged as beef.

I don't know and nor does anybody else for certainty. I suspect that it will take months to fully unravel this supply chain, if that's even possible. Until then no one can say for sure how safe this meat is. It's unlikely to have serious health consequences but it obviously can't be sold/donated until we know that for sure

Also, If you were walking down the street and saw a poor homeless man eating left overs out of a bin would you tell him to stop because it could be dangerous?

I think the same would apply to the horse meat.

But it's not. There's a difference between scavenging and charity. Would you give a homeless man some leftovers that you knew or suspected was dangerous? Would you stock a soup kitchen with food that was past its sell-by date? Would you deliberately tear or blemish some clothes before handing them over to the SVP? They're different

Which is not to even touch the notion that it's acceptable to feed the poor with food of a similar quality/level as left-overs from bins

Rasheed wrote:

Ever hear that beggars can't be choosers? If I was hungry, couldn't afford meat but could have the burgers, I take the hand off them for free ones.

Which is just another way of being a snob. You've never been in that situation so please stop suggesting that 'the poor' lack anything resembling human dignity. Only the well off have that and choice, eh?

touts

If the meat is fully tested and proven safe for consumption then I say by all means give it away to anyone who wants it.

However I would prefer to see any minister saying "give it to X" having the courage to eat it themselves and feed it to their family. There is very much a sense of a handful of mega-rich T-Reich-a politicians pulling up the ladder behind them in a lot of their policies on dealing with the underclasses these days.

Latchy

Apart from the problem of transport ,storage and the usual political obstacles (bull**** ) that would prevent it happening , I would imagine the starving millions of Africa would be glad to have it ,even allowing for their delicate stomachs to adapt to it.

Noreen1

Rasheed wrote: »

Meat has been resourced unknown for years. Those quality checks have only come into effect in recent enough years.

So give the choice to the 'rich' too. If someone wanted to eat those burgers, let them. I'd eat them in a heartbeat if I was used of eating them.

The biggest health risk with those burgers and lasagne is the high fat and salt content.

That's not altogether true.

Whereas meat with an unknown origin was almost certainly sold in cities for many years, it is only in the last 15 years or so that Supermarkets with ready meals really dominated the meat market in more rural areas.

Prior to that, meat was sourced from the local butcher, who tended to purchase livestock locally for butchering.

Therefore, people generally knew through the local grapevine who sold which type of animal to which butcher - and were free to avoid certain meats if they had any reason to suspect the quality of the animal butchered.
Add the fact that local butchers were entirely dependent on a good reputation for their livelihood, and the meat tended to be very safe, for the simple reason that there were no "suppliers" to pass the buck to if problems arose.

The current system, where meat is sourced in Country A, butchered in B, shipped to C, D, and possibly E, before finally being processed in Country F, provides opportunity for unscrupulous people. Some suppliers have clearly taken advantage of that opportunity.

It is also worth noting that the usual "assurances" have been trotted out, to protect the "market". Assurances that, imo, can not be given with any degree of certainty, and therefore, are a sad reflection on the morals of the people giving these assurances, since public health concerns do not appear to be at the forefront.
Neither, unfortunately, does truth appear very high on the list of priorities.

It's actually counterproductive, since the solution is not to give false assurances - but to fix the system.

Surely it cannot be that difficult to ensure that processing plants are capable of identifying cuts of meat (let's face it, horsemeat is bound contain more muscle than beef cuts) - and are fined prohibitive amounts for, ah, "errors" in labelling.

Personally, I buy my meat from my local butcher. It's locally sourced, and if I were to ask, I could find out what farm it came from.
I don't buy ready meals. I don't consider them to be healthy - and I'm far from being a health fanatic.
It says a lot about the current system though, that:
A: It can be difficult to trace the source of contamination in the supply chain that we, as consumers, were assured was fully traceable, and,
B: That, mislabelling aside, foods with such a high salt content can be legally sold.

Methinks it's time that the Comsumer was given priority by Health and Safety officials, rather than profit for big Business, as appears to be the case at the moment.

Lando Griffin

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Em.. 'don't waste food' seems like a good idea to me.

Wouldn't poor people be glad of it?

Yes we would, and someone to deliver it to our door and to cook and clean up afterwards, and a few beers of mislabeled beer please too.

rubadub

JupiterKid wrote: »

This statement reminds me of the infamous "let them eat cake" one attributed to the last French queen, Marie Antoinette.

Its nothing like that. That story was supposed to be about how ignorant she was of the situation of people having no bread and not realising they could not get/afford cake.

If all mince had been taken off shelves and somebody commented to the minister that some people had no mince to eat then the equivalent would be him saying "let them eat fillet steak" -without him even realising the person meant they could not afford anything more than mince.

In this case it is more like Marie Antoniette saying "let them eat cake -all that perfectly good tonnes of tasty cake I had made -the stuff I was going to throw out when I heard the baker used rye flour instead of wheat flour" and she knowing full well about their economic hardship.

wolfpawnat

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

It's a bit disturbing to see some peoples attitude to this horsemeat scandal, you'd swear this horsemeat was prime cuts of horse that has been specially raised for consumption. The harsh reality is that the majority of this meat probably comes from knackers yards(no, I'm not referring to travellers) where carcasses have been picked up to be destroyed.

According to the people lecturing food sciences, veterinary and Ag science in UCD (who are on the board of the FSA and other groups that discovered this. The horse, for the most part, was of a good standard and was muscle meat as opposed to the shítty parts of cows that usually make up mince meat. It's just horse meat goes for less than a euro a unit as opposed to 2/3 something like beef.

As long as it is deemed safe, someone might as well eat it. I ate horse before, it tastes the almost the same as beef.

rubadub

marcsignal wrote: »

looks like we've all been eating it for ages*


*unless you're vegetarian

I wouldn't be so certain.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2009/06/15/2003446226

Meat found in vegetarian food
The Investigation Bureau recently found that some processed foods advertised as vegetarian contained meat and said it would refer producers who knowingly added meat to their products for prosecution on fraud charges. Pu Chang-en (蒲長恩), a technician at the bureau’s Department of Forensic Science, said yesterday that among samples collected from 31 vegetarian food vendors in Taipei City and County for safety checks, food taken from 17 vendors contained meat. An investigation targeting the producers of the processed food was launched to determine whether meat was deliberately added to the soybean-based products to enrich their texture and flavor. Fu said it was possible that vegetarian food showing small traces of meat was contaminated by poorly cleaned work tables or cooking equipment in factories where meat products are also processed. Producers who have not deliberately defrauded consumers would not be subject to prosecution, Fu said.

Freddy Smelly

give it all to soup kitchens to use.

they could serve it up and have the racing channel on the tv at the same time lol

paddy power could sponsor the delivery costs to the soup kitchens

SEPT 23 1989

Horsemeat found in the IKEA meatballs

flanzer

German dude reminds me of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0BwzIihQOI

Killer Wench

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Horsemeat found in the IKEA meatballs

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/horse-meat-ikea-swedish-meatballs_n_2757934.html

Rasheed

Reekwind wrote: »

Which is just another way of being a snob. You've never been in that situation so please stop suggesting that 'the poor' lack anything resembling human dignity. Only the well off have that and choice, eh?

How the fūck do you know I've never been in that situation?

Don't you dare accuse me of being snobby and trying to off load this food for some agenda. Since you choose to assume, you're actually wrong, I have been in the situation where I nearly rooted through bins for food.

And this is why it's drives me mad to see perfectly good food thrown away, on the minute possibility it could contain something harmful.

And for about the third time, give the people a choice to take them. If they don't want, fair enough. If they're willing to take them, let them.

Reekwind

Rasheed wrote: »

How the fūck do you know I've never been in that situation?

I was tipped off by:

"I don't know, thankfully I'm not in the position where I can't afford meat..."

And for about the third time, give the people a choice to take them. If they don't want, fair enough. If they're willing to take them, let them.

And, again, that's not how laws and standards work. You can't give people meat that is judged too dangerous for sale, not unless you have no concern about their well-being. And to stress: you want to give someone reliant on charity food that you do not know is safe, that you do not know the composition of, that you do know has entered the food chain illegally. What sort of choice is that?

Rasheed

Reekwind wrote: »

I was tipped off by:

"I don't know, thankfully I'm not in the position where I can't afford meat..."

And, again, that's not how laws and standards work. You can't give people meat that is judged too dangerous for sale, not unless you have no concern about their well-being. And to stress: you want to give someone reliant on charity food that you do not know is safe, that you do not know the composition of, that you do know has entered the food chain illegally. What sort of choice is that?

Yeah, thankfully I'm not in the position now. I knew all about it five years ago. So your 'tip' couldn't be more wrong.

Do you understand the meaning of the word choice? Tell everybody the risks and if they judge it to be worth it, let them have it. That goes for anyone, whether you're on the breadline, loaded or you want it for your dogs.

previous user

They're selling skewers of horse meat in the Saturday Market in the Temple bar area beside the IFC cinema dontcha know.

dsmythy

You don't think someone dying of starvation in East Africa would bite your hand off for it? Dirk Niebel was the German in question saying this. Nibble indeed.

SV

I'll buy it off them on the cheap gladly. Horse meat is good meat!
If the poor were gonna get it for free I'd imagine a lot would be absolutely delighted.

My name is URL

You have to look at the context and language used. He never suggested shipping it off to areas inflicted by famine or other forms of mass starvation. He's Germany's top welfare brass. It reads more like he wants it taken directly from supermarkets to people on the street.

No mention whatsoever about who should be charged with coordinating it, or for insuring that nobody suffers adversely as a result. Something tells me it would be taxpayers though... and not necessarily German ones either!

In Exile

Rasheed wrote: »

Do you understand the meaning of the word choice? Tell everybody the risks and if they judge it to be worth it, let them have it. That goes for anyone, whether you're on the breadline, loaded or you want it for your dogs.

And do you understand how laws and food standards work? It doesn't matter how morally wrong it is to dump the food and it doesn't matter how much you think people should be allowed to choose whether they eat it or not.

It is against the law to serve it, sell it, or give it away for free. For that reason, the Government cannot step in and decide to give it to the poor or homeless or whoever. And even if they did, the insurance companies would not allow any of this stuff to be used as the risk to them would be huge.

You're getting angry that people won't agree with your logic of letting people choose. However, you won't seem to acknowledge that it just cannot be done, unless ever single individual piece of meat can be accounted for

Reekwind

Rasheed wrote: »

Do you understand the meaning of the word choice? Tell everybody the risks and if they judge it to be worth it, let them have it. That goes for anyone, whether you're on the breadline, loaded or you want it for your dogs.

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of 'choice', not truly

If I offer you a thousand euro to hold your hand in the fire then you might be desperate enough to accept the health consequences; someone else might be financially comfortable enough not to even consider the risk. Both face the same 'choice' but one can opt out and the other has little option to accept. That's not a choice in any real sense

You're doing the same here: suggesting that people who can't afford meat be given the 'choice' to risk their health, an offer that is unacceptable to put before someone not on the breadline. How is that a proper choice when it's informed primarily by desperation and hunger?

darkhorse

In Exile wrote: »

And do you understand how laws and food standards work? It doesn't matter how morally wrong it is to dump the food and it doesn't matter how much you think people should be allowed to choose whether they eat it or not.

It is against the law to serve it, sell it, or give it away for free. For that reason, the Government cannot step in and decide to give it to the poor or homeless or whoever. And even if they did, the insurance companies would not allow any of this stuff to be used as the risk to them would be huge.

You're getting angry that people won't agree with your logic of letting people choose. However, you won't seem to acknowledge that it just cannot be done, unless ever single individual piece of meat can be accounted for

Perfect explanation.

Rasheed

Reekwind wrote: »

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of 'choice', not truly

If I offer you a thousand euro to hold your hand in the fire then you might be desperate enough to accept the health consequences; someone else might be financially comfortable enough not to even consider the risk. Both face the same 'choice' but one can opt out and the other has little option to accept. That's not a choice in any real sense

You're doing the same here: suggesting that people who can't afford meat be given the 'choice' to risk their health, an offer that is unacceptable to put before someone not on the breadline. How is that a proper choice when it's informed primarily by desperation and hunger?

I don't think we're going to reach the same idea Reekwind! I do get what you're saying about offering it to some people that could feel they just couldn't refuse it and that can lead to an unfair choice.

Every day we make different choices with our food. Chances are most food we eat is fine, but it's all based on trust. Trust that the farmer has not treated the animal with any illegal medication or pumped them full of steroids, trust that the factory puts in a good standard of meat and not just the ravelings on the floor and trust that the food had passed all the food standard tests before it reaches our shelves.

God knows how long this controversy has gone on for, before it was copped. Not that it has, hopefully it will put a complete stop to it. But I still think that those burgers could have met a better ending than the bin.

Rasheed

In Exile wrote: »

You're getting angry that people won't agree with your logic of letting people choose. However, you won't seem to acknowledge that it just cannot be done, unless ever single individual piece of meat can be accounted for

I'm not getting angry about people not agreeing with my opinion, I was debating my side and they were debating theirs.

I got angry when a poster assumed that I was a snob and just wanted to land food on the poor that I wouldn't eat.

I got angry that that poster assumed I was never in the situation where I was in the position where I couldn't afford food.