Conquer Club

Symmetry wrote:Or why it's a good idea to have regulations.

Beefburgers sold in some of the biggest supermarket chains in the UK were found to contain horse and pig DNA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21059623

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Or why it's a good idea to have regulations.

Beefburgers sold in some of the biggest supermarket chains in the UK were found to contain horse and pig DNA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21059623

how does this show that regulation is a good idea? all it shows is that a company lied to their customers and now they have to face charges. the regulations failed.

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Or why it's a good idea to have regulations.

Beefburgers sold in some of the biggest supermarket chains in the UK were found to contain horse and pig DNA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21059623

how does this show that regulation is a good idea? all it shows is that a company lied to their customers and now they have to face charges. the regulations failed.

Weakened regulations in the UK failed to catch this, more stringent regulations- and I'm sure you're not against such regulations as "is this actually beef" measures caught it in Ireland.

Still, thanks for the laugh. I'm still for regulating that beefburgers contain beef and only beef, and that that's a good idea.

Symmetry wrote:
Still, thanks for the laugh. I'm still for regulating that beefburgers contain beef and only beef, and that that's a good idea.

jonesthecurl wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Or why it's a good idea to have regulations.

Beefburgers sold in some of the biggest supermarket chains in the UK were found to contain horse and pig DNA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21059623

how does this show that regulation is a good idea? all it shows is that a company lied to their customers and now they have to face charges. the regulations failed.

Weakened regulations in the UK failed to catch this, more stringent regulations- and I'm sure you're not against such regulations as "is this actually beef" measures caught it in Ireland.

Still, thanks for the laugh. I'm still for regulating that beefburgers contain beef and only beef, and that that's a good idea.

What about cheeseburgers?

Funkyterrance wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
Still, thanks for the laugh. I'm still for regulating that beefburgers contain beef and only beef, and that that's a good idea.

Meh, a little pig and horse isn't going to kill you.

Symmetry wrote:Weakened regulations in the UK failed to catch this, more stringent regulations- and I'm sure you're not against such regulations as "is this actually beef" measures caught it in Ireland.

Still, thanks for the laugh. I'm still for regulating that beefburgers contain beef and only beef, and that that's a good idea.

Funkyterrance wrote:From what I understand there is nothing dangerous about these "bonus" ingredients so what's the fuss about? If E-Coli or something were found, due to the meat being improperly handled or something I could see the harm but really, you don't know half the shit that goes into the stuff you eat if you buy it from the store. At the very most this is just false advertising.

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Weakened regulations in the UK failed to catch this, more stringent regulations- and I'm sure you're not against such regulations as "is this actually beef" measures caught it in Ireland.

Still, thanks for the laugh. I'm still for regulating that beefburgers contain beef and only beef, and that that's a good idea.

and yet your trust in the ability of the government to protect its citizens stands unwavered... i'm not sure what they put in the water over there but it must be damn effective

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Weakened regulations in the UK failed to catch this, more stringent regulations- and I'm sure you're not against such regulations as "is this actually beef" measures caught it in Ireland.

Still, thanks for the laugh. I'm still for regulating that beefburgers contain beef and only beef, and that that's a good idea.

and yet your trust in the ability of the government to protect its citizens stands unwavered... i'm not sure what they put in the water over there but it must be damn effective

That they should, is of course my position. I'm not sure what your issue is here. I think we should go back to stricter regulations. Weak regulation caused this.

Symmetry wrote:
How do you know they're not dangerous? What makes you think that this was the prime fully vetted, non diseased pigs and horses being sold as beef?

Also, hey, it's kind of an issue if your "beef"is part pig in some religions.

Funkyterrance wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
How do you know they're not dangerous? What makes you think that this was the prime fully vetted, non diseased pigs and horses being sold as beef?

Also, hey, it's kind of an issue if your "beef"is part pig in some religions.

Yeah I did think of the religious aspect but I left it out in hopes you wouldn't notice.
I suppose further investigation will tell whether or not the meat was diseased but even if it were, cooking would likely kill anything harmful unless the animals were pets or something and had been treated with meds at some point. Tbh, if I lived in the UK I would rush to any of those places and try to get my hands on one of those burgers and eat it so I could brag about it.

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Weakened regulations in the UK failed to catch this, more stringent regulations- and I'm sure you're not against such regulations as "is this actually beef" measures caught it in Ireland.

Still, thanks for the laugh. I'm still for regulating that beefburgers contain beef and only beef, and that that's a good idea.

and yet your trust in the ability of the government to protect its citizens stands unwavered... i'm not sure what they put in the water over there but it must be damn effective

That they should, is of course my position. I'm not sure what your issue is here. I think we should go back to stricter regulations. Weak regulation caused this.

to what degree does a government have to fail for you to think, hey, maybe the private sector could do this better?

i mean, if thousands of people died this year due to unsanitary meat, would you still clamor for more government?

Funkyterrance wrote:From what I understand there is nothing dangerous about these "bonus" ingredients so what's the fuss about? If E-Coli or something were found, due to the meat being improperly handled or something I could see the harm but really, you don't know half the shit that goes into the stuff you eat if you buy it from the store. At the very most this is just false advertising.

chang50 wrote:
False advertising is very serious,some people have nasty food allergies and intolerances which can require medical attention,quite apart from the fact that it is reasonable to expect you are buying what you want,and not a diffferent product.

History

Historically, the usage of adulterants has been common in societies with few legal controls on food quality and/or poor/nonexistent monitoring by authorities; sometimes this usage has even extended to exceedingly dangerous chemicals and poisons. In the United Kingdom during the Victorian era, adulterants were quite common; for example, cheeses were sometimes colored with lead. Similar adulteration issues were seen in industry in the United States, until the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. More recently, adulterant use in the People's Republic of China has inspired much public attention. (See: Food safety in the People's Republic of China).

Adulterant usage was first investigated in 1820 by the German chemist Frederick Accum, who identified many toxic metal colorings in food and drink. His work antagonized food suppliers, and he was ultimately discredited by a scandal over his alleged mutilation of Royal Institution library books. The physician Arthur Hill Hassall later conducted extensive studies in the early 1850s, which were published in The Lancet and led to the 1860 Food Adulteration Act and subsequent further legislation.[5]

At the turn of the 20th century, industrialization in the United States saw an uprise in adulteration and this inspired some protest. Accounts of adulteration led the New York Evening Post to parody:

Mary had a little lamb,
And when she saw it sicken,
She shipped it off to Packingtown,
And now it's labeled chicken.[6]

However, even back in the 18th century, people recognized adulteration in food:

"The bread I eat in London is a deleterious paste, mixed up with chalk, alum and bone ashes, insipid to the taste and destructive to the constitution. The good people are not ignorant of this adulteration; but they prefer it to wholesome bread, because it is whiter than the meal of corn [wheat]. Thus they sacrifice their taste and their health. . . to a most absurd gratification of a misjudged eye; and the miller or the baker is obliged to poison them and their families, in order to live by his profession." - Tobias Smollet, The Expedition of Humphrey Clinker (1771)[7]

A history of food poisoning and adulteration is found in the textbook, Death in the Pot: The Impact of Food Poisoning on History.[8]
In drug tests

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Or why it's a good idea to have regulations.

Beefburgers sold in some of the biggest supermarket chains in the UK were found to contain horse and pig DNA.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21059623

how does this show that regulation is a good idea? all it shows is that a company lied to their customers and now they have to face charges. the regulations failed.

Weakened regulations in the UK failed to catch this, more stringent regulations- and I'm sure you're not against such regulations as "is this actually beef" measures caught it in Ireland.

Still, thanks for the laugh. I'm still for regulating that beefburgers contain beef and only beef, and that that's a good idea.