Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...

The bloke on Channel 4 news shouting his interview at Owen Patterson is annoying me. Patterson also annoyed me by calling it the Food Safety Agency rather than 'standards'


Government is there to set the standards/safety framework not chew our food before we eat it.


Horsemeat is in the foodchain either due to carelessness or fraud.


Enforcement authorities (eg trading standards or the police) will take action as necessary


It is up the producers and retailers to operate due dilligence and have traceability in place.


It is unlikely to be a safety problem, no one has died and I don't think that their is a rush to the bogs.


If you meat eaters ensure that you are eating British beef it probably would never have happened.


Fraudsters are always attempting to substitute inferior products - orange juice is a good international example.


Ross foods once mixed up their veggie mince, for that awful Linda McCartney brand with beef, didn't hear all the whinging then.


Dull story.

LondonLogCo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Do you reckon that's Findus done for as a brand

>

> Remember what happened to Fray Bentos ? Still ,

> they bounced back as "Tynne Brand" and everyone

> *ahem* rushed out to buy it again.


Not really. Tyne Brand is owned by Westlers, whereas Fray Bentos was Premier Foods (and may still be). Premier may have offloaded the brand, or be trying to, but the pies are still available, though whether they're any different, or even produced in different factories, is another question. But in the world of brands it's what's on the packet that matters, not what's in it.


The last major big-brand scandal I remember illustrates this nicely. John West was hit, back in 1978, when botulism was found in a batch of tinned salmon. Although it was owned by Unilever, it was a proper company with real money, ran it's own European fleet of fishing boats and its own canning factories. In other words, it had more to rely on than just a name, and could still catch fish and tin them, even when demand for its own label hit rock bottom. That meant it could survive, even in the face of the prolonged consumer boycott that followed, if only by tinning stuff from the supermarkets that had removed its own name from the shelves. As a result, it's doing well now, and even though it's now owned by a Thai company running boats out of Ghana, it still catches and packs its own fish.


Findus is a bit different. It's just a brand - one name out of many in the portfolios of private equity outfits that used to relate to specific companies but are now just licenced out to whoever cares to pay. The owners are middlemen who happen to have bought a logo, and this story is all about middlemen - whether the exploitative suppliers of dead horse, the processors who construct the 'meals' or the logisticians and contract-swappers who palm off one against the other and will, I imagine, be finding out that the only thing they didn't outsource was the risk. As such, there's no real business to protect. Just the 'brand awareness' that's been built up through advertising over the decades, and that's a lot more fragile than a proper company. However deft their PR agency's response, it will break the suspension of disbelief that the advertising relies on - that Findus is a company that actually produces stuff, rather than a beige collection of dusty skimmers, juggling licences, contracts and invoices in a disembodied pretence of adding value.


Although it's not the first brand to be affected, and the supermarkets are likely to continue to support it (as they're almost obliged to do, given their own problems), I suspect it's doomed, at least in the short term. Although it's not a premium brand, their customers do pay a little over own-brand prices, and I doubt they'll be happy to find they've been doing that for a product that's, at best, no better.


I may be wrong. There's no accounting for what people will pay for, and some popular brands, while perversely famous for the shoddiness of their goods, still carry on peddling tat to people who like the comfort of a familiar name. Even if it does disappear for a while, there's a reasonable chance of it being resurrected later, either by the current owners or some nostalgic chancer of the future, when the fuss has been flattened. It's a fairly rubbish basis for a business, but it's a fairly rubbish world, and you can't help but grudgingly respect those with the callousness to make money out of it.

I'm guessing Malumbu is a Civil Servant because I haven't read a more ignorant comment on this story. The whole food production chain is regulated by the EU, having replaced the UK regulatory regime - NOT the Food Standards Agency.


The FSA can only check any product if they have firm evidence of a prior problem. In other words, they cannot carry out preventative checks at point of entry or production - this is illegal under EU law as discrimination on the ground of nationality.


Now a problem has emerged, then the FSA can involve itself and the police - both here and in Europe. Stable door, horse bolted etc.


This is an exact replica of the breast implant and hip replacement problems, and is another perfect example of EU regularory failure. Our own internal systems in all these cases is entirely dependant on the good faith and efficiency of EU member states in maintaining standards and to make sure that what is in the boxes is what is on the EU-regulated tin.


And, of course, it has AGAIN been shown to be a complete failure.

That's an unnecessarily anti EU agenda there Top Banana.


The FSA has NEVER been in the business of making preventative spot checks by DNA profiling meat at point of entry.


So your suggestion that they have been handicapped by the EU is utter bollocks.


The common market was created with a view to LOWERING handicaps to business when trading overseas, in order to drive productivity and growth.


It means that the same rules apply to operating within the EU as within the UK. It is the responsibility of the distributor to check that their supplier is up to scratch.


Your proposal to spot check every supplier in every deal would be the enemy of business throughout the UK.


As is standard in these situations, I wonder what the motivation is for people to fabricate allegations about the EU.

Wot bolloxs top banana


Food Safety Act 1990. Food must comply with food safety requirements, must be "of the nature, substance and quality demanded", and must be correctly described (labelled).


Enforcement authorities = trading standards, port health, environmental health, meat hygience service. All national bodies. Lots of cross EU working, standards etc, but enforcement in this country is national. Central government (ie FSA) does not generally enforce (there are powers to the Health Secretary) but FSA does have the powers to carry out surveillance where there is a possible hygiene or standards issue. Eg the adulteration of orange juice, factory vs farmed salmon and other areas where there is a quick buck to be made.


Interesting that FSA was set-up as MAFF was considered too close to the manufactures and producers. But FSA has been considerably down sized, and food labelling has gone back to MAFF (ie Defra).

The FSA was indeed created by the Food Act 1990 and is currently still capable of food inspection. However, their own strategy 2015 document states that -:


"If we become aware that food contains unsafe ingredients, or is labelled in a way that makes it unsafe for some people to eat, we will have it removed from sale. We do this in conjunction with other enforcement organisations, such as port health authorities, trading standards and environmental health."


http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/strategy20102015.pdf


I have never disputed that. I have no doubt that nearly all the UK food network points are adhereing to current regulations. However, note the little "IF", there. They cannot proactivly test and/or check food imports from the EU. They are not allowed to under EU law.


Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 implements the HACCP strategy across the EU.


http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biosafety/hygienelegislation/guidance_doc_haccp_en.pdf


As Lord Haskins (former chairman of Northern Foods) stated on Today this morning -:


"You can't get away from the odd cheat or the odd failure, but this is so widespread, it's endemic, it's institutional fraud right across the piece. Thousands of people must be aware of what?s going on. There's a huge amount of form-filling going on by the way. Everybody fills in forms to say they are doing the right thing but they don't actually go and look at the factory to see what is happening inside the factory".


That is my point. Everybody is making sure the boxes are ticked whilst ignoring the failures and fraud.


"It came from abattoirs in Romania through a dealer in Cyprus working through another dealer in Holland to a meat plant in the south of France which sold it to a French-owned factory in Luxembourg which made it into frozen meals sold in supermarkets in 16 countries."


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/horsemeat-found-in-british-supermarkets-may-be-donkey-8489030.html


Food regulation is an exclusive EU competence. And it is these regulations that have spectactularly failed. I stand by my statements.

The fact that this horsemeat came from Romania or Luxembourg is neither here nor there.


That is not a failure of the EU, the responsibility for food safety lies with suppliers, distributors and manufacturers. The EU has merely provided standardized regulation across the continent to ensure that all suppliers will be held to the same level of accountability.


The responsibility for breaking laws lies with those who break them, not those who make the laws.


It also makes ABSOLUTELY clear that the implementation of the strategy should be controlled by the competent NATIONAL authority. i.e. NOT the EU


Edited to add: I've since discovered the FSA actually lost control of this regulation when in 2010 the UK coalition government changed responsibility from the FSA for food composition to local authorities. The inability to check the composition of food lies entirely at the hands of UK government decisions NOT the EU.


You may not have noticed, because it doesn't fit in conveniently with your anti-European agenda, but we have our own problems with food safety within the UK. Stores in our very own Peckham have been revealed to be retailing highly questionable meats with very little attention to safety or provenance.


The EU regulations regarding proactive checking of EU food is simply there to make sure that countries deliver to the spirit of the open market; and don't create barriers to entry by creating false 'procedures' for imports.


EU food is still subject to exactly the same safety checks as UK food throughout the supply chain. The FSA can be as rigorous as they wish - so long as the same treatment is meted out to all foods without prejudice.


This is not trying to prevent spot checks on DNA (that never took place anyway), and the consistency of EU regulation ensures that overseas suppliers will be held to account as much as a UK supplier would be - something that could not have been done before the EU.


European arrest warrants also mean that miscreants can finally be chased across borders (something that could not be achieved without the EU).


So stop this silly partially informed Europe bashing - that it is based on national prejudice is clearly obvious by the way that you refuse to identify any of the parties without naming the country of origin. You clearly see their nationality as part of the crime.

"So stop this silly partially informed Europe bashing - that it is based on national prejudice is clearly obvious you refuse to identify any of the parties without naming the country of origin. You clearly see their nationality as part of the crime."


Er...that last paragraph was a direct quote from the Independent - see the link.


But nice, criticise EU regulations and you are automatically nationalistic and racist.


Stay classy, Huguenot. Stay classy.

Of course, the very fact I am criticising the EU means I should really turn myself in as the criminal I am.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1325398/Euro-court-outlaws-criticism-of-EU.html


Next time I finish my shift of scraping much-hated cyclists off the floor, dealing with gang activity and whatever else concerns the good citizens of our much-loved capital, I shall remove my stab vest and hand myself over to the other side of the desk.


"So stop this silly partially informed Europe bashing - that it is based on national prejudice is clearly obvious you refuse to identify any of the parties without naming the country of origin. You clearly see their nationality as part of the crime."


Clearly.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...