[Politics] Tories vote to reduce food standards

[pastafarian]

Now let's imagine that you've ordered yourself a curry from your favourite local curry house, and it turns out after you've eaten it that what you thought was lamb is actually some of that dog shit from the woods sourced from there because it's cheaper. You cool with that?

Wouldn't even cross my mind that curry houses were substituting lamb for dog shit. Has this practice ever happened apart from in your imagination.
I suspect if i was presented with dog shit instead of lamb i would notice immediately and it isnt something that would need to be pointed out to me after i had already eaten it.
Your wife's cooking must be appalling.

But popping a bit of rat shit in your mouth is fine

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-trump-food-hygiene-standards-trade-department-memo-a9145971.html

The US Food and Drug Administration decides the extent to which food products sold to consumers can contain contaminants including rodent hair, animal faeces, insect fragments and maggots.

For example, cocoa beans are allowed to contain up to 10mg of mammal faeces per pound, while ground paprika can contain up to 75 insect fragments and 11 rodent hairs per pound.

The UK does not currently allow any such contamination.

Extracts from Full Fact article
https://fullfact.org/health/maggot-orange-juice-USA/


Claim
In the United States there are acceptable levels of rat hair in paprika and maggots in orange juice.

Conclusion
The US Food and Drug Administration sets levels of natural contaminants in food (like maggots in orange juice) above which it takes automatic enforcement action.


In certain areas of food hygiene the US has less stringent rules than the EU and after Brexit the UK could move towards lower food safety standards as part of a trade deal with the US.

But illustrating this by claiming that these particular contaminants are “allowed” in the US—and implying that they’re not in the UK—is a misreading of the facts.

These levels are the limits at which point the US requires mandatory enforcement action to be taken against food manufacturers. Action can also be taken against manufacturers if the amount of contaminants in their food falls below these levels. There are no similar enforceable limits on levels of contaminants like this within the EU.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines levels of contaminants in certain foodstuffs, above which it automatically takes enforcement action. It says that contamination below these levels “pose no inherent hazard to health”.

But describing these limits as “acceptable levels” is not a fully accurate description of what these levels represent.

The FDA says: “It is incorrect to assume that because the FDA has an established defect action level for a food commodity, the food manufacturer need only stay just below that level.

“The levels represent limits at which FDA will regard the food product "adulterated"; and subject to enforcement action.”

The FDA also says: “Poor manufacturing practices may result in enforcement action without regard to the action level.”

So essentially, if food is contaminated below those levels, enforcement action can still be taken against poor manufacturing practices. Above those levels enforcement action is mandatory

But there are no limits in the UK or EU on what level of contamination warrants enforcement action, so implying that the level in the UK is zero is wrong.

It may also be worth noting that, from figs to food colouring, many of us end up eating insect material by choice anyway.

 

[sydney]

****sake

 

[Simster]

Extracts from Full Fact article
https://fullfact.org/health/maggot-orange-juice-USA/


Claim etc etc
But there are no limits in the UK or EU on what level of contamination warrants enforcement action, so implying that the level in the UK is zero is wrong.

It may also be worth noting that, from figs to food colouring, many of us end up eating insect material by choice anyway.

But even if we acknowledge that the way the stats are collated are different, I am struggling to believe there isn't a gap between US rates and EU rates of food poisoning. 1 in 6 vs 1 in 66 is too big a difference to be attributed to differing collation methods in my opinion.

 

[clapham_gull]

I assume people do realise that they don't actually have to eat anything they don't want to? There's quite a lot of dog shit in the woods behind my house, but I don't go around stuffing it in my mouth.

That assuming the consumer is allowed to make choice.

However, USA food producers like to negotiate a no label of origin clause on their exports.

They see such labels as "anti competitive".



Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

 

[nicko31]

****sake

And no Ozzie beef with growth hormone either thanks

 

[nicko31]

That assuming the consumer is allowed to make choice.

However, USA food producers like to negotiate a no label of origin clause on their exports.

They see such labels as "anti competitive".

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

If that happens we may as well just stick British farming in a museum. Just organic will remain for those who can afford it

 

[sydney]

And no Ozzie beef with growth hormone either thanks

Aussie beef has to be steroid, hormone and antibiotic free at point of sale......you carry on eating cockroaches and weevils , must be great for your hair...

 

[Lincoln Imp]

That assuming the consumer is allowed to make choice.

However, USA food producers like to negotiate a no label of origin clause on their exports.

They see such labels as "anti competitive".



Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

I agree with everything people have said about consumers not being told about what they are eating but for me it goes beyond that: a civilised country should aim for its people not to be allowed to consume anything that causes animals or other people unnecessary suffering. There are many many examples of that principle not being adhered to already. It's wrong. It needs to be worked at. But what is even more depressing is that the UK is thinking of allowing new examples in the name of financial expediency.

 

[nicko31]

Aussie beef has to be steroid, hormone and antibiotic free at point of sale......you carry on eating cockroaches and weevils , must be great for your hair...

Evidence?

You must eating organic certified, its widespread in the Australian cattle industry

 

[McTavish]

Aussie beef has to be steroid, hormone and antibiotic free at point of sale......you carry on eating cockroaches and weevils , must be great for your hair...

From foodstandards.gov.au

Hormonal growth promotants (HGPs) are naturally occurring hormones such as oestrogen, or synthetic alternatives, which are used in cattle to accelerate weight gain.

HGPs— used safely in Australia for more than 30 years—are used on about 40 per cent of Australian cattle

 

[sydney]

well yes it may be used to accelerate growth but the meat is supposed to be uncontaminated at point of sale ......it is a frequently used marketing point......we buy free range, organic when its available.....rarely buy meat from supermarket.