|
|
Post by cardicorgi on Dec 8, 2005 16:37:05 GMT -5
Ahh, the ol' "slippery slope" argument:
"Ranchers oppose horse meat plan"
[ftp]http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/12/08/build/business/45-ranchers.inc[/ftp]
|
|
|
|
Post by lildunhorse on Dec 8, 2005 17:19:34 GMT -5
Yeah, I had to grab a hankey when I read about all the hardship the amendment is causing.  |
|
|
|
Post by schwung on Dec 8, 2005 18:30:26 GMT -5
Someone needs to set them straight, didn't one publication already have to print a repeal for stating this inaccuracy?:
The amendment is a big worry for the agriculture industry because it bars taxpayer dollars for food-safety inspections of horse-processing plants, which could open the way for ranchers to have to pay for other packing-plant inspections that now are borne by the federal government, Munns said.
|
|
|
|
Post by cardicorgi on Dec 8, 2005 19:06:23 GMT -5
Schwung you beat me to it! I don't know, but I bet Bryn does. The other paragraph that got my goat was the, umm, concern for others... Those poor people will surely DIE without their American high-protein food source. To me, this is pretty flat hyperbole. For one, it implies that horse meat is the sole source of "high-protein" [wrong, horsemeat is a delicacy at least in Europe] for its eaters. Such a red herring! |
|
|
|
Post by safehorses on Dec 8, 2005 20:00:57 GMT -5
Schwung is right, they can't hire their own inspectors, nor will anyone start expecting the other producers to hire their own inspectors. Really, these people must thing everyone is dim. It's the governments job to inspect meat...they would never relinquesh the safety of our food supply to the private sector to do as they please and say everything is okey dokey.
|
|
