Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It is not the government's role to routinely test food

It is not the government's role to routinely test food

It is not the government's role to routinely test food

It is not the government's role to routinely test food

It is not the government's role to routinely test food

It is not the government's role to routinely test food

It is not the government's role to routinely test food

It is not the government's role to routinely test food

It is not the government's role to routinely test food

It is not the government's role to routinely test food

It is not the government's role to routinely test food

It is not the government's role to routinely test food

It is not the government's role to routinely test food

It is not the government's role to routinely test food

The world has gone mad

If we had a goverment that did routinely test food then we'd be up in arms about a nanny state

We've been here before in the late 80s and early 90s with listeria, salmonella and then later E-coli. These made people poorly and government changed the law and then where necessary tightened regulations.

By all means debate why they did not repond earlier to horse meat, and should this be something that was picked up earlier somewhere in the food chain. And how you can kick the food chain and retailers harder to get them to have better traceability whilst throwing the crooks in gaol.

And this is all rich when I see people saying, oh we can't afford decent food, when they are paying ?50 a month for an i-phone and satelite TV. I am not saying lets return to post-war austerity where most of our wage went on living expenses. Just get it into context please.

(Sorry I had to rant on-line as I was shouting a the telly again)


Going to have a beer now. I'll be closely checking the label first to make sure that it hasn't got any fish in it. Or maybe I'll try some Austrian anti freeze.


Oh good come back by the way Top Banana. Clearly you are a more measured and calmer person than me, and also my knowledge of the regulatory structure is a little rusty, although interesting to see that FSA were supposed to do more with less resource (a little bit of knowledge is dangerous). Trouble is I see FSA very different to the Meat Hygience Service(ie policy rather than enforcement), when they are the same organisation. Food labelling was also moved from the FSA back to the agriculture department (think that was the last lot) and nutrition policy went to DH where they thought it would be a good idea for the major manufacturers to dictate what is good for us so we are well on our way to returning back to pre-97 days. And FSA has had its research budget slashed.

"Oh good come back by the way Top Banana. Clearly you are a more measured and calmer person than me.."


Thank you for that kind comment.


*blushes*


I find myself at a crossroads. I'm debating whether to go all-in on financial crime with the CoL Police, with all the paperwork, book-reading and analysis that the role dictates, or to go practice the Sam Vimes ideal somewhere else.


See other posts.

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

    • 🤣 re your mystic powers! Didn't want to just put a 🤣 on your post in case people thought I was laughing because the cat had been found!
    • Hopefully, they won't wash the changing room mats poolside in future so the filters won't be overworked keeping the water clean!!!
    • I agree with your sentiment, however you are mistaken about the Dulwich Estate. Their sole purpose is to make as much money as possible to give to the schools they support, as well as the almshouses and other historical buildings. They do not care about social housing (except subsidised housing for teachers of the schools), refreshing the area, low-rent studios, charming but affordable pub, etc. While they are a charity, their purpose is very constrained/focused and whatever they do with this site, it has to make money for them. It's not that they're being nasty or stingy, it's just what their statutes tell them they have to do. Note that I am not defending them, but knowing the above helps understand why they do what they do, even if sometimes it seems to go against the wishes of the local community. They are not answerable to the local community, and their only oversight is the charity commission and the courts. And of course, like all bureaucracies (esp those with limited oversight), they look after themselves very well. 
    • Perhaps responses are made by DM?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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