Animal transportation query

tulipandthistle

Hi,

Is all the meat you buy in supermarkets and butchers reared and slaughtered here in Ireland? Is there a website I could look at?
Half watching a programme about rearing and slaughtering just now..... got me thinking...

europerson

No, of course not. You need to do a lot of asking and finding out to get this information! All EU-processed meat sold should have an "EEC" code affixed or stamped: for example, IRL 123 EEC". That shows you that the meat was processed in Ireland. Under the National Beef Quality Assurance Scheme, many butchers say where their meat has come from, often with so called 'farm to fork' traceability. An Bord Bia also runs various quality assurance schemes, especially for pig-meat.

The Hill Billy

The PriceWatch column in the Irish Times touched on this in yesterday's edition. It referred to customers' perceptions of Irish brands & the provenance of the food sold by those brands. The upshot was that just because a brand name is 'Irish' (e.g. Shaws, Galtee, Donegal Catch, etc.) does not mean that the product is, & in a large number of instances is most certainly not.

The article also dealt with product labelling & how they may be somewhat misleading, for example "smoked Irish salmon" as opposed to "Irish smoked salmon". Worth getting your hands on a copy if you can.

cozmik

Hill Billy wrote: »

The article also dealt with product labelling & how they may be somewhat misleading, for example "smoked Irish salmon" as opposed to "Irish smoked salmon".

It's sickening that our Irish supermarkets are invovled in that type of deception. :mad:

tulipandthistle

It is shocking what goes on without us knowing.

I watched a consumer programme in Holland a few years back and what a leading supermarket did there was buy the meat somewhere in Africa for mince, add fat from Holland then have it frozen for up to 2 years before it reached the shop floor! :eek: It really opened our eyes.

I managed to get hold of the article today from the Irish Times, interesting reading. I've noticed on packets here that they hardly specify where the animals are slaughtered.... still researching....

Faith

Okay, maybe I'm being stupid, but what's the difference between "smoked Irish salmon" and "Irish smoked salmon"? Is the second one salmon that's just been smoked in Ireland or something?

tulipandthistle

Faith wrote: »

Okay, maybe I'm being stupid, but what's the difference between "smoked Irish salmon" and "Irish smoked salmon"? Is the second one salmon that's just been smoked in Ireland or something?

Yep, the second one means that it was only smoked in Ireland, could be from....wherever. First one would be salmon from Ireland that has been smoked..... wherever.

The Hill Billy

cozmik wrote: »

It's sickening that our Irish supermarkets are invovled in that type of deception. :mad:

To be fair - the supermarkets only sell the stuff - they aren't responsible for branding or marketing unless they have "own brand" products. It is the producers that are using deliberately vague & sometimes misleading packaging - not to mention relying on the gullibility of the consumers - that should be tackled on this.

tulipandthistle wrote:

Yep, the second one means that it was only smoked in Ireland, could be from....wherever. First one would be salmon from Ireland that has been smoked..... wherever.

Spot on. One would assume that 'Irish Smoked Salmon' would be an Irish product. This may lead the consumer to think - "By buying this I am supporting Irish producers, getting a product with a low carbon footprint, etc, etc."

The real fact may be that the salmon was caught in a drift net off Alaska, flown halfway around the world, chucked into a smoker in a Finglas industrial estate for an hour & then lashed out onto the shelf.

cozmik

Hill Billy wrote: »

To be fair - the supermarkets only sell the stuff - they aren't responsible for branding or marketing unless they have "own brand" products.

I didn't say the supermarkets were responsible for the branding, I said they are involved in the deception, which they are because they sell the stuff.

The Hill Billy

cozmik wrote: »

I didn't say the supermarkets were responsible for the branding, I said they are involved in the deception, which they are because they sell the stuff.

I know what you said & my point was that they are far, far less at fault here for the precise reason that they only sell the stuff.

rockbeer

Hill Billy wrote: »

I know what you said & my point was that they are far, far less at fault here for the precise reason that they only sell the stuff.

Don't agree, Hill Billy - supermarkets are at liberty to sell or not sell particular items. By choosing to put them on the shelves they are just as guilty of deception as the producers. Supermarkets have such a large market share that they effectively run the food business these days - if they insisted on clear, transparent labelling, producers would have no choice but to comply.

It's all about money at the end of the day - anyone who is shocked by these practices is either very young and innocent or deeply naive.

BaZmO*

So what's the deal with the meat that you get in the supermarkets that have a picture of the farmer and the address of the farm on it?

The Hill Billy

rockbeer wrote: »

Don't agree, Hill Billy - supermarkets are at liberty to sell or not sell particular items. By choosing to put them on the shelves they are just as guilty of deception as the producers. Supermarkets have such a large market share that they effectively run the food business these days - if they insisted on clear, transparent labelling, producers would have no choice but to comply.

Likewise, you could say:
Consumers are at liberty to buy or not buy particular items. By choosing to purchase them they are just as guilty of deception as the producers. Consumers have such a large purchasing power that they effectively run the food business these days - if they insisted on clear, transparent labelling, producers would have no choice but to comply.

rockbeer

Hill Billy wrote: »

Likewise, you could say:
Consumers are at liberty to buy or not buy particular items. By choosing to purchase them they are just as guilty of deception as the producers. Consumers have such a large purchasing power that they effectively run the food business these days - if they insisted on clear, transparent labelling, producers would have no choice but to comply.

I don't think so... how are consumers to make informed purchasing decision when deprived of clear information on which to base them?

Exactly how is a consumer guilty of deception by choosing to buy a mislabelled item?

Of course we're all at liberty to buy or not buy stuff, and each of us exercises that right all the time, but to say we are somehow responsible for what we're sold is just... well... bizarre.

The Hill Billy

rockbeer wrote:

I don't think so... how are consumers to make informed purchasing decision when deprived of clear information on which to base them?

Following on from your previous post - how would this be the responsibility of a supermarket? Supermarkets are not the consumers' moral compass by proxy. If clear product information is the issue - it is the responsibility of the producer to provide it. If consumers want "clear, transparent labelling" - then we as consumers should demand it. We should not expect supermarkets to do this for us.

rockbeer wrote:

Exactly how is a consumer guilty of deception by choosing to buy a mislabelled item?

OK - I phrased that one badly.

rockbeer wrote:

Of course we're all at liberty to buy or not buy stuff, and each of us exercises that right all the time, but to say we are somehow responsible for what we're sold is just... well... bizarre.

Consumers are obviously not responsible for what is sold, but consumers must take responsibility for what they buy. Again, my point is that we should not expect supermarkets to take the rap for vague & sometimes misleading branding & packaging.

rockbeer

We'll just have to agree to differ. Having said that, I agree entirely that people must take responibility for what they buy... but I don't see a contradiction. Sellers must also take responsibility for what they sell. And I ask again, how are they to be expected to do that without accurate information about the products on offer?

I'm curious - does your reasoning extend to faulty goods as well as mislabelled ones? In other words if somebody knowingly sold you, let's say, a car with faulty brakes and you got injured in the resulting accident, would you exempt the seller of any responsibility?

Buyer beware taken to the ultimate.

The Hill Billy

rockbeer wrote: »

We'll just have to agree to differ. Having said that, I agree entirely that people must take responibility for what they buy... but I don't see a contradiction. Sellers must also take responsibility for what they sell. And I ask again, how are they to be expected to do that without accurate information about the products on offer?

If you have such an issue with supermarkets - write to them to ask that they in turn get on to the producers to change the labelling & make it clearer for the consumer to understand.

Personally, if I had such an issue with it I would take the onus on myself to write to the producer & not rely on a supermarket to do that for me.

rockbeer wrote:

I'm curious - does your reasoning extend to faulty goods as well as mislabelled ones? In other words if somebody knowingly sold you, let's say, a car with faulty brakes and you got injured in the resulting accident, would you exempt the seller of any responsibility?

Buyer beware taken to the ultimate.

Before this thread goes any further off topic I suggest that you take this particular discussion to Consumer Issues or Motors. Please note that I do not use either of these fora. Happy shopping!

Carawaystick

I think you could be reasonably confident that most unpackaged bovine and ovine ( Beef Lamb and mutton) meat sold from meat counters and butchers is Irish. I'd imagine most cattle and lambs spend a good deal of their lives outside in fields, and not all of it in sheds - far less than in most other countries

Not totally confident, unless you have a good relationship with your butcher but fairly confident.
Even Tesco were advertising they get some of their lamb from around Rathmore in Westmeath. The authors of the Bridgestone guide stated in one of their books that the best lamb comes from around there.

Poultry I'd be less sure of, and I'd be less confident of even if it was Irish. whole chickens marked as Irish - with the name of a farmer should be ok, processed chicken, off the bone - well.
On the other hand, silverhill ducks are supposedly the best going. Heston Blumenthal and several Parisien 3michelin star resteraunts use them.

Pork as well wouldn't be out living in fields with a low number per acre. they'd be fairly intensively reared.

farmed finned fish wouldn't be the best, farmed shell fish would be pretty much the same as wild.

of course ther'll be cowboys everywhere. ymmv

Schlemm

I remember reading something in the Irish times about how there is a loophole in labelling legislation in the EU that allows meat that has been imported from another country, but is processed or packaged here, can be labelled as Irish. Is this still true or have they changed it?

Most meat in restaraunts or takeaways is not Irish....beef from South America, chicken from Thailand, etc. TBH I think that the EU have some policies on agriculture that are so far from reality, and a lot of farmers are suffering as a result. For example, beef imported from South America is subject to less rigorous standards as beef imported from another EU country - this idea of double standards doesn't even make sense! That whole debate has been going on for ages, with the food safety people on one side and the farmers on the other, and you wouldn't know who to listen to. But I do feel that more should be done to support Irish farmers because the standards for beef production in this country are generally quite good, the animals are often on pasture for a good part of their lives, standards in abbatoirs are high and BSE testing is pretty good. And despite all this, many Irish farmers are struggling to make a living from beef farming.

And a lot of the welfare regulations that the EU bring in may be percieved by consumers as being benificial to animal welfare, when in reality, they are more work for farmers (who are already under pressure) and don't really do much good for the animals. Certainly in Ireland many farmers will turn their animals out to pasture because it's cheap, and they tend to do well when they are grazing. Chickens and pigs have it pretty rough...there's been a lot of debate recently about chicken farming, and I do think standards could be improved - even Jamie Oliver's recent show about it didn't go into a lot of the gorey details (although I do think it was a good show all the same). In England I think a lot of their pigs are not housed the way they are here in Ireland - which involves farrowing crates and dry sow stalls in the majority of cases. Having worked on a pig farm, the conditions are indeed pretty bad, and I wish that there was a demand for free range pork as well as chickens.

rockbeer

Schlemm wrote: »

...despite all this, many Irish farmers are struggling to make a living from beef farming.

Probably because of rather than in spite of. Everything you list is entirely valid but it all costs money, and for large numbers of consumers price is the only consideration. Until people value quality over cost there will always be a market for cheap produce, however grim the reality of it.