Huoda over horse meat, why?

why the recent controversies over horse meat at burger king and ikea meatballs? horse meat is delicious, consumers should be happy that they have the privilege of eating this delectable meat. they’re getting more value than they paid for.

People do what they’re told. Newspapers tell them it’s a disgrace, therefore it’s a disgrace. I suppose the great unwashed are under the impression that beefburgers - 99p for six! - are generally made with beef. Not sure who gave them that idea. Probably the newspapers again.

IMO it’s no big deal unless the horsemeat has been obtained from unsanitary or illegal sources.

Well, although I agree that Horsemeat is ok to eat ,although tougher than some cuts of Beef,the point is in knowing what you are buying.
If the Food contained Rat or Dog, which may be perfectly ok to eat and delicious?also not harmful,your point is it’s ok?
The whole reason ,as Finley points out, is the driving down of prices by Government/Supermarkets and people expecting the same quality.Impossible.
It would be preferable,I am sure you would agree, that Food products should be accurately labelled? Hence the huo da. :lick:
Maybe someone should sell Horseburgers now…nobody complained about the taste of them…and they are cheaper. LOL.

If you don’t mind being lied to with mislabeled products, I guess horse meat would be A-OK

[quote=“finley”]People do what they’re told. Newspapers tell them it’s a disgrace, therefore it’s a disgrace. I suppose the great unwashed are under the impression that beefburgers - 99p for six! - are generally made with beef. Not sure who gave them that idea. Probably the newspapers again.

IMO it’s no big deal unless the horsemeat has been obtained from unsanitary or illegal sources.[/quote]

It HAS been obtained illegally if it’s labelled as beef. A lot of it also contains pork, which is a nono for the pig-swerving Abra-no-hamist religions, also. Italian and Polish criminal gangs have been implicated, as well as the greedy businesses in Britain who hadn’t been following the rules yet claimed not to know anything about any wrong-doing. The government is also complicit for having largely closed down the FSA.

Finley, that’s snobbish: poor stupid people have more need of accurate food labelling than we of superior intelligence and social standing, surely?

Should we be worried about Hotdogs?..surely nobody could be prosecuted for false labelllng :whistle:

horse meat can be sweet, tender, tasty, and low in fat. delicious! in many countries, its a cherished delicacy. lip smacking good.

but, in this case, i agree that truth in labeling and knowing what you’re eating are important too.

I wasn’t referring to poor stupid people. Just stupid people in general :smiley:

Is ‘accurate labelling’ really going to help, though? I mean, in this case, what would be considered ‘accurate’? “This burger may contain unidentified meat from unknown sources?”. It sounds to me like they’re labelled accurately enough - “49% beef”. Seriously, at 20p per burger, what are people expecting the other 51% to be? Truffles and foie gras? You know when you buy these things that they’re made with dubious ingredients. I don’t see there’s anything to be gained by declaring specifically that each burger contains 10% horse meat, 15% goat meat, 5% chicken’s bollocks, and 20% sawdust. And what is the definition of “meat”, even? Could the average person be expected to know, in detailed legal terms, what that word ought to mean? Does it imply, for example, that it wasn’t scraped off a country road? Might there be different grades of respectability (“stuff from the slaughterhouse floor”, “stuff that got mixed up with other stuff”, “stuff we didn’t clean properly”, etc)? How do you fit all that information into a two-inch declaration? Would it cost more than the burger is worth to collate and verify that information?

Or … I dunno. Maybe if people knew exactly what went into their food, they’d go and investigate the fresh vegetable aisle instead. But I think we’d be seriously overestimating the general public’s intelligence and capacity to give a shit.

Anyway, however detailed your label, the manufacturer can still tell outright lies, unless you have rigorous policing; and frankly, the last thing I’d like to see happen in England is for MAFF to be given more powers. They behave like the bottom inspectors as it is.

I wasn’t referring to poor stupid people. Just stupid people in general :smiley:

Is ‘accurate labelling’ really going to help, though? I mean, in this case, what would be considered ‘accurate’? “This burger may contain unidentified meat from unknown sources?”. It sounds to me like they’re labelled accurately enough - “49% beef”. Seriously, at 20p per burger, what are people expecting the other 51% to be? Truffles and foie gras? You know when you buy these things that they’re made with dubious ingredients. I don’t see there’s anything to be gained by declaring specifically that each burger contains 10% horse meat, 15% goat meat, 5% chicken’s bollocks, and 20% sawdust. And what is the definition of “meat” exactly? Could the average person be expected to know, in detailed legal terms, what that word ought to mean?

Or … I dunno. Maybe if people knew exactly what went into their food, they’d go and investigate the fresh vegetable aisle instead. But I think we’d be seriously overestimating the general public’s intelligence and capacity to give a shit.

Anyway, however detailed your label, the manufacturer can still tell outright lies, unless you have rigorous policing; and frankly, the last thing I’d like to see happen in England is for MAFF to be given more powers. They behave like the bottom inspectors as it is.[/quote]

The other 51% is also outlined. The 49% should be cowissima, not horsepig. Meat simply [i]has[\i] to come from legal, regulated abattoirs in a country where we have have BSE and foot and whatever disease in sheep. This case has brought to light that the systems we thought were in place for tracking diseased meat don’t work and have been quietly closed down by the austerity government.

[quote=“finley”]

Or … I dunno. Maybe if people knew exactly what went into their food, they’d go and investigate the fresh vegetable aisle instead. But I think we’d be seriously overestimating the general public’s intelligence and capacity to give a shit. [/quote]

Fuck that, I don’t wanna know what shit is pumped into my fruit and veg either. Year round strawberries from Spain? Sheeeet. Thems just red balls of pesticide. Actually, people of my parents generation are dropping like flies cos of all the pesticides they ate in their veggies at the end of the war. All food is basically pumped full of shit these days. Even baby milk is just nut husks, it ain’t milk.

MAFF? MAFF? Dude, it’s DEFRA now. :wink:

But horses are so intelligent and cute, while cows are dumb, clumsy and only good for eating. :wink:

I prefer a good piece of rare roo, but cringe at the thought of eating whale and dolphin. They are too cute to eat. :no-no:

Cultural differences.

So basically everyone agress that

  1. Horse meat is no prob per se
  2. Mislabeling it as beef, thus deceiving customers, is the real problem

Right?

[quote=“Charlie Phillips”]But horses are so intelligent and cute, while cows are dumb, clumsy and only good for eating. :wink:

I prefer a good piece of rare roo, but cringe at the thought of eating whale and dolphin. They are too cute to eat. :no-no:

Cultural differences.[/quote]

Humans eat plenty of “intelligent” animals, just look at the pig. So even if horses are smart, doesn’t necessarily mean they can’t be eaten. whats ironic is that horse meat is more expensive than cow meat in some countries and is the more prized delicacy.

[quote=“Novaspes”]So basically everyone agress that

  1. Horse meat is no prob per se
  2. Mislabeling it as beef, thus deceiving customers, is the real problem

Right?[/quote]

Actually it is a problem per se if the horses are not raised for meat.

And incidentally, if we don’t make exceptions for animals that have strong cultural importance then we might as well say eating humans is okay per se.

[quote=“Mucha Man”]

And incidentally, if we don’t make exceptions for animals that have strong cultural importance then we might as well say eating humans is okay per se.[/quote]

No, because eating humans will destroy your brain and send you crackers. We don’t eat each other for our own personal health safety, not for moral reasons.

That’s an interesting perspective. :laughing:

[quote=“Mucha Man”][quote=“Novaspes”]So basically everyone agress that

  1. Horse meat is no prob per se
  2. Mislabeling it as beef, thus deceiving customers, is the real problem

Right?[/quote]

Actually it is a problem per se if the horses are not raised for meat.

And incidentally, if we don’t make exceptions for animals that have strong cultural importance then we might as well say eating humans is okay per se.[/quote]

I would need some definition of what you mean by “animals with cultural importance”. Are all the animals in the Chinese horoscope of such importance?

I personally think the only objective parameter one can base on is the complexity of the creature at hand. A mammal is guaranteed to feel more pain and be closer to a sentient, aware being than a sea urchin, for example. The problem is all mammals are basically equally complex, so, in my opinion, shouting “scandal” at horse meat and happily eating beef does not make sense. Go vegetarian (or vegan) rather than condemning people for eating the “wrong” kind of meat.

As for eating people, there are objective reasons not to do that (not saying these are the only reasons not to do it). The easy transmission of diseases is one of them.

I agree with the problem of horses not raised for meat being slaughtered and sold as food.

wild game animals aren’t exactly raised by humans to be eaten yet we have no problems murdering them and eating them. humans clearly do not only eat domesticated animals that are raised to be eaten.

to say that humans shouldn’t eat animals of cultural significance or high intelligence may be true ethically but its hypocritical because we eat cows (sacred to some cultures) and pigs (highly intelligent) without any qualms. i agree, to avoid hypocrisy, just be a strict vegetarian/vegan. to say that its ok to eat cow meat or pig meat but not horse meat is hypocritical and without foundation.

Me too, up to a point. But I think that overlooks the disgraceful treatment of meat animals when they’re alive, and the unhygienic and cruel conditions in which they are slaughtered. A racehorse is probably less likely to be diseased, and will have been shot humanely. A cow will be terrified while it waits in the queue to be killed, may or may not be stunned prior to being bled out, its carcass will be smeared with its own faeces (because removing the intestines intact requires time and skill), and the meat will be sprayed with chemicals to make sure it can’t grow dangerous bacteria. CO2 is routinely used for killing or stunning - a procedure which produces the same physical sensation as drowning or suffocating. The sheer volume of animals that goes through the average slaughterhouse means that personnel become inured to cruelty, which causes psychological problems in other areas of their lives.

What’s worse is that this behaviour is mandated by law (and those laws that supposedly guarantee humane treatment are routinely ignored because they reduce profits). Depending on the country, there are all sorts of Orwellian laws which prevent animals from being raised and slaughtered humanely. It is very, very difficult to get the man with the clipboard to approve a free-range, low-volume, sustainable farm with on-site slaughtering and butchering. So much so that most farmers wouldn’t even try.

The laws aren’t deliberately crazy. What happened is that TPTB decided (back in the 50’s) that intensive farming was the wave of the future, in order that we the people could have access to cheap meat. They then found that CAFOs generate all sorts of horrible problems - mostly related to disease transmission - so they had to produce a raft of draconian legislation to slap a band-aid on problems which were created in the first place by doing things wrong (such as attempting to provide cheap meat). Anyone who imagines meat production is all about frolicking sheep in the fields and clinical-clean slaughterhouses is kidding themselves.

I found superking’s comment intriguing because I think it’s a common response: we deal with all this by feigning deliberate ignorance. Deep down, we know it’s all FUBAR (not just the meat, but the strawberries, the bread, and pretty much everything else), but we shrug our shoulders and say, well, that’s just the way it is. Humans have an incredible capacity to pretend everything’s just a-OK. And then they get upset when cracks appear in the facade, and they’re forced to look at how things really are.

That’s an interesting perspective. :laughing:[/quote]

Oh they’ll tell you it’s because it’s immoral and whatnot but eating human flesh causes a prion disease where your own brain rots and your CNS turns to a scaly mess. It’s similar to mad cow disease in that respect. There is some disease called Kuru which is linked with cannibalism. Somehow we have lost the knowledge that we shouldn’t eat people for health reasons and think we shouldn’t eat each other because it’s not cricket to do so. Other animals have no problems having a chew on each other.

Caligula and The Bishop of Bath and Wells both used to eat babies and they were stark raving mad. You can’t argue with correlating statistics like that. :discodance: