PDA

View Full Version : Chlorinated Chickens are OK



BlasterBates
1st November 2017, 12:36
Brexit: Liam Fox says 'no objection' to people eating chlorinated chicken | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-liam-fox-chlorinated-chicken-no-objection-people-eating-trade-eu-talks-uk-leave-a8031146.html)

Definitely a concession we can make so that we can also buy their gr8 cars as well.

America First

:D

woohoo
1st November 2017, 12:37
Brexit: Liam Fox says 'no objection' to people eating chlorinated chicken | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-liam-fox-chlorinated-chicken-no-objection-people-eating-trade-eu-talks-uk-leave-a8031146.html)

Definitely a concession we can make so that we can also buy their gr8 cars as well.

America First

:D

I only buy happy, free range chicken that are fed organic feed. They have stickers on em and everything.

WTFH
1st November 2017, 12:52
The big political hitters have weighed in now as well. Weatherspoons are advertising on their beer mats how they will save a lot of money when we leave the EU because there will be no tariffs on buying from outside the EU.
...but Weatherspoons menus claim that most of their food comes from the UK, so what they are saying is they will be able to save money by stopping buying UK produced food and supporting UK suppliers by switching to buying the cheapest they can find, regardless of quality, ethics, environmental impact or the UK economy.

woohoo
1st November 2017, 12:57
The big political hitters have weighed in now as well. Weatherspoons are advertising on their beer mats how they will save a lot of money when we leave the EU because there will be no tariffs on buying from outside the EU.
...but Weatherspoons menus claim that most of their food comes from the UK, so what they are saying is they will be able to save money by stopping buying UK produced food and supporting UK suppliers by switching to buying the cheapest they can find, regardless of quality, ethics, environmental impact or the UK economy.

They said it would be cheaper for UK consumers to buy in shops.

WTFH
1st November 2017, 13:04
They said it would be cheaper for UK consumers to buy in shops.

From their manifesto on their website:
"Wetherspoon argues that this will result in a reduction in food prices in shops and pubs."

And also on their website...
Tim Martin – ‘Wetherspoon food costs will go down if we opt for unilateral free trade’ (https://www.jdwetherspoon.com/tims-viewpoint/unilateral-free-trade)

woohoo
1st November 2017, 13:15
From their manifesto on their website:
"Wetherspoon argues that this will result in a reduction in food prices in shops and pubs."

And also on their website...
Tim Martin – ‘Wetherspoon food costs will go down if we opt for unilateral free trade’ (https://www.jdwetherspoon.com/tims-viewpoint/unilateral-free-trade)

Fair point, I read an article in a newspaper (Mirror) that just said uk consumers and shops.

The example that they give though, was for cheaper wine. I'm guessing that the meals are subsidised by the drinks. Perhaps the fish will be cheaper.

But I bow to your superior knowledge of Wetherspoons food.

BlasterBates
1st November 2017, 13:32
From their manifesto on their website:
"Wetherspoon argues that this will result in a reduction in food prices in shops and pubs."

And also on their website...
Tim Martin – ‘Wetherspoon food costs will go down if we opt for unilateral free trade’ (https://www.jdwetherspoon.com/tims-viewpoint/unilateral-free-trade)


We calculate that our own cost prices will reduce by 1.5 pence per pint or meal sold, on average,

definitely worth going through that upheaval

:D

northernladyuk
1st November 2017, 13:34
Brexit: Liam Fox says 'no objection' to people eating chlorinated chicken | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-liam-fox-chlorinated-chicken-no-objection-people-eating-trade-eu-talks-uk-leave-a8031146.html)

Definitely a concession we can make so that we can also buy their gr8 cars as well.

America First

:D

When do we see Liam force feed his child chlorinated chicken to prove it's OK?

northernladyuk
1st November 2017, 13:35
definitely worth going through that upheaval

:D

Seeing as Martin is a rabid Brexiteer, it would be good to see what that 1.5p comes out at, having corrected for optimism bias, and how he would see the collapse of sterling as impacting on costs.

chopper
1st November 2017, 13:38
But... The EU imposes tariffs on imports of food stuffs. The UK will likely charge the same tariff. I've no idea where the idea that imports of food from outside the UK will be zero tariff has come from?

In regards to Lamb, for example:

"Of EU Member States, the UK is by far the largest importer from the global market. Any sheep meat imports outside quota or from countries not covered by it, are subject to ad valorem tariffs of 12.8%, plus a fixed amount ranging from €902 to €3118 per tonne, depending on the cut."

meridian
1st November 2017, 13:45
But... The EU imposes tariffs on imports of food stuffs. The UK will likely charge the same tariff. I've no idea where the idea that imports of food from outside the UK will be zero tariff has come from?

In regards to Lamb, for example:

"Of EU Member States, the UK is by far the largest importer from the global market. Any sheep meat imports outside quota or from countries not covered by it, are subject to ad valorem tariffs of 12.8%, plus a fixed amount ranging from €902 to €3118 per tonne, depending on the cut."

An independent UK can negotiate an FTA with NZ and import as much quality lamb tariff-free as NZ can produce, though. Tonnes and tonnes of the stuff, much cheaper and better quality than that Welsh rubbish.

Hobosapien
1st November 2017, 15:35
Relax, they're free range chickens with access to a swimming pool. :smokin

vetran
1st November 2017, 20:48
But... The EU imposes tariffs on imports of food stuffs. The UK will likely charge the same tariff. I've no idea where the idea that imports of food from outside the UK will be zero tariff has come from?

In regards to Lamb, for example:

"Of EU Member States, the UK is by far the largest importer from the global market. Any sheep meat imports outside quota or from countries not covered by it, are subject to ad valorem tariffs of 12.8%, plus a fixed amount ranging from €902 to €3118 per tonne, depending on the cut."

That is due to the EU agreement.

The EU impose a limit on how much can be imported (to protect local producers) that quota is divided amongst the EU 28,when we import more then we are required to add the tariff.

If free we can import all our Lamb from New Zealand and slowly increase the tariff as Wales produces more Lamb, something we weren't permitted to do before as we bought lamb at EU prices.

We could also supply the emerging Markets such as China without prices being set by the EU.

https://ahdb.org.uk/brexit/documents/BeefandLamb_bitesize.pdf

SueEllen
1st November 2017, 20:50
That is due to the EU agreement.

The EU impose a limit on how much can be imported (to protect local producers) that quota is divided amongst the EU 28,when we import more then we are required to add the tariff.

If free we can import all our Lamb from New Zealand and slowly increase the tariff as Wales produces more Lamb, something we weren't permitted to do before as we bought lamb at EU prices.

We could also supply the emerging Markets such as China without prices being set by the EU.

https://ahdb.org.uk/brexit/documents/BeefandLamb_bitesize.pdf

So we can flood the international market with lamb leading to a fall in lamb prices and our farmers going bust.

vetran
1st November 2017, 21:24
So we can flood the international market with lamb leading to a fall in lamb prices and our farmers going bust.

or we can decide to build up our production so we can flood the EU market.

but the key word here is "CAN", currently we CAN'T!

northernladyuk
1st November 2017, 21:49
or we can decide to build up our production so we can flood the EU market.

but the key word here is "CRETIN",

FTFY

vetran
1st November 2017, 22:08
FTFY

we weren't talking about you!

Its like MF never went away


ME,ME,ME...

SueEllen
1st November 2017, 22:48
or we can decide to build up our production so we can flood the EU market.

but the key word here is "CAN", currently we CAN'T!

You are presuming the EU won't slap a high tariff on British Lamb to protect sheep farmers in the EU?

They definitely will and can get away with it being a larger trading block.

BrilloPad
2nd November 2017, 13:32
You are presuming the EU won't slap a high tariff on British Lamb to protect sheep farmers in the EU?

They definitely will and can get away with it being a larger trading block.

And if the UK slaps a tariff on some of their goods?

WTFH
2nd November 2017, 14:26
You are presuming the EU won't slap a high tariff on British Lamb to protect sheep farmers in the EU?

They definitely will and can get away with it being a larger trading block.

If the UK doesn't have a trade deal with the EU regarding lamb, then British lamb will be subject to the same import tariffs as other non-EU countries.

Tariffs are not applied to specific countries, but apply to all countries, unless individual countries have made trade deals to reduce/remove the tariff in that area.

That works both ways. Should the UK decide to put a tariff on meat imports, then that will apply to all meat imports, not just the EU, until the UK manages to secure a trade deal with some country.

meridian
2nd November 2017, 15:02
If the UK doesn't have a trade deal with the EU regarding lamb, then British lamb will be subject to the same import tariffs as other non-EU countries.

Tariffs are not applied to specific countries, but apply to all countries, unless individual countries have made trade deals to reduce/remove the tariff in that area.

That works both ways. Should the UK decide to put a tariff on meat imports, then that will apply to all meat imports, not just the EU, until the UK manages to secure a trade deal with some country.

Hence why NZ is protesting about the 50/550ths lamb quota allocation proposed by the U.K. if Brexit happens. The EU's quota from NZ is 230,000 tonnes per year. However, within the EU, the U.K. takes 40% of this.

A simple 50/550ths split would disadvantage the exporter.

It's a simple example, but extrapolate this across every EU FTA and quota arrangement, with every third party to the contract wanting their say in approving any split.

chopper
2nd November 2017, 15:33
Hence why NZ is protesting about the 50/550ths lamb quota allocation proposed by the U.K. if Brexit happens. The EU's quota from NZ is 230,000 tonnes per year. However, within the EU, the U.K. takes 40% of this.

A simple 50/550ths split would disadvantage the exporter.

It's a simple example, but extrapolate this across every EU FTA and quota arrangement, with every third party to the contract wanting their say in approving any split.

But, the ultra-Brexiters keep telling us that all will be well with WTO rules.

Sounds to me like the WTO equivalent of the ECJ - the Dispute Settlement Gateway - will be telling us what to do for decades.

How long before the campaigns start to take us out of the WTO and take back control?

chopper
2nd November 2017, 15:37
You are presuming the EU won't slap a high tariff on British Lamb to protect sheep farmers in the EU?

They definitely will and can get away with it being a larger trading block.

They cannot do that. If there is FTA, then there are no tariffs. If there is no FTA, then they can slap a high tariff on Lamb, but not specifically lamb from Britain.

BlasterBates
2nd November 2017, 15:39
Yes that's right you can only charge the same tariff to everyone not in a WTO recognised trading group and you can't go above the WTO tariff.

Not that this will help the UK as what is more in important is selling services.

woohoo
2nd November 2017, 16:11
Yes that's right you can only charge the same tariff to everyone not in a WTO recognised trading group and you can't go above the WTO tariff.

Not that this will help the UK as what is more in important is selling services.

Putting a tariff on imported goods only hurts the consumer. The consumer ends up subsidizing the farmer or car maker in affect (which you might want).

You are right services are really important to our economy, it's something we do well, services are to us as car making is to Germany. It's more about barriers, certifications and requirements etc for services. But making it difficult to buy our services also hurts the EU, they lose out on world class services that other countries can take advantage of.

Stevie Wonder Boy
2nd November 2017, 19:55
Brexit: Liam Fox says 'no objection' to people eating chlorinated chicken | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-liam-fox-chlorinated-chicken-no-objection-people-eating-trade-eu-talks-uk-leave-a8031146.html)

Definitely a concession we can make so that we can also buy their gr8 cars as well.

America First

:D

A bit of bleach is ok, at least you know it's actually Chicken ... Unlike your EU burger that will be running the 16:00 at Leicester ...

SueEllen
2nd November 2017, 21:33
A bit of bleach is ok, at least you know it's actually Chicken ... Unlike your EU burger that will be running the 16:00 at Leicester ...

Haven't they pumped chicken breasts up with water and pork protein?

Also some "hamburgers" are actually pork anyway.

Was with a Muslim mate who asked a vendor what meat they were selling and we were told it was pork.

vetran
2nd November 2017, 21:44
You are presuming the EU won't slap a high tariff on British Lamb to protect sheep farmers in the EU?

They definitely will and can get away with it being a larger trading block.

so you mean the French won't buy British lamb???? :cry2::cry2::cry2::cry2::cry2:

SueEllen
2nd November 2017, 21:49
so you mean the French won't buy British lamb???? :cry2::cry2::cry2::cry2::cry2:

They all have mad cow.

vetran
2nd November 2017, 21:53
They all have mad cow.

you bought a Gite?

meridian
2nd November 2017, 23:21
so you mean the French won't buy British lamb???? :cry2::cry2::cry2::cry2::cry2:

They're our largest export market.

WTFH
3rd November 2017, 08:57
A bit of bleach is ok, at least you know it's actually Chicken ... Unlike your EU burger that will be running the 16:00 at Leicester ...

Nothing wrong with horse meat as long as it is labelled as such. In most European countries it is correctly labelled and served as horse meat.
It is only in the UK that the scandal occurred where the supermarkets tried to buy the cheapest product possible and labelled it as beef without checking what they were buying.

Bean
3rd November 2017, 10:00
Nothing wrong with horse meat as long as it is labelled as such.
Completely agree


In most European countries it is correctly labelled and served as horse meat.
According to wiki, it was up to 13 EU countries the 'scandal' affected, so technically correct but it means you're incorrect when you say;


It is only in the UK that the scandal occurred

Nope, it happened in Ireland and 12 other EU countries, not just the UK (and the UK was supplied by a French company) - see first Q from link below;
https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/official_controls/food_fraud/horse_meat/qanda_en and Wikipedia if you want..


where the supermarkets tried to buy the cheapest product possible and labelled it as beef without checking what they were buying.
Who, according to you, is the onus on to check that meat, labelled as 'X' is 'X' - supermarkets?

So what are the regulators/food inspectors for, if not to stop this exact thing?

BR14
3rd November 2017, 10:08
As i recall, one of the companies at the centre of the scandal was called DRAAP products.
Run by a dutchman.
PAARD is dutch for horse :D

WTFH
3rd November 2017, 10:22
Who, according to you, is the onus on to check that meat, labelled as 'X' is 'X' - supermarkets?

So what are the regulators/food inspectors for, if not to stop this exact thing?

If your order is for "meat" without specifying the animal, then you get what you ordered. No issue with the regulators, your attempt to blame the EU is false.
If your order was for quality beef, then you should be getting what you ordered. The regulators should be checking.

So, the first question would be: what was actually ordered?
Secondly: what checks were done to ensure the product matched the requirement?
Thirdly: who found the problem? Well, that one is easy to answer - the EU regulators found it. They found it, they started the process to stop it.

And it's very interesting if you read the whole page you referred to, you'll see that the EU has acted on this.

Bean
3rd November 2017, 10:52
If your order is for "meat" without specifying the animal, then you get what you ordered. No issue with the regulators, your attempt to blame the EU is false.
If your order was for quality beef, then you should be getting what you ordered. The regulators should be checking.
Glad you agree it IS in fact the regulators job - so not sure why you were trying to shift blame to the supermarkets earlier? :confused:


So, the first question would be: what was actually ordered? BEEF

Secondly: what checks were done to ensure the product matched the requirement? Not many, obviously - until those Irish regulators found the horse

Thirdly: who found the problem? Well, that one is easy to answer - the EU regulators found it. They found it, they started the process to stop it.

And it's very interesting if you read the whole page you referred to, you'll see that the EU has acted on this. Yes, NOW - but they should already have been shouldn't they? :confused:



The text of the frst Q, from the link I previously gave you is;
"The problem was first picked up by Irish food inspectors who announced in mid-January 2013 that they had found horse meat in frozen beef burgers. Subsequently, the UK informed the Commission on 8 February 2013 that a UK company (Findus UK) had been selling beef lasagne supplied by a French company (Comigel-Tavola Luxembourg) which tests showed contained between 80-100% horse meat."


Do you notice the word Beef in there somewhere?
Did you read the link I provided, or just find it difficult to understand it?


I did read more than just that 1st Q (apparently you didn't :rolleyes:) - there processes were found wanting:
"Several lessons have been drawn from the horse meat fraud. The most important is probably that large scale, cross-border fraudulent schemes that take advantage of the weaknesses of an increasingly globalised food supply can impact hugely on consumers and operators, on thus on the economy. Constant vigilance from operators and competent authorities towards economically motivated fraud, that can be perpetrated at any step of the food supply chain is needed."

The EU has admitted, clear as day - that at the time of the scandal, they were not a competent authority :laugh

WTFH
3rd November 2017, 10:58
The text of the frst Q, from the link I previously gave you is;
"The problem was first picked up by Irish food inspectors who announced in mid-January 2013 that they had found horse meat in frozen beef burgers. Subsequently, the UK informed the Commission on 8 February 2013 that a UK company (Findus UK) had been selling beef lasagne supplied by a French company (Comigel-Tavola Luxembourg) which tests showed contained between 80-100% horse meat."


Do you notice the word Beef in there somewhere?
Did you read the link I provided, or just find it difficult to understand it?



Yes, I noticed the word beef. Did you?
Findus were selling lasagne they had labelled "beef"
That doesn't say that Findus ordered beef, does it?
That says that Findus sold it as beef.

Bean
3rd November 2017, 11:11
Yes, I noticed the word beef. Did you?
Findus were selling lasagne they had labelled "beef"
That doesn't say that Findus ordered beef, does it?
That says that Findus sold it as beef.

I'm sure you're correct and Findus ordered 'Meat' for their BEEF lasagne :rolleyes:


From wiki:
"On 14 February 2013, the French government stated that French meat processing company À la Table de Spanghero knowingly sold horse meat labelled as beef, and that their licence was suspended while an inquiry continues.[31] Spanghero imported meat from Romania and sold it on to another French company, Comigel, which made frozen ready meals at its factory in Luxembourg. French Consumer Affairs Minister Benoît Hamon said the meat had left Romania clearly and correctly labelled as horse and that it was afterwards that it was relabelled as beef by Spanghero.[31] The investigation also said some blame may rest with Comigel, claiming the staff there should have noticed anomalies in the paperwork, and realised from the smell and look of the meat once it was defrosted that it was not beef.[31]

Comigel[edit]

On 7 February 2013, Findus announced that in a sample of 18 beef lasagne products that it tested, 11 contained between 60% and 100% horse meat.[32] It was also revealed that some of the products sold had minced meat declared as beef that was 60–100% horse meat.[33] The source of the horse meat was third party supplier Comigel, a French-headquartered frozen ready meal producer, from its subsidiary Tavola factory in Capellen, Luxembourg. According to the FSA the company had been alerted by a third-party French supplier on 4 February 2013, and tested its beef lasagne products finding over 50% of the tested products contained horse meat. According to reports both Findus UK and the French supplier withdrew all products related to the third party supplier. The reason for the adulteration was initially stated as "highly likely" criminal activity.[34]

The president of Comigel, Erick Lehagre, told Agence France-Presse that the adulterated meat supplier was Spanghero, a firm owned by Lur Berri and founded in 1970 by Claude and Laurent Spanghero, two former France international rugby players.[35] He said that Spanghero had told him that the meat was not from France, but came from a producer in Romania.[36] On 11 February 2013 France's Consumer Affairs Minister Benoit Hamon warned it "will not hesitate" to take legal action if there is evidence companies had knowingly duped consumers. Hamon said an initial investigation by French safety authorities had found a French company Poujol (Spanghero's holding company) bought frozen meat from a Cypriot trader. That trader had bought it from Dutch food supplier Draap (the Dutch word for horse, Paard spelled backwards), owned by Jan Fasen, who was previously convicted for horse meat fraud in 2007.[37] Draap, in turn, bought it from two Romanian slaughterhouses.[37] Poujol then supplied a factory in Luxembourg, owned by Comigel, which then supplied Findus and the British supermarkets. The Romanian government has stated that there are no contracts between the Romanian abattoirs and any French, Cypriot or Dutch meat processors.[38]

On 8 February 2013, Findus announced that it would no longer accept meat from Comigel, and stopped further deliveries of the product in question. On the same day, Findus UK published a public apology on its website, also announcing that, following DNA testing, three of its products were found to contain horse tissue. These are the 320, 350 and 500 gram packages of Findus Beef Lasagne; the company offered a refund for products purchased.[39] Findus Sverige AB also announced a recall of its 375 gram packs of ready-made single-portion lasagne (code 63957), and published a contact number for customers who had already purchased the products.[40] On 8 February 2013 supermarket chain Aldi announced that it would withdraw from sale Today's Special Frozen Beef Lasagne and Today's Special Frozen Spaghetti Bolognese, supplied by Comigel, after tests found the meat content to be between 30 and 100% horse."

Oh wait, you're not correct :eek

Seriously, how hard is it to read the links provided?
(I've put bold to lead you through the story/timeline)

Have you landed on your head recently to attribute the decline in your reading comprehension?

Take care on slippery or icy surfaces WTFH

meridian
3rd November 2017, 11:19
"Several lessons have been drawn from the horse meat fraud. The most important is probably that large scale, cross-border fraudulent schemes that take advantage of the weaknesses of an increasingly globalised food supply can impact hugely on consumers and operators, on thus on the economy. Constant vigilance from operators and competent authorities towards economically motivated fraud, that can be perpetrated at any step of the food supply chain is needed."

The EU has admitted, clear as day - that at the time of the scandal, they were not a competent authority :laugh

I wasn't aware that the EU provided a centralised inspection scheme, and that "EU" regulators showed up to QM and inspect foodstuffs. Do you have a link that shows anyone other than British food regulators being responsible for checking food imports into Britain?

WTFH
3rd November 2017, 11:25
I wasn't aware that the EU provided a centralised inspection scheme, and that "EU" regulators showed up to QM and inspect foodstuffs. Do you have a link that shows anyone other than British food regulators being responsible for checking food imports into Britain?

But it's the EU's fault.
It has to be.
Everything is the EU's fault, haven't you read the memo?

Bean
3rd November 2017, 11:47
I wasn't aware that the EU provided a centralised inspection scheme, and that "EU" regulators showed up to QM and inspect foodstuffs. Do you have a link that shows anyone other than British food regulators being responsible for checking food imports into Britain?

See;


Thirdly: who found the problem? Well, that one is easy to answer - the EU regulators found it. They found it, they started the process to stop it.

WTFH is much more knowledgeable than everyone else on the EU, so best to ask WTFH.

Also, single market rings a bell.....someone was telling everyone that some kind of stamping meant goods did not currently have to be checked because goods conform to EU standards or something...... again - one for WTFH I feel :laugh


But it's the EU's fault.
It has to be.
Everything is the EU's fault, haven't you read the memo?

See your own above quote - either the regulators are meant to have been checking this all along and they didn't, or it's someone elses' responsibility (I believe earlier you said it was the supermarkets?)

which is it? Cake & eat it?

sal
3rd November 2017, 11:51
Putting a tariff on imported goods only hurts the consumer. The consumer ends up subsidizing the farmer or car maker in affect (which you might want).

You are right services are really important to our economy, it's something we do well, services are to us as car making is to Germany. It's more about barriers, certifications and requirements etc for services. But making it difficult to buy our services also hurts the EU, they lose out on world class services that other countries can take advantage of.

UK doesn't sell services, UK based companies do, most of them are not even British and none of them owes any allegiance to the state.

They will and some have already done cost analysis for relocating their operations to a EU member state and the current outlook is not bright for the UK.

Relocating services is much easier than relocating car manufacturing.

meridian
3rd November 2017, 12:05
See;

WTFH is much more knowledgeable than everyone else on the EU, so best to ask WTFH.

Also, single market rings a bell.....someone was telling everyone that some kind of stamping meant goods did not currently have to be checked because goods conform to EU standards or something...... again - one for WTFH I feel :laugh



See your own above quote - either the regulators are meant to have been checking this all along and they didn't, or it's someone elses' responsibility (I believe earlier you said it was the supermarkets?)

which is it? Cake & eat it?

You're confusing regulators (people setting regulations) with inspectors (people doing the inspections).

Bean
3rd November 2017, 12:18
WTFH and yourself are confusing regulators (people setting regulations) with inspectors (people doing the inspections).

FTFY
Yes, we are a bit aren't we.

(Post #33 - I state both though)

Although the single market comment stands. Surely the 'beef' has been stamped by someone with the authority to say it conforms to EU standards - and it wouldn't be the country importing it would it?

meridian
3rd November 2017, 12:26
FTFY
Yes, we are a bit aren't we.

(Post #33 - I state both though)

That's great, then you're able to understand and acknowledge that EU regulators set the regulations and provide guidance, but it's up to the UK Food Standards Agency to carry out the inspections.

The FSA on their website makes it clear that they inspect food produced both in the EU and in the U.K. on a risk basis (i.e. where there is a perceived risk. This means that there will be instances where contaminated food slips through - horse meat is one example, but so are the many instances of bleached chicken intended as dog food but sold on.

It's not an EU conspiracy, it's just risk-based inspections where there is always a chance that an issue will slip through. And those inspections are completely the responsibility of the UK government agency.

meridian
3rd November 2017, 12:34
Although the single market comment stands. Surely the 'beef' has been stamped by someone with the authority to say it conforms to EU standards - and it wouldn't be the country importing it would it?

No, food labelling only needs to conform to EU labelling directives - in short, it has to be on the inside what the label says on the outside.

Not every pack of meat can be inspected for conformity, that would not be feasible with the sheer volume of trade. Conformity relies on sampling and risk, but mostly on business reputation - most businesses know the impact of cocking it up in terms of fines and reputational loss so the overwhelming majority of quality inspections are in-house rather than regulatory.

Bean
3rd November 2017, 12:48
That's great, then you're able to understand and acknowledge that EU regulators set the regulations and provide guidance, but it's up to the UK Food Standards Agency to carry out the inspections.

The FSA on their website makes it clear that they inspect food produced both in the EU and in the U.K. on a risk basis (i.e. where there is a perceived risk. This means that there will be instances where contaminated food slips through - horse meat is one example, but so are the many instances of bleached chicken intended as dog food but sold on.

It's not an EU conspiracy, it's just risk-based inspections where there is always a chance that an issue will slip through. And those inspections are completely the responsibility of the UK government agency.

(My original comment[#33] was in response to WTFH blaming supermarkets[#32], which I asked about regulators/inspectors - and WTFH then took that as an attack on the EU, rather than a question on who should be checking it)

Yes, see post #36 where I say Irish (but said regulators instead of inspectors) - hint, it's WTFH that said 'EU regulators' found the issue first [#35], not me.

I also stated [#36], that the EU had said;
"Constant vigilance from operators and competent authorities towards economically motivated fraud, that can be perpetrated at any step of the food supply chain is needed.""

So 'any step' includes the site of origin/production - not just the importing country (so your comments may still be true, but the EU wants that to change and then it won't solely be down to the FSA)

You talk about risk-basis - could you tell me what % risk you think the FSA determined EU-origin meat, and what may have led them to that figure?
(I'm thinking it was a low %, due to the single market and conformity, and reasons you listed too)

milanbenes
3rd November 2017, 12:53
ok back to the main topic, who is looking forward to a Sunday roast of chlorinated chicken ?

Milan.

Bean
3rd November 2017, 12:59
ok back to the main topic, who is looking forward to a Sunday roast of chlorinated chicken ?

Milan.

Select from
Worldwide chicken eaters

Where
chicken in fridge = chlorinated American chicken

and
sunday roast planned = yes


;)

Seriously though;
https://fullfact.org/europe/does-eu-say-its-safe-eat-chicken-rinsed-chlorine/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIs9vonbqi1wIVw50bCh1ifQWoEAAYASA AEgICWfD_BwE

Apparently the EU says it has no concerns over the process, so why is everyone so up in arms? Do they know about 'Protective atmosphere' gas with regards to making beef looking redder?

meridian
3rd November 2017, 13:22
(My original comment[#33] was in response to WTFH blaming supermarkets[#32], which I asked about regulators/inspectors - and WTFH then took that as an attack on the EU, rather than a question on who should be checking it)

Yes, see post #36 where I say Irish (but said regulators instead of inspectors) - hint, it's WTFH that said 'EU regulators' found the issue first [#35], not me.

I also stated [#36], that the EU had said;
"Constant vigilance from operators and competent authorities towards economically motivated fraud, that can be perpetrated at any step of the food supply chain is needed.""

So 'any step' includes the site of origin/production - not just the importing country (so your comments may still be true, but the EU wants that to change and then it won't solely be down to the FSA)

You talk about risk-basis - could you tell me what % risk you think the FSA determined EU-origin meat, and what may have led them to that figure?
(I'm thinking it was a low %, due to the single market and conformity, and reasons you listed too)

Sorry, yes, you are correct, I should have clarified further - of course the FSA is not the only inspecting authority in the EU, there are complementary bodies in each EU country. However, the point still stands that this is not an EU regulatory issue but an inspection issue.

I can't tell you how the FSA decides their risk factors, I don't work for them. Ring them up if you're interested. I do work for an FMCG and I can tell you that there is no FSA inspector in our factories, but multiple internal QMs that take regular quality samples.

Bean
3rd November 2017, 13:58
Sorry, yes, you are correct, I should have clarified further - of course the FSA is not the only inspecting authority in the EU, there are complementary bodies in each EU country. However, the point still stands that this is not an EU regulatory issue but an inspection issue.

I can't tell you how the FSA decides their risk factors, I don't work for them. Ring them up if you're interested. I do work for an FMCG and I can tell you that there is no FSA inspector in our factories, but multiple internal QMs that take regular quality samples.

Yes, it's an inspection issue, but deffo not for supermarkets to undertake :rollin:

I was just asking what you thought (not knew) about FSA risk factors - I gave you my thoughts on it first in the interests of fairness.

They've probably changed since the scandal now, so probably not worth asking about historical reasoning that they probably haven't kept recorded.....hence why I asked what you thought

meridian
3rd November 2017, 14:11
Yes, it's an inspection issue, but deffo not for supermarkets to undertake :rollin:

I was just asking what you thought (not knew) about FSA risk factors - I gave you my thoughts on it first in the interests of fairness.

They've probably changed since the scandal now, so probably not worth asking about historical reasoning that they probably haven't kept recorded.....hence why I asked what you thought

In all honesty, I would think that their risk factors would depend on a combination of country of origin and stated quality of product. Bear in mind that they will also have limited resources, hence the risk factors.

Country of origin can be split into value of the trade to the country (think NZ lamb, if there was an issue with the product then that would decimate the entire industry so it's likely that that type of country would have better check s pre-export) and the perception of internal inspectorates (think China, where inspections of food are less likely to conform to our perceptions of what is required).

Intra-EU will be similar, but less of a degree between the top end and lower end of the scale.

Quality of product is likely to be a reverse check - the higher the quality stated on the label, the more incentive there is to check that it meets those requirements. "Own brand" level of quality is where the customer gets what they pay for, so less incentive for a decent quality check.

The basics of ensuring that what is on the label is in the box shouldn't matter whatever the country, including food manufactured in the U.K. There's no quality perception here, it either is or isn't what it is, and these would be edge cases anyway as they are relatively easy to prove.

sal
3rd November 2017, 14:18
Apparently the EU says it has no concerns over the process, so why is everyone so up in arms? Do they know about 'Protective atmosphere' gas with regards to making beef looking redder?

The main problem is not exactly with the chlorination itself, the problem is in the reason why it's used in the first place. And that is to "nuke" any traces of otherwise unsanitary slaughtering, eliminating the need of a good hygiene throughout the whole process.

Bean
3rd November 2017, 14:18
In all honesty, I would think that their risk factors would depend on a combination of country of origin and stated quality of product. Bear in mind that they will also have limited resources, hence the risk factors.

Country of origin can be split into value of the trade to the country (think NZ lamb, if there was an issue with the product then that would decimate the entire industry so it's likely that that type of country would have better check s pre-export) and the perception of internal inspectorates (think China, where inspections of food are less likely to conform to our perceptions of what is required).

Intra-EU will be similar, but less of a degree between the top end and lower end of the scale.

Quality of product is likely to be a reverse check - the higher the quality stated on the label, the more incentive there is to check that it meets those requirements. "Own brand" level of quality is where the customer gets what they pay for, so less incentive for a decent quality check.

The basics of ensuring that what is on the label is in the box shouldn't matter whatever the country, including food manufactured in the U.K. There's no quality perception here, it either is or isn't what it is, and these would be edge cases anyway as they are relatively easy to prove.

Thank you for taking the time to write all that out. It is well written and logical.

I hadn't taken into account quality of the product and the NZ quality argument - good points, well made!

I would add, levels of organised crime in originating countries should probably play a part too, but other than that, I agree with what you've said

Bean
3rd November 2017, 14:21
The main problem is not exactly with the chlorination itself, the problem is in the reason why it's used in the first place. And that is to "nuke" any traces of otherwise unsanitary slaughtering, eliminating the need of a good hygiene throughout the whole process.

If it has nuked everything, does the ends justify the means?

Does it ultimately matter?
As the customer gets chicken, free from harmful bacteria etc in both cases of;

1. Bad hygiene throughout process, but chlorine nuked = chicken free from....
2. Good hygiene " " , but not chlorine nuked = chicken free from....

Bean
3rd November 2017, 14:48
Should probably put this in this thread;


And as per previous post you seem to know very little about supply chain process. And as per your MO, you're trying to tie two discussions together to drag both down to your level.
Two ways your argument is false.
1. When a customer places an order with a supplier for products, the customer will want said products to be produced to the standards they request (this is irrespective of regulations). If the customer wants the product to also comply with particular regulations then these will also be included in the RFQ and should be in the contractual documentation as well.
2. On receipt of the products there will be a receiving process that will also include validation and checks to confirm that the delivery matches the order. These checks occur before putaway. Some receiving routes will be straightforward, particularly from trusted suppliers, so it may only be a 0.1% check, for example. When a new supplier is taken on, they should not be on the trusted supplier route so the first few deliveries may be 100% checked, then reduced down over time.

It's all part of testing and quality control.
http://forums.contractoruk.com/brexit/124807-eu-demands-44-billion-start-trade-negotiations.html#post2492270

Comigel had been supplying Findus (and possibly with horsemeat) since at least 2012, the scandal was made public in 2013. (Publicly available sources)

Please tell me more about how Findus QA'd a ready-made lasagne and gave it a PASS for possibly a year, with a 0.1% check, let alone on a 100% check on the first few deliveries.....simple probabilities indicate it would have been found, if they had...

Hail WTFH and your supply chain QA knowledge :rollin:

WTFH
3rd November 2017, 14:53
If it has nuked everything, does the ends justify the means?

Does it ultimately matter?
As the customer gets chicken, free from harmful bacteria etc in both cases of;

1. Bad hygiene throughout process, but chlorine nuked = chicken free from....
2. Good hygiene " " , but not chlorine nuked = chicken free from....

It depends whether you are interested in the ethics of how the animal was raised, what it was pumped full of, how it was transported, how it was slaughtered, etc.
How unnatural do you like your food?

So while the chicken came first, next is the egg...
Why do US shops keep their eggs in fridges, but UK shops keep them on the shelves?

It's because the Americans wash the eggs in soap and water to "remove bacteria", but it also removes the protective membrane that keeps an egg fresh. A washed egg will go off quickly and is more prone to picking up other smells etc by proximity. The eggs are washed because of the risk of bacteria such as salmonella but also to clean the chemicals off them that they may have been contaminated with when they were laid.
UK shop-bought eggs are not washed, so the membrane remains. Instead the chickens are injected against salmonella. The UK also has strict rules about how chickens can be raised, regarding food standards (oops, said it again) and animal welfare. Even with our higher standards, the way most layers are treated in this country is not good.
The best way to get round that is to set your own standards, make sure your suppliers are up to scratch and monitor them carefully. I currently have 3 egg suppliers I've been using for the last year, although one of them is not as regular as the other two.

WTFH
3rd November 2017, 15:05
Should probably put this in this thread;


http://forums.contractoruk.com/brexit/124807-eu-demands-44-billion-start-trade-negotiations.html#post2492270

Comigel had been supplying Findus (and possibly with horsemeat) since at least 2012, the scandal was made public in 2013. (Publicly available sources)

Please tell me more about how Findus QA'd a ready-made lasagne and gave it a PASS for possibly a year, with a 0.1% check, let alone on a 100% check on the first few deliveries.....simple probabilities indicate it would have been found, if they had...

Hail WTFH and your supply chain QA knowledge :rollin:


The scandal came to light in January 2013 (you provided the source yourself earlier)
The supply started in August 2012.
So for 6 months Findus' procurement and QA checks proved to be inadequate.

As for my supply chain knowledge, it's kept my rate high and my bench time low since the millennium.
What's your supply chain knowledge like?

meridian
3rd November 2017, 15:06
Should probably put this in this thread;


http://forums.contractoruk.com/brexit/124807-eu-demands-44-billion-start-trade-negotiations.html#post2492270

Comigel had been supplying Findus (and possibly with horsemeat) since at least 2012, the scandal was made public in 2013. (Publicly available sources)

Please tell me more about how Findus QA'd a ready-made lasagne and gave it a PASS for possibly a year, with a 0.1% check, let alone on a 100% check on the first few deliveries.....simple probabilities indicate it would have been found, if they had...

Hail WTFH and your supply chain QA knowledge :rollin:

I think I can answer this one, as well.

Initial QA would be visual, by the inbound logistics team at the receiving point. This is a simple damage/quantity/SKU check to ensure that was was being received is what was on the purchase order and inbound delivery docket.

A quality inspection would be drawn based on the product and supplier. This would be Findlay's internal QM checks. However, they would probably only check for variables such as contamination, volume of product, volume of components (cheese vs pasta vs bolognese), viscosity of ingredients, etc. They may also do random inspections of the supply chain to check for things such as ensuring the product has been kept at the correct temperature, etc.

It would be rare for a warehouse receiving 3rd party manufacturing to go to a molecular level to check that the meat matches the label. This may be done at the start of a relationship but would normally be completed at the start of the supply chain so that Findlays would go to Comigels factory to check batch traceability, recipes, raw material QI practices, etc.

It would be more likely for the recipient to want to audit any QI results from the 3PM, or perhaps even interface them directly so they can be tracked real-time, rather than recreating those themselves.

Bean
3rd November 2017, 15:06
It depends whether you are interested in the ethics of how the animal was raised, what it was pumped full of, how it was transported, how it was slaughtered, etc.
How unnatural do you like your food?

So while the chicken came first, next is the egg...
Why do US shops keep their eggs in fridges, but UK shops keep them on the shelves?

It's because the Americans wash the eggs in soap and water to "remove bacteria", but it also removes the protective membrane that keeps an egg fresh. A washed egg will go off quickly and is more prone to picking up other smells etc by proximity. The eggs are washed because of the risk of bacteria such as salmonella but also to clean the chemicals off them that they may have been contaminated with when they were laid.
UK shop-bought eggs are not washed, so the membrane remains. Instead the chickens are injected against salmonella. The UK also has strict rules about how chickens can be raised, regarding food standards (oops, said it again) and animal welfare. Even with our higher standards, the way most layers are treated in this country is not good.
The best way to get round that is to set your own standards, make sure your suppliers are up to scratch and monitor them carefully. I currently have 3 egg suppliers I've been using for the last year, although one of them is not as regular as the other two.

Well, we're talking about chlorinated chicken vis-à-vis good hygiene.

The main problem is not exactly with the chlorination itself, the problem is in the reason why it's used in the first place. And that is to "nuke" any traces of otherwise unsanitary slaughtering, eliminating the need of a good hygiene throughout the whole process.

Ethics, antibiotics and other things, are other issues (of which I believe someone from UK gov said the UK still wouldn't accept antibiotic pumped animals from the US)

Interesting info on eggs, cheers. Hardly eat any nowadays anyway!

Surely you just raid whichever henhouse is nearest to your den? :D

WTFH
3rd November 2017, 15:16
Surely you just raid whichever henhouse is nearest to your den? :D

I do. That's where my three egg suppliers live. Cluckingham Palace.