Talk:2013 horse meat scandal/Archive 1

Archive 1

The title is too vague. New title needed.

The title of the article "2013 Horse Meat Incident" is too vague.
I propose a new title "2013 Beef Burger Horse Meat Contamination Incident" Anyone any views on that?Sun Ladder (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It's alright, I've renamed it now, to "2013 horse meat in burgers scandal". GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 10:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Contaminated meat was found in products other than burgers, so the title has been changed to "2013 British Horse Meat Scandal". ofahcuts (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's in Ireland too. Better to change it to 2013 Great Britain and Ireland horse meat scandal (per the February 2009 Great Britain and Ireland snowfall/January 2013 Great Britain and Ireland snowfall precedent) or war might break out (not from me, just sayin', others are bound to be annoyed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.207.8 (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

KEEP:: BSE is relevant as evidence is emerging of horses being fed animal remains which is prohibited by DEFRA regulations and FDA in the U.S.

WP:VANDALISM is happening here and meat industry insiders are trying to cover up wrong doing by editing this out. 81.129.105.78 (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The story covers Poland too. The previous title "2013 horse meat in burgers scandal" was just fine.There was no need to change it. We don't have to name every country involved in the title.

Please see Unilateral title changes' discussion below for more on this Sun Ladder (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph "While not a direct food safety issue"

This is total rubbish... It was DIRECTLY a food safety issue. It assumes that perfectly healthy meat was fraudulently substituted into the food chain along with totally bogus paperwork. Wikipedia is repeating the clever PR smoke and mirrors cover-up by the major retail outlets, plus political and media spin. Wikipedia should be above this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.23.31 (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

They found pig meat in the food too, not just horsemeat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.126.193.244 (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was procedural close. Trout to Thumperward for moving the subject of an RM, but the discussion has petered out at any rate. --BDD (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

2013 British horse meat scandal → 2013 Great Britain and Ireland horse meat scandal – It's in Ireland too. Better to change it per the February 2009 Great Britain and Ireland snowfall/2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods/2012 Great Britain and Ireland floods precedent to avoid any bickering. In addition, it may be in Britain and Ireland, but it is not certain if it is British and Irish - Poland is also being blamed, though the scandal is all in Great Britain and Ireland. 86.40.207.8 (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The story covers Poland too. The previous title "2013 horse meat in burgers scandal" was just fine.There was no need to change it. We don't have to name every country involved in the title.

Please see Unilateral title changes discussion below for more on this Sun Ladder (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not 2013 horse meat contamination incident. It's shorter and avoids the loaded word "scandal".--ukexpat (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Stop: As the title is now at 2013 horse meat contamination in burgers scandal, this Requested move needs to be closed immediately. If anyone wants to move to another title, then a new Requested move process would then need to be opened. Skinsmoke (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unilateral title changes

If someone feels the need to change the article's title could we please have a discussion on it first instead of users just unilaterally changing it on a whim?

I tried to revert the article back to its previous title "2013 horse meat in burgers scandal". Unfortunately that turned out to be way more difficult that I had imagined. So as a compromise I change dthe article to "2013 horse meat contamination in burgers scandal" which is the nearest I could get to the previous title (the Wikipedia system wouldn't letting me move it back to "2013 horse meat in burgers scandal")

However in 'moving' the article to "2013 horse meat contamination in burgers scandal" the Wikipedia system didn't 'move' this talk page to match. So that needs fixing, something I'm unable to do. Sun Ladder (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've asked the admins to re-unite talk page and article at WP:AN/I#Page move mess at 2013 horse meat contamination in burgers scandal. I've also fixed multiple double redirects. I'd strongly suggest to reach a consensus about the page's title before moving it again. Huon (talk) 13:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The current title is too long, also capital letters are required! Why not the "2013 European Horse Meat Scandal" ? ofahcuts (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No, capitals are not required. We use sentence case for titles unless it is a proper noun, which this is not.--ukexpat (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

@Huon Thanks.

@ukexpat I don't agree that its too long. Seven words is hardly too long? I think "2013 European Horse Meat Scandal" omits a key element- that burgers were contaminated with horse meat. Sun Ladder (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Title too specific

As it is not just burgers that are affected, and not just horse meat that is involved [though I admit the pork contamination is less of a news item] the current title is too specific. 2013 United Kingdom and Ireland [processed] meat scandal? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21375594 137.222.142.27 (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Health effects

The UK Government has been at pains to stress there are no health risks, and I think this should be added to the article. Although there are, in fact, health risks for those who have strong allergic reactions to horses. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

(As described, for example, by the interviewee on the BBC Radio 2 Jeremy Vine Show on 13 February who had suffered allergic reactions after eating horse meat: [1]). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

If the government "insist" on something "without risk" that should ring the alarm bell. More likely there's some economic incentive to tell people that. It was the same story with the PIP breast implants. They were dangerous in France but not so in Britain. Horse meat may be faul due diseases and medicine for animals, cause allergy etc. In particular when one aspect is fraudulent, there may be lot's of other aspect that has been tampered with too. Electron9 (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Just make sure that whatever claims make their way into the article are properly sourced and attributed. E.g. "Department X released a statement stating that the samples found to contain horse meat were nevertheless safe for human consumption", or "Dr. Y noted that people with horse allergies could be affected by adulterated meat." 138.16.21.199 (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As I actually drafted one of the two versions of the BSE text, I'd like to say that I totally concur that the BSE topic (including my text) should be deleted. I only wrote it because someone insisted on having the topic, so I at least tried to keep it accurate. Pol098 (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This is an example of were the contamination of meat products in the human food chain for financial gain could have fatal human health consequences and care must at all times be taken to protect the food chain.

Previous incidents where health effects were initial stated as insignificant to human health subsequently proved incorrect such a case was the contamination of animal feed to cattle in the ==BSE episode in the UK ==

The current section on == Human Health Implications == is well sourced and reflects accurately the current stated regulations of the U.S. authorities namely the FDA and the U.K. authority namely DEFRA. This is contrary to what Pol98 has been saying that cattle remains in animal feed is no longer prohibited.

The BSE mention should be kept as it illustrates how careless handling of food destined for the human food chain could cause adverse human health issues.

Previous incidents where health effects were initial stated as insignificant to human health subsequently proved incorrect such a case was the contamination of animal feed to cattle in the BSE episode in the UK

The current section on Human Health Implications is well sourced and reflects accurately the current stated regulations of the U.S. authorities namely the FDA and the U.K. authority namely DEFRA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.76.34 (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Percentages of horse meat

Several times the expression "xx% equine DNA relative to the beef DNA content" appears in the article. It is not clear what this means. I think it means that xx% of the declared beef content was in fact horse, but I'm not entirely sure. Needs clarity.Davidships (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Means that if you chop a piece of meat into 100 pieces, then xx pieces will be from equine meat. If in dault read the entire source. Electron9 (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I did. But it doesn't clarify it there either. I do know what percentages are and think that we are both guessing the same interpretation, but "relative to the beef" is an unusual phraseology and I wondered whether it meant something different in the context of talking about DNA. If the sample is 100g, all of which is labelled as beef, but half of it is horse and half is beef, then:

* 50% equine DNA relative to the meat DNA content (50g/100g)

* 50% equine DNA relative to the declared beef DNA content (50g/100g)

* 100% equine DNA relative to the actual beef DNA content (50g/50g)

I suppose they are really only trying to emphasize, correctly, that the percentages are not in relation to the whole lasagna, burger or whatever.Davidships (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You complicate matters more than needed. 100% is all the meat in the product otherwise the amount of cheese in the lasagne will affect the amount of adulteration.. So 100% procine, means out of 100 gram meat 100 gram is made from equine. For 75% equine, there is in 100 gram meat, 25 gram other meat like beef and 75 gram equine. Electron9 (talk) 09:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I am glad we agree. That's why it would be completely clear if they said "50% equine DNA relative to the meat DNA content"Davidships (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Drugs in horsemeat

i see some concern in this article about EIA in Romanian horses, and concerns about phenylbutazone, but if there is also horsemeat coming in via Mexico, it is quite likely to have origins in the USA where there are additional contaminations, such as "wormers" (Parasite medications) as well as tranquilizers, lasix, and other medications routinely given to certain classes of horses. I think there is a partial ban by the EU on horsemeat originating in the USA due to these issues. I must admit I am not in a place where I can priroitize the research needed on this, but I wanted to give other editors a heads up that this issue might be out there. Montanabw^(talk) 19:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Find sources for these claims. Find the sources that says drug X causes problem Y etc. Then insert. Get source url-title-articledate-accessdate as well. Like "eating lasagne de adulteration causes stomach problems" :-) Electron9 (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I did a little work on this. I found some sources. Hope it helped with the article. Feel free to tweak or fix anything I messed up. The "bute" issue is a hot one, though I didn't have the time to find a specific EU directive, the New York Times and the BBC are generally pretty reliable for general statements. Montanabw^(talk) 21:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you have to link to your specific "diff" entries as there are many edits in a rapid pace. From what I have read phenylbutazone (bute) is bad. But I suspect other as of yet unknown substances are more important to have a look at. Perhaps even a list with the most common and not good for food animal medicines? Think more like if A is adultered, then perhaps there is adulteration of B, C, etc.. too. Electron9 (talk) 09:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

(Non-)parallel with BSE

The BSE epidemic in the UK has been repeatedly added without explanation and without source. It has little in common with the present issue; I do not think it should be included at all. More comparable issues in recent years have been deliberate re-dating of decomposing, slimy, chicken for criminal gain, and probably careless importation of dangerous "Sudan I" food colouring.

• BSE was an unsuspected infectious agent, not destroyed by heat treatment. It was transmitted by cattle remains used openly and legally in cattle feed, not due to deliberate adulteration. There was no criminal intent. The outbreak was of something totally new and unpredictable, and due to negligence only in political unwillingness to act as evidence increased—it wasn't inadequate testing, but not knowing there was something needing testing.

• Horsemeat seems to be deliberate adulteration for criminal gain; at best accidental contamination, though that is increasingly unlikely in most cases. There is no infection or disease. Horesemeat as such is harmless. There is no evidence that possible contamination by anything in horsemeat can be enough to be a health risk, although such evidence has been sought. As the English chief medical officer said, horsemeat is a matter of the yuck factor, not risks to health. An adequate testing regime would have brought this to light earlier (but testing did eventually find it).

If BSE is to be included in the text to make a point, Wikipedia SOP requires meeting guideline WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. ... This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research." In recent edits this is moot, as no source or edit summary at all was given.

What do others think? Pol098 (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole paragraph about BSE should be removed as it has absolutely nothing to do with this "2013 meat adulteration scandal". The para about US horsemeat at least has a speculative citation - even if is an anti-EU opinion piece in the Spectator, plus some historic connection to one of the firms involved in the current scandal. Looks like a case of WP:NOTSOAPBOX by this IP.Davidships (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

As I actually drafted one of the two versions of the BSE text, I'd like to say that I totally concur that the BSE topic (including my text) should be deleted. I only wrote it because someone insisted on having the topic, so I at least tried to keep it accurate. Pol098 (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

KEEP:: The BSE mention should be kept as it illustrates how careless handling of food destined for the human food chain could cause adverse human health issues.

KEEP :: Previous incidents where health effects were initial stated as insignificant to human health subsequently proved incorrect such a case was the contamination of animal feed to cattle in the BSE episode in the UK

KEEP:: The current section on Human Health Implications is well sourced and reflects accurately as stated the current stated regulations of the U.S. authorities namely the FDA and the U.K. authority namely DEFRA. It is good in that it illustrates the implications to human health of unregulated meat trade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.76.34 (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

KEEP ::This is an example of were the contamination of meat products in the human food chain for financial gain could have fatal human health consequences and care must at all times be taken to protect the human food chain.

KEEP:: Previous incidents where health effects were initial stated as insignificant to human health subsequently proved incorrect such a case was the contamination of animal feed to cattle in the ==BSE episode in the UK ==

KEEP :: The current section on == Human Health Implications == is well sourced and reflects accurately the current stated regulations of the U.S. authorities namely the FDA and the U.K. authority namely DEFRA.

KEEP :: The BSE mention should be kept as it illustrates how careless handling and regulation of food destined for the human food chain could have adverse human health issues. This article is now well sourced from DEFRA and the US FDA. This is contrary to what Pol98 has been saying that cattle remains in animal feed is no longer prohibited.

Take it right out. If a serious commentator points out a parallel, we might be able to use that. But it has to be serious commentary. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This should illustrate the danger of "playing around""playing around" with the human food chain and what happens if one does. The meat industry does not want you to hear this. 81.129.105.78 (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

KEEP:: BSE is relevant as evidence is emerging of horses being fed animal remains which is prohibited by DEFRA regulations and FDA in the U.S.

WP:VANDALISM is happening here and meat industry insiders are trying to cover up wrong doing by editing this out. 81.129.105.78 (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Come back if you have a source. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

And horses don't have BSE. Montanabw^(talk) 20:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If horses are fed animal feed that contains prions then horses like cows contacted BSE horses also will get prion disease which is passed on to humans. 81.129.189.39 (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Public reaction?

I know the press are having a field day with this, but as far as I can tell few people actually care aboiut anything more than the story. Can we please have some discussion of the public reaction to this? 182.148.44.226 (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussing the subject. But if you want to contribute a properly sourced addition to the article, go right ahead.Davidships (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

"Discussion" as in content in the article. Mnealon (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems the only public reaction is creation of jokes on the scandal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.126.193.244 (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The main public reaction was a 43% drop in frozen beefburger sales and others..which is mentioned in the article. 109.152.234.179 (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Pol098 - Vandalism

Pol098 is trying to remove relevant information regarding meat adultration and the impact this has had on human health. 86.132.76.34 (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Disagree so far as the BSE para is concerned (see above). It remains irrelevant to THIS article - it belongs in a general article on food hazards relating to meat. And 86.132.76.34 keeps vandalising the info on sources with reversions to French abbatoirs - contrary to the cite given, which clearly refers to Romanian abbatoirs.Davidships (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree KEEP BSE Health Implication::

Very relevant to future meat contamination. Need to know what current DEFRA and FDA regulations are. Pol098 claimed that animal remains is no longer prohibited from the animal feed. This has been proved to be untrue. 109.157.240.161 (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

As has been said by others in this page "This is an example of were the contamination of meat products in the human food chain for financial gain could have fatal human health consequences and care must at all times be taken to protect the food chain." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.240.161 (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The UK BSE epidemic should be mentioned, if at all, as a "See also". Not relevant to this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

KEEP:: The BSE Scandal was that of contaminated meat feed to animals which in turn gave rise to human health implications. The meat industry do not want any mention of it. This is a good enough reason to keep it. 109.157.240.161 (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

KEEP:: This is also an example of how a contaminated meat product can have serious consequences. 109.157.240.161 (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree. This is an article about the 2013 UK meat contamination scandal, not an essay on UK public health. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

WOW, 10 KEEP votes in two sections about discussion of BSE! Shame they're all from 86.132.76.34/109.157.240.161. Pol098 (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This should illustrate the danger of "playing around""playing around" with the human food chain and what happens if one does. The meat industry does not want you to hear this. 81.129.105.78 (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

KEEP:: BSE is relevant as evidence is emerging of horses being fed animal remains which is prohibited by DEFRA regulations and FDA in the U.S.

WP:VANDALISM is happening here and meat industry insiders are trying to cover up wrong doing by editing this out. 81.129.105.78 (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The horseburger story is all over radio, TV, and the internet. Real effective coverup, yah, shoor, yoo betcha. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

For anybody coming here: this article is about the 2013 horseburger scandal. What appears to be one person, from a few IP addresses, is determined that the UK BSE epidemic is relevant and MUST be included in this article. Lots of people disagree; the consensus is clearly that BSE doesn't belong here.

The BSE issue was certainly a UK scandal. There seems to be an article on the 2001 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak but no separate article on the BSE outbreak exept for a section Bovine spongiform encephalopathy#Epidemic in British cattle (I may have missed an article?). I'd suggest that anyone with new and sourced information on the BSE epidemic or covering up should add to the BSE article, or consider creating a new one. Pol098 (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Horses don't have BSE, it's not an issue here. see here Plenty of other issues already, anyway. The bute and drug thing being the most worrisome, IMHO. Montanabw^(talk) 20:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If horses are fed animal feed that contains prions then horses like cows contacted BSE horses also will get prion disease which is passed on to humans. 81.129.189.39 (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Deregulation, cost-cutting, and causes

There's an interesting article by Will Hutton in which he lays much of the responsibility at the door of those who have on the one hand, speaking about relaxing stifling red tape removed much of the regulation of the meat industry, and on the other hand cut the budgets and workforces (halving the number of inspectors) of those responsible for enforcing remaining regulations. Whether or not material from the newspaper story is added to the Wikipedia article, it's worth reading. For readers with strong political allegiances: the current government is singled out for criticism; however this seems to me to be an issue with substance, not party political. Pol098 (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That's serious commentary, which could be mentioned. I suggest a separate sub-section "Media" in Reactions, including this piece and also http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/9870692/Slavery-not-horse-meat-is-the-real-scandal-on-our-doorstep.html this one from the Telegraph. Only a line on each, and we can add any further ones we find in the broadsheets or on TV. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Other ongoing adulteration

Since "horsemeat" was taken out of the article title, its scope is potentially wider. While I don't think BSE infection has any relevance (see previous discussions), I'd comment that what can legitimately be described as "adulteration" has been going on for many years, and still is as of 2013. As far as I know it has for decades been legal to add up to 6% of water to all sorts of meats (including chicken and bacon, as well as beef and other meats) without making any declaration—it is sold as "beef", not "beef with added water". In the case of chicken, in particular, all sorts of additives and protein powders are added to make it hold as much water as possible. This is legal, no criminal act is required. This allows sellers to increase weight sold, and price, by 6%, or equivalently to offer "meat" at a lower price than would otherwise be possible.

I have noticed that in countries where this practice isn't used you can fry meat. In Britain, if you put meat in a pan, maybe with a little oil or fat, it gives off lots of water when heated, and cannot be fried.

I'm not going to add this to the article myself, but it can be described as meat adulteration, is done in 2013, and is scandalous!

Pol098 (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Information passed on from WHISTLE-BLOWERS

I have received many messages to confirm the situation regarding human health.

There is concern from the WHO, CDC, DEFRA and the US FDA on this issue.

The above agencies including Europol welcome any information whistle-blowers are able to provide. Contact them via their respective websites.

Testing of possible BSE prion contamination of horse meat is underway by several public health laboratories in North American and Europe.

All this information has been passed on to them for investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.105.78 (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Administrators, please 'hat' this post as Wiki is not a FORUM nor SOAPBOX. Thanks.HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Previous case of meat adulteration which caused human fatalities

At present there are no indications that the contaminated horse meat contained any BSE prions nor is there any evidence that the horses in question have been given feed containing animal remains. Laboratory testing needs to be carried out on this. However since the BSE scandal the United States FDA and the British authority DEFRA have banned horses to be fed with mammalian meat and bone meal processed animal proteins and ruminant gelatine, with exceptions such as milk and eggs used according to the Animal By-Products Regulations.

BSE was a case of large-scale meat contamination which has significant effect on human health was the introduction of cattle feed which contained chemicals and other animal remains including claims of human tissue remains which subsequent analysis revealed contained high levels of prions. Prior to the BSE scandal animal feed regulations were relaxed to include the addition of certain chemicals and other animal remains. Initially experts deemed this animal feed as safe for animals destined for the human food chain. This outbreak did affect human health and was the epidemic of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) disease in the UK. In that case feed openly containing the remains of cattle which was fed to cattle. Investigations revealed this cattle feed contained high levels of prions. The mode and source of transmission between cattle was identified as these prions in the animal feed. The infected feed transmitted the BSE agent (a prion which is not destroyed by heat treatment), permitting the spread among cattle of the BSE infection through the animal feed; when humans ate beef from infected cattle some contracted the fatal related variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD). It is assumed that the cattle remains used in animal feed today does not contain any dormant prion agents as these agents cannot be destroyed by heat treatment.

Since the BSE scandal DEFRA has declared it illegal in the UK to feed ruminants with all forms of mammalian protein. Also to feed any farmed livestock, including fish and horses, with mammalian meat and bone meal processed animal proteins and ruminant gelatine, with exceptions such as milk and eggs used according to the Animal By-Products Regulations. The U.S. government has also introduced similar strict regulations from the U.S.FDA prohibiting the use of feed containing mammalian protein to be fed to ruminants destined for the human food chain.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.105.78 (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

If a reliable source starts to question whether the horsemeat substituted for beef had prions in, then we can cover it. Until then, we won't. See WP:RECENT. Wikipedia is not the place for whistleblowing or investigative journalism. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

And as I've said twice above, with a source, horses don't get BSE. (and here is another source Montanabw^(talk) 20:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect horses fed with contaminated animal feed that contains animal remains infected with prions do get a BSE equivalent. The incubation period for human infection is not IMMEDIATE 86.178.93.192 (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Horses are not ruminants. Only two of your sources even mentions horses, and that one only in the context of regulations in feed. You are engaging in WP:SYNTH that does not correlate with your sources. This is just WP:OR. There are NO "BSE equivalents" currently found in horses. Obviously, there are other good reasons not to feed this junk to any animal. Montanabw^(talk) 19:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Implications for religious groups

Does this need a whole section? It could be moved to #Reactions. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Possibly so. But perhaps it should also be noted that horses, not having cloven hooves and not being ruminants, are also not kosher food. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

So noted in the article. Pol098 (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Human coronavirus contagion may have been transmitted by horses

THIS SECTION WAS ADDED EARLIER TODAY AND REMOVED BY SOMEONE.

There is speculation that the equine coronavirus may be endemic in North America and Eastern Europe.

Recent cases monitored by WHO and CDC in Saudi Arabia and Qatar by currently five individuals may have come into contact with contaminated horse meat and the origins in the equine coronvirus. The mortality rate in humans so far has been 50%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.93.192 (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent research has shown that equine DNA is a perfect host for the incubation of the coronavirus. [57]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.93.192 (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Your source says nothing about your premise, it only states that coronaviruses exist in horses; they also exist in many other living organisms, including people, and they cause a lot of different illnesses, including some types of common cold. You present no WP:RS for this, and we cannot use WP:SYNTH Montanabw^(talk) 19:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Why?

Are there already reasons, why horse meat was used? I always thought horse meat is much more expansive than "regular" meat?! That'd be a monetary loss for the meat companies if they replace cheap with expensive ingredients. --217.251.232.2 (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The quantity of UNDOCUMENTED horse meat going into products would not have had a market. Also there has not been an increase in interest in horse meat since this scandal broke, which suggests that people do not like the idea of eating horse. The scandal was cleverly side stepped using your reasoning - assuming that the fraudulent substituted meat from all sorts of dubious origins was actually fit for human consumption. It made a farce of ALL SUPPOSED "traceability" protection measures. The opening of this article cleverly dumbs down the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.23.31 (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Horse meat is very much cheaper than beef and since BSE there is not as much regulation and monitoring as for beef cattle.

The worry here is that horses are used for sport and are injected with all sorts of chemicals whose effect on the human immune system is not known.Pop goes the we (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Some cultures (e.g., mine) may have difficulty understanding why it is such a big issue to find horse-meat instead of beef in burgers. Could somebody enlighten on this in the introduction, please? Cristiklein (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The horse meat article may help you. I'll add something to the article.Pol098 (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Horse AIDS

Some news outlets referred to EIA as "Horse AIDS", even though it is not an immunodeficiency syndrome, nor can it be transmitted to humans. However, EIA is a lentivirus, like HIV, and research into a vaccine for EIA has the potential to help research efforts into a vaccine for HIV/AIDS.

• I understand the reason for putting this here. Are there any better sources we could use? The Daily Mail and a source from 2011 aren't cutting it for me. --John (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

For the tabloid hysteria, they are perfect, as they are tabloids. There is a Pubmed link to the actual stuff about EIA being a lentivirus somewhere, I'll go look. I see your point about what it is not, but you know it is tough to prove a negative But will look. Montanabw^(talk) 20:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Follow up: Sourced. Hope Merck vet manual and Europe Pub Med work for this, it's pretty basic info. Montanabw^(talk) 20:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

For tabloid hysteria they are primary sources. Can we get anything better? --John (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

LOL! Like ANYONE ever reports later that there was tabloid hysteria?  ;-) noogies. I don't really think it's SYNTH to say that news reports were calling it "Horse AIDS" and it's getting Google hits like this. Oh yeah, and a Facebook page...(big sigh). People are total idiots... (bigger, heavier sigh...) Montanabw^(talk) 20:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Roy Greenslade always reports when there has been tabloid hysteria. For loopy medical claims, Ben Goldacre should be on the case. Don't forget, we don't cover stuff that's just gossip, and we don't need to follow every twist and turn of rapidly evolving events. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I've taken it out for now; as a serious news story, it doesn't benefit from having tabloid froth added to the top. If a serious news org reports on the tabloid nonsense, we might want to take it up. --John (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

And I've restored it. This is something contributing to public hysteria and relevant as news. I'm with Judith. Let's discuss how to refine and improve this bit, not just toss it. Montanabw^(talk) 19:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Follow up: Added three more sources, two from the Telegraph and one from The Guardian. Will dig further. Montanabw^(talk) 19:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Health effects (2)

I think it is OK for us to report the truth, that this is all about the "uck" actor and that there is very little increased risk in medical terms. We do need to be very careful though to be true to sources and for sources to be of the highest possible standard. Really we should be aiming for WP:MEDRS here as it is a medical claim. --John (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

While I'd agree with use of the best possible sources, always, there are some things which are fairly obvious (though they do require sources).

• There is clearly no health risk from good-quality horsemeat, which is routinely eaten in many countries. I don't think any sources suggest it is inherently more dangerous than nay other meat.
• There is clearly at least some risk from unregulated food (not just horse, or even meat); it may contain, or be contaminated with, just about anything, and it is intuitively obvious that this may pose a risk, though it ain't necessarily so. A real, though irrelevant, example: in a less-regulated place (and time) I saw a lot of stalls selling meat, with flies swarming. One stall had no flies. Later, by chance, the stall-holder was seen spraying his meat with Flit (probably ignorance rather than with full knowledge).

Detailed discussion of the level of actual risk is another matter, on which I make no comment Pol098 (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• On reflection, anything that talks about medical matters needs to
  • Be written directly about the 2013 incident (beware of WP:COATRACK!)
  • Pass WP:MEDRS

Anything that doesn't meet this standard needs to come out, I'm afraid. --John (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with John here that the general rant about the evils of red meat or processed meat products isn't suitable in this article. And I tossed it ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 20:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Good, that was a real red herring. Pol098 (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a tricky one; obviously there are real health concerns about unregulated tissue entering the food chain, but this is what we have MEDRS for, to reliably source medical claims like these. --John (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The bit I tossed was a general rant about red meat, no RS for horsemeat and no link to current public concerns related to the scandal. When The Daily Mirror starts up something about it, we can reconsider ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 00:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Any medical claims made in Wikipedia's voice have to meet MED:RS, but we can use statements by ministers and by regulatory authorities for the news aspects. For how the story played in the media we might be able to use commentary pieces in the more serious media, pending academic research into the media, which won't be out for ages. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Bad sources?

I saw this "(→‎Equine infectious anemia: no tabloids please)" edit. Is dailymail.co.uk of such low integrity it's not worthy to be used as a source? and if so are there any other sources one should be aware of? Electron9 (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Tabloids which in this context include the Mail, the Sun, the Mirror, the Star, the Daily Record, and possibly others, have a poor reputation for fact-checking and per many, many past discussions at WP:RSN should never be used as sources for anything serious. --John (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could specify the domain names for fast recognition? Electron9 (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

In that particular case, I backed up the material with articles from the Guardian and the Telegraph, which are considered more reliable. Montanabw^(talk) 17:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Selection of companies

Isn't it in violation of WP:LIBEL to report on selected few cases, as it might really damage the business for them? I noticed this text, I read about the case earlier today. This and other companies might not even been aware they were selling horse meat as it might have been mislabeled at slaughterhouses. It makes no sense to cite one case, but exclude other cases e.g. the articles cited in case I edited mentions other companies as well. I propose that the cases, where there have been no reports that it has been proven the company knowingly mislabeled food, be removed or every single reseller would need to be included to be fair ~~Xil (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This is why we have the warnings in WP:RECENT. The editors who started the article listed all the companies who had been mentioned in the press. Now that there are so many more involved, we need to revisit that. It is not our job to discredit companies, nor is it our job to let them off the hook. Rather we need to reflect the emphasis that is given in our sources. 08:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The case I quote certainly has been added just now (look the discovery itself is dated with 1 March) and right before it are two cases from 22 February, both involving discovery and recalls, not fraud. It would've made sense for first few discoveries in January to be discussed in detail, even when the companies are not directly to blame, but it is by now quite clear that many companies are involved. The thing has been going on about long enough to take some steps to reflect it fairly without over emphasizing involvement of some companies over others. I mean, this is not about letting somebody of the hook, it's about why they have been put on the hook in the first place, if there are plenty others just as little deserving ~~Xil (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Knowing which companies that are involved in some way or not gives people a map on what's going on. The most important companies ought to be Spanghero and Comigel. But also Findus to know they buy from the former. And then there's the food chains that buy from the former. So it forms a chain where you need to know the whole chain to know where stuff comes from and where it ends up or where vurnabilities for fraud exists. Electron9 (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It isn't really purpose of encyclopedia to be a consumer warning system. And anyways listing few companies doesn't really illustrate where the food is coming from, which is why I suggested only the ones found to be likely to have known what meat it is should be mentioned (plus probably the first discoveries that started the whole thing). My impression is that by now whole EU is involved and finding cases of contamination and mislabeled products. I couldn't find exact statistics, but for example, here it says about 19 countries are involved and the article is from two weeks ago. In the meantime here we have only 7 cases listed, which probably is disproportionally small number. I still fail to see any valid reason why it should be this way ~~Xil (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Look, it's been a half a week. I get it people might be concerned about initial reports starting the scandal or where lot of people could be exposed. Still, I don't quite see a reason for not having any selection criteria, which leads to over-emphasizing minor cases. So I am going to remove the case due to which I started this discussion, if no one minds. Given what I've read it seems WP:UNDUE - I honestly don't think Wikipedia should information potentially harmful to a business when it is singled out from many others in same situation. The inclusion of few other cases also seems dubious, but I know little about them, so if no one is ready to admit this is a problem I am going to leave it as it is ~~Xil (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Poland: "rotten meat" adulteration breaking (8 March 2013)

Does this story - Polish plant halts production over rotten meat row - have a place in this article? 89.101.41.216 (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Bute in corned beef at Asda

Testing confirms bute in corned beef, Asda withdraws both 'smart price' (value) and 'chosen by you' corned beef as supplied by the same factory. guardian and bbc

something about this probably needs to get worked into the bute section - but I guess that means a reasonable scale rewrite to get rid of 'worries about posibilities of bute in ...' type stuff ? EdwardLane (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do with it; I've been working on that section. Montanabw^(talk) 19:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

updates

The scandal is very much still "on", hate the fact that it's not on the agenda anymore and we are not kept up to date with developments and findings from the investigation. Has that quietly stopped too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.81.144 (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on 2013 meat adulteration scandal

Cyberbot II has detected links on 2013 meat adulteration scandal which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.sgs.com/en/Our-Company/News-and-Media-Center/News-and-Press-Releases/2013/02/EU-Wide-Meat-Testing-Proposed-For-Horse-DNA.aspx

  Triggered by \bsgs\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

so what was the outcome of the investigation, it's been 2 years, I need answers!

anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.93.103 (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Title

Propose changing the title to 2013 horse meat scandal per WP:COMMONNAME. Sources:

• http://www.theguardian.com/uk/horsemeat-scandal
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21335872
• http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/horsemeat/
• http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/09/24/350695899/food-fraud-science-aims-to-gallop-past-horse-meat-scandal
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/horsemeat-scandal/
• http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-horse-meat-involved-in-european-meat-scandal/article18344544/
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/10572470/Horsemeat-scandal-a-year-on-nothing-has-changed.html
• http://www.channel4.com/news/horsemeat
• http://www.scotsman.com/news/stephen-jardine-horse-meat-scandal-hasn-t-changed-much-1-4002594
• http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/horse-meat-investigation-ongoing-say-irish-authorities-1.2189948
• http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/business/global/european-study-affirms-role-of-fraud-in-horsemeat-scandal.html?_r=0
• http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/horse-meat-scandal-where-are-we-now-502760
• https://www.marketingweek.com/2014/01/15/horse-meat-scandal-has-had-a-lasting-effect-on-how-food-is-marketed/
• http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/buying-and-supplying/categories/meat/supermarkets-hit-by-horse-meat-scandal/235608.article
• http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/jan/07/horsemeat-scandal-food-safety-uk-criminal-networks-supermarkets
• http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/how-to-sell-horsemeat-and-sub-prime-loans-8493780.html
• Purchasing and Supply Chain Management: A Sustainability Perspective (2014)
• Principles of Supply Chain Management: A Balanced Approach (2014)
• Creativity and Feature Writing: How to Get Hundreds of New Ideas Every Day (2015)
• What in God's Name are you Eating? (2014)
• RFID and Sensor Network Automation in the Food Industry (2015)
• Food contamination: fifth report of session 2013-14, Vol. 1 (2013)
• Food Law and Regulation for Non-Lawyers: A US Perspective (2014)

No reliable source was found for "2013 meat adulteration scandal". Firebrace (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I mostly agree, however bear in mind that the article presently includes a section on a Polish incident, that is unrelated to horse meat, but which does point to the general overarching failure in screening of meat found in the common market of the EU.

185.51.72.99 (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

"Horse meat - What has the EU done so far to address the horse meat scandal?"

http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/official_controls/food_fraud/horse_meat/timeline_en.htm ※〶 13:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)