| article from Guardian on takeout chicken UK
Anybody with a weak stomach may wish to avoid the European Commission in Brussels this Friday. There, in an anonymous meeting room, bureaucrats from across the Continent will gather to discuss the less-than-appetising question of why ground beef and pork scraps are being secretly injected into chicken breasts and, more important, what should be done about it.
Forget gastronomic buzz words such as seasonal, local and organic. This is the very cutting edge of the industrial food business and an ugly old business it is too. This is the cheapest of the cheap, the chicken that is served up in 10,000 takeaways across the country – rather than supermarkets – and you don't get much uglier than that.
The ugliest thing about it is the antiquity of this argument. It is a decade old and, despite increasing calls for the Food Standard Agency to act, nothing has been done to tackle the problem. Indeed, the scandal of chicken adulterated with mislabelled protein powders – a very real issue for anybody with religious or cultural dietary requirements and one which may have health implications – shines a light on the failure of food safety regulation across Europe, and the way differences in taste can hinder efforts by individual nations to bring about change.
As Geoffrey Dovey, who runs a leading poultry importer and who first drew the scandal to the attention of the FSA, puts it: "Consumers should know what they are buying and eating and the interests of minorities should be respected."
The story begins in the late Nineties when Dovey noted that increasing volumes of cheap Dutch chicken contained added water, sometimes as much as 40%. It was a sharp way to bulk up the weight using an ingredient that was almost free. Almost free, because getting a chicken breast to retain all that water requires the application of protein powders. And it soon became clear, after investigations by the BBC's Panorama, aided by Dovey, that the powders being used contained not poultry material as claimed, but undeclared pork and beef, which is cheaper. In 2003, when the issue first became public, the FSA board called on the European Commission to prohibit their use.
They were, however, quickly rebuffed and, thus rejected, became startlingly supine. They accepted the EU line that this was solely a labelling issue and one that was being rigorously policed. This was soon revealed to be false when producers of these powders were secretly filmed boasting that they had devised a process to denature the DNA so its origins could not be identified. Still the FSA kept to the EU line.
A year ago, working with scientists at York University, the FSA finally came up with tests that proved the presence of pork and beef in some of the most popular protein powders, manufactured by Spanish and German companies. They argue this effort proves they take the matter seriously. Still, despite knowing how widespread the practice is, they continue to insist there are no health implications.
Not everybody agrees. Hugh Pennington, emeritus professor of bacteriology at Aberdeen University and an expert on food poisoning, says he cannot see how the FSA can make such claims. As he puts it, if these protein powder firms are willing to flout labelling laws, how do we know they are not also flouting laws on BSE-infected material? "The risk is very low, but it's a real risk. I believe it's one that has to be taken seriously."
The FSA responds that while the producers of protein powders are only lightly regulated, the control of abattoirs in Europe is rigorous and it is simply impossible such material could find its way into the food chain. This seems a curiously trusting argument. Then again, perhaps it's merely realpolitik. The FSA knows it can't get the powders banned by the EU because there's no appetite to do so.
The depressing fact is that the UK is by far the biggest market for these horribly cheap chicken breasts. Industry insiders estimate we import more than 1,000 tons a week. Germany, Spain and the Netherlands, the principle players in the business, simply have no reason to act. In short, we are affected by a peculiar food issue which does not exist across the rest of the EU and yet we are bound by a regulatory regime which is defined by the majority.
Likewise, other countries in Europe are far less sensitive to the religious and cultural issues involved than we are in Britain. Obviously if you are Muslim, you do not want unknowingly to be eating chicken breasts adulterated with pork. As Dr Shuja Shafi of the Muslim Council of Britain puts it: "It is most unfortunate that the scam continues despite representations to the FSA. Such fraudulent activities threaten public health, abuse people's trust and violate individuals' religious beliefs."
The FSA response? Consumers should ask restaurateurs whether the chicken on sale contains "hydrolysed proteins" and avoid it if it does. Try that one on for size in your takeaway. In short, the regulator is shoving responsibility for the issue into the hands of the consumer. In its defence, it points out it was the organisation that requested Friday's meeting in Brussels, which again proves it gives a ****.
The FSA does have options. It could advise the government to bypass Europe and legislate against these protein powders through Parliament, but only on grounds of safety. However, to do so, it would have to admit that there may be holes in anti-BSE regulations. Such a move is unthinkable. So instead it will go to Brussels this Friday to sit in overheated meeting rooms and beg for the minimum of regulatory intervention. And yet again the rest of us are left wondering what the **** it is we might be eating when we order a takeaway.
__________________
SoSo
Dx Sept 2004
A1c 5.2
MDI
| 
................... OTC: Claritin & Benadryl
Linear Mode
