Tons of British aid donated to help Hurricane Katrina victims to be BURNED by America

Wow, that is just so mean. They should hand it to the vitims, but tell them about the potential risks/danger. I doubt they would reject the food, considering their position.
 
See this article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,23889-1773364,00.html

But last night, five days after the first batches of aid arrived from Britain and after negotiations with the British Government, the agency waived the ban, paving the way for the food to be distributed to those who need it.

A Cabinet Office spokeswoman said: “The United States Department of Agriculture has cleared ration packs for onward distribution. Meals from all EU member states have been cleared.”
Click to expand...
 
if the meat is infected with mad cow... imagine 10 years from now, we could potentially have hundreds of thousands of people suffering from mad cow disease. our gov't would end up footing the medical bills, and lawsuits against the FDA would spread faster than SARS.
i can appreciate why we're being cautious about it- NATO's standards are not the same as the FDA's. Besides that, these meals are so high in calories and fat, if these people get fat off of the food, i can see them suing the gov't for that too. britain could have just sent money- they had to know this would be an issue.
 
clubchick said:
if the meat is infected with mad cow... imagine 10 years from now, we could potentially have hundreds of thousands of people suffering from mad cow disease. our gov't would end up footing the medical bills, and lawsuits against the FDA would spread faster than SARS.
i can appreciate why we're being cautious about it- NATO's standards are not the same as the FDA's. Besides that, these meals are so high in calories and fat, if these people get fat off of the food, i can see them suing the gov't for that too. britain could have just sent money- they had to know this would be an issue.
Click to expand...
If we can't trust our friends, then don't expect them to help us next time.
And is this the same FDA that claimed Vioxx, Celebrex, and Bextra as safe?
And is this the same FDA that sided with Monsanto to ban any "free hormone" labeling from milk that we drink?
http://articles.animalconcerns.org/ar-voices/archive/milk_musings.html
http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbghlink.html

Never assume that US standards are better, though. EPA thought 50 ppb arsenic was safe. Now they're changing it to 10 ppb starting 2006 to conform to 1993 WHO guideline, 13 years difference, while Australia, European Union, Japan, etc, have adopted since 1990s.
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/arsenic.html
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs210/en/

So, who do you want to believe?
 
i'm not saying our standards are better, but if we aren't taking ANY beef from britain, why should we lower our standards in this particular case? we'd be knowingly risking the health of these already devastated people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ugh. misspelled words... i originally put "haven't taken", then changed it to "aren't taking" but didn't change the word taken... sorry to all of you to whom it matters... makes me cringe just looking at it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top