Give horsemeat-tainted food to poor - German minister

Lawrence1895 · 24-02-2013 04:40PM

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 · 24-02-2013 04:43PM

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

darkhorse · 24-02-2013 04:45PM

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 · 24-02-2013 05:19PM

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 · 24-02-2013 11:09PM

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No, the products were withdrawn because it is illegal to sell food whose ingredients are unknown and not displayed correctly.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 · 25-02-2013 12:02AM

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 · 25-02-2013 01:01AM

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

Richard Hillman · 25-02-2013 01:50AM

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

csallmighty · 25-02-2013 02:10AM

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 · 25-02-2013 02:13AM

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 · 25-02-2013 02:21AM

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 · 25-02-2013 03:23AM

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 · 25-02-2013 05:43AM

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 · 25-02-2013 06:07AM

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 · 25-02-2013 06:13AM

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 · 25-02-2013 09:58AM

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 · 25-02-2013 10:11AM

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 · 25-02-2013 10:27AM

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 · 25-02-2013 11:04AM

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 · 25-02-2013 11:08AM

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 · 25-02-2013 11:10AM

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 · 25-02-2013 11:33AM

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 · 25-02-2013 11:37AM

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 · 25-02-2013 11:40AM

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 · 25-02-2013 12:04PM

Horsemeat found in the IKEA meatballs

flanzer · 25-02-2013 12:09PM

German dude reminds me of this

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

Killer Wench · 25-02-2013 04:46PM

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 · 25-02-2013 05:22PM

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 · 25-02-2013 06:41PM

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 · 25-02-2013 08:50PM

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.

Give horsemeat-tainted food to poor - German minister

Comments