France, Britian promises punishment in horseflesh scandal

http://news.yahoo.com/france-prom...nance.html

Quote from Yahoo : The French and British governments promised on Saturday to punish those found responsible for selling horsemeat in beef products at the heart of a growing scandal that started in Britain but is quickly spreading to France.

Question:
Should anyone be punished for using a different ungulate flesh in lieu of another ungulate flesh in the food products if such substitution was never a health hazard? This would be akin to hummus manufacturer to claiming to have used 100% garbanzo beans in hummus when in reality the manufacturer used a lima bean/garbanzo bean mixture. Where is the harm? Why are people overreacting over this issue?

Personally, I am not offended by eating horsemeat, nor do I think consuming normal horsemeat is harmful, but I can see why other people might be really upset by that. I think the overarching complaint is that people are getting something in their food that they did not expect and did not want, regardless of the potential harm to their health. The fact that it's horsemeat just makes it even more repulsive to some, even if they know absolutely nothing about horsemeat. (Just imagine: if it were bison/buffalo meat, would there be as much of an outcry?)

Nevertheless, I think a punishment is appropriate because there needs to be a precedent set regarding the honesty of food labels. Namely, food labels should be accurate and people should not be exposed to "surprise" ingredients, even if a contamination is accidental and not actually harmful to anyone.

It might be easier to understand this reasoning if we were to imagine that something bad really did happen. What would happen if someone who consumed the horsemeat were allergic to it and suffered seriously harm? Or if the horsemeat turned out to contain dangerous chemicals that killed someone? There would be no end to the litigation, not to mention the dollars spent on subsequent lobbying for food label reform and greater oversight in the food distribution and production processes. It would be much easier to prevent such an occurrence by sending a strong message right now: don't foul things up or you will be punished like the contaminated beef sellers.

Quote from Olafur : Personally, I am not offended by eating horsemeat, nor do I think consuming normal horsemeat is harmful, but I can see why other people might be really upset by that. I think the overarching complaint is that people are getting something in their food that they did not expect and did not want, regardless of the potential harm to their health. The fact that it's horsemeat just makes it even more repulsive to some, even if they know absolutely nothing about horsemeat. (Just imagine: if it were bison/buffalo meat, would there be as much of an outcry?) Nevertheless, I think a punishment is appropriate because there needs to be a precedent set regarding the honesty of food labels. Namely, food labels should be accurate and people should not be exposed to "surprise" ingredients, even if a contamination is accidental and not actually harmful to anyone. It might be easier to understand this reasoning if we were to imagine that something bad really did happen. What would happen if someone who consumed the horsemeat were allergic to it and suffered seriously harm? Or if the horsemeat turned out to contain dangerous chemicals that killed someone? There would be no end to the litigation, not to mention the dollars spent on subsequent lobbying for food label reform and greater oversight in the food distribution and production processes. It would be much easier to prevent such an occurrence by sending a strong message right now: don't foul things up or you will be punished like the contaminated beef sellers.

Would you apply the exact same standard of punishment to a debacle involving hummus and garbanzo/lima bean mixture?

Quote from kharvel : Question: Should anyone be punished for using a different ungulate flesh in lieu of another ungulate flesh in the food products if such substitution was never a health hazard?

If it says beef on the tin and it isn't beef, then they should be punished. In France, they take food pretty seriously.

Quote : This would be akin to hummus manufacturer to claiming to have used 100% garbanzo beans in hummus when in reality the manufacturer used a lima bean/garbanzo bean mixture. Where is the harm? Why are people overreacting over this issue?

There is a stigma associated with eating horse meat. Is it proportional to the amount of harm it can cause someone? Almost certainly not. But the product substitution/misrepresentation is the bigger problem. A lot of people are very particular about the foods that they eat. Some people do this for health reasons. Some do it for altrustic reasons. Some do it for culinary reasons. Food regulations should respect this and dole out an appropriate penalty.

If there should be no added "stigma penalty" in this instance, swap in other types of objectionable meat for the horse and it becomes a lot more interesting.

Quote from roughnready : If there should be no added "stigma penalty" in this instance, swap in other types of objectionable meat for the horse and it becomes a lot more interesting.

That is the issue. Should there be a "stigma" penalty against the manufacturers of the food products? What about what the Swiss farmer said: "meat is meat"?

the only angle I can see is that you aren't getting what you expected - e.g. I order a buffalo burger and get a hamburger instead.

I don't understand why people are so hung up on eating horse vs cow.... except for the fact that most beef is certified, etc - not sure if such a system exists for horsemeat, simply because there isn't much demand. Generally though I don't think horses are as much a health threat as if cats or dogs were found in the system....

Quote from kharvel : Would you apply the exact same standard of punishment to a debacle involving hummus and garbanzo/lima bean mixture?

Which standard are you referring to?

Quote from Dr. J : the only angle I can see is that you aren't getting what you expected - e.g. I order a buffalo burger and get a hamburger instead.

That's exactly the issue. And like roughnready said above, the stigma attached to the horsemeat is what's making this such a huge deal. If it had been, say, buffalo meat, I don't think there would have been nearly this much outrage.

There are claims that Horsemeat is good for boosting testosterone levels. Some people might not want that in their neighborhood. Imagine women with thick police officer mustaches.

Quote from riznick : There are claims that Horsemeat is good for boosting testosterone levels. Some people might not want that in their neighborhood. Imagine women with thick police officer mustaches.

Don't perpetuate rumors that have no scientific studies backing them. Horsemeat is eaten all over the world by regular people.

Quote from kharvel : Would you apply the exact same standard of punishment to a debacle involving hummus and garbanzo/lima bean mixture?

I would. My daughter used to get a lot of migraines. The doctor didn't want to give her drugs because she was only 8. We started her on an anti-migraine diet, basically avoiding all the major food triggers. The migraines stopped completely that very day. Lima beans are on the "avoid" list, garbanzo beans are not. Had lima beans been a trigger for her, and she ate that hummus, not only would she have gotten a few extra migraines, but she would have thought the diet didn't work at all and quit. It would have caused her many, many more migraines and/or drug side effects over the years. Some people have serious allergies, which can be even worse.

Personally, horse meat wouldn't bother me, but it should be labeled.

Quote from Olafur : Don't perpetuate rumors that have no scientific studies backing them. Horsemeat is eaten all over the world by regular people.

oh, you are no fun.

Are there no scientific studies linking [fitnessforoneandall.com]meat to higher testosterone levels?

Quote from riznick : oh, you are no fun. Are there no scientific studies linking [fitnessforoneandall.com]meat to higher testosterone levels?

Not that I've seen. Do an inquiry for "horsemeat" and "testosterone" on Google Scholar or any database for academic papers (Lexis Nexis, etc.). I doubt you'll find anything linking the two. If there were actually a link, my guess is that we would have heard a lot more about it in the media by now in light of the horsemeat scandal.

It's important not to perpetuate these rumors because people who don't bother doing their due diligence might see your statement and believe it to be true. I wouldn't be surprised if a major segment of the people who are outraged by the horsemeat scandal honestly believe that horsemeat is filled with testosterone, even if they can't actually back up the source of their belief. It's the stigma (correct or otherwise) associated with horsemeat that is turning this scandal into something bigger than it would otherwise be if the meat were, say, bison meat or pork.