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

[Seansky]

What do you think people of poor African countries whose hunger has been ignore for decades would think about this?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16147117&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=up-in-flames--name_page.html

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. let me repeat myself

this is sheer politics,

I mean British MREs are nto that pleasnt but the fact that a victim of the hurricane may get that to eat would speak volumes about our response... or lack off...

You can't allow the people to know we are no longer the essencial country now can you?

:sarcasm:

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

4. UK MRE's are a damn site better than

ours.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. ok.ok MREs are MREs.. but when hungry they all taste

great

[progmom]

2. this is my country?

:cry:

[Selteri]

3. Oooh - The snappy comeback from the US - But we approve some veggies! NT

[Pithlet]

5. I understand both sides of this.

I can understand why the British aid workers are furious with this, as well as the people who's tax dollars went to pay for this food given in aid. But I also understand why the shipments were impounded. It does no good to give people in need food that can make them sick. While their intentions were good, and I understand their anger and frustration, I also don't disagree with with what the FDA did. I can't agree with setting a trend of lifting restrictions that were enacted because of safety concerns to feed the needy. Whether or not those restrictions are necessary may be debatable. But until it's resolved; if a food is banned for import into this country for health concerns, that shouldn't be overlooked. The victims of Katrina should be given food that they are assured is safe, and not food that would normally not even be considered for anyone else.

[neweurope]

6. Then your government should have told the European

governments: DON'T SEND FOOD. After all our countries didn't just send stuff unasked for by mail in little parcels. They didn't say DON'T SEND FOOD.

Also in Great Britain and in Germany every cow is checked for mad cow disease.

Also American soldiers eat those MREs already and have no problems with it, for instance in Afghanistan when troops meet.

Also flood victims DID go hungry. F* a policy when people go hungry.

Also next time your country is in trouble I'll be damned if I want my government to support you with even one dime after this disgraceful behaviour. Burning donated food was not the only thing that happened. For instance German specialists with pumps where not allowed into NO to pump, having to stay outside the city limits picking their nose for a week. I have no idea if they were ever let in, I don't think so. And that was only one of many incidents.


--------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Let me say tings for the help and my apologies

we have idiots in power and I have gone hoarse screaming at those in glass houses trying to tell them how to get that help to the victims.

Trust me could tell some stories at this point but I fear them tricks will be needed in 72 hours AGAIN.

[Pithlet]

11. They should have

You get no argument from me there. It's disgraceful that it even came to this. And as I was careful to make clear, I don't blame the UK one bit for being pissed off.

But, now that the food is here and it's a done deal, I can't agree with feeding it to them anyway. The issue isn't where it came from or what is wrong with it. I just don't like the idea of lifting restrictions that would apply to people who aren't in need. If the food isn't deemed safe enough for ME to eat, then it shouldn't be for them. That's all. I don't think we should just say fuck it to those policies when we have the capability to immediately replace those foodstuffs. Our government has more than enough resources to replace the food destroyed. If we don't and let them starve, then THAT is the issue that needs to be addressed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. If you were a US Troop in Afthanistan

it is deemed safe for a US Troop.. this IS POLITICS they changed the policy at the last minute

[Pithlet]

19. No

If I were a US troop, I would hope that my government would still consider my safety when it comes to ingesting safe food. If any food substance is deemed unsafe for people back at home, then it should be deemed unsafe for me.

If they lifted safety requirements for our troops that were still required for us at home, then that is shameful. I don't think that means we then have to lift them for Katrina victims. If food is deemed safe, then it's safe for everyone, and if it is deemed unsafe, it is unsafe for everyone.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. When the FDA enforces testing for BSE in the US

you may have a leg to stand, for the moment they are not and the restriction on britsh beef were lifted quite some time ago... the FDA is playing politics, AGAIN.

For the record, I don't eat ameircan beef, three quite possibly four cases adn tehy are still treating is a joke

[Pithlet]

30. I'm not aware that those restrictions were lifted

But it is besides the point anyway, because my argument isn't whether the food is actually safe to eat. I still have a very sturdy leg, here. My point is that food safety concerns should be for everyone, and should not be ignored for US troops or natural disaster victims. If those food donations wouldn't be allowed for my consumption, then they shouldn't be for Katrina victims.

We could start a whole other thread about whether restrictions are politically motivated. THe issue is whether we're going to relax any standards we've come up with regardless of the reasons for our disaster victims. I just don't think that's a good idea. "Here's some food for you that we normally wouldn't let you eat because we have questions about its safety..." How would you feel as a victim if our government did that? I have enough qualms about how they handled things.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. and this is just one more example of bunbling this is politics pure

and simple

I have worked in disasters on the line... my thinking is very different than yours, OTOH I also know how politicians think.

The fact that State had to ACCEPT the help from abroad was a tought pill to swallow and only came after a lot of pressure was applied... from so many fronts it ain't even funny... including the locals

And this is part of the poltiical game being played by DC at this moment... hell they would turn away Australian MREs with Australian Lamb never mind I can buy it at Cosco.

[Pithlet]

34. I do not agree with how this disaster was handled by our government

It was shameful, and no doubt politics played a part. My only concern is, if there is still a ban on a food substance, that that ban should never be lifted unless it is lifted across the board. There should never be a policy adopted that lifts food safety concerns to help disaster victims unless that were the ONLY way to help them. That's my only point. I certainly wouldn't let them starve rather than lift those restrictions. But I think the US was still perfectly capable of making sure no one starved, whether or not we accepted help. If the US is going to accept help, it shouldn't accept it and THEN decide it's no good. Those rations should never have been allowed as long as that ban was in place.

If Memphis had a massive earthquake tomorrow and I became a victim dependant on my government, I wouldn't want them feeding me whatever was on hand without concern for the safety of that food. Unless there is no other way, food safety concerns should still remain an issue.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. In the lingo of disasters this was a CAT 4 disaster

which means national means are not enough to take care of it...

And our logistics proved it. We may argue whether this was on purpose and race dependent (I happen to believe this was the case as well as Republcian Ideology), but this was also a CAT 4 disaster and in those you usually do not get choosy and MREs that are safe for troop consumpption are safe for consumption of victims

By the way, is your mayor a democrat? or a Republcian? In this environment how well FEMA works depennds on that... me I am not counting on the feds and have enough to survive on my own, assumning I can get out and don't get hurt, for a month..

[Pithlet]

42. I just don't see how it is possible

that we did not have enough food to feed these people on our own. The entire country did not become 3rd world because of a Cat 4 hurricane, no matter the lingo used. I'm not saying we should not depend on or ask outside help. But, if we're going to do so, we still need to make sure that help isn't going to hurt the people we're trying to help. The fact that the food was accepted despite the ban only to burn it is a disgraceful bungling of events. I don't think Cat4 hurricane means "Accept all foodstuffs and disregard its safety".

My mayor is a Democrat, and the head of FEMA for our area was Clinton appointed, I believe. In no way does that make me feel confident, however. I'm ashamed at our federal government and how it handled everything.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. you have never worked disasters

and it shows... anyhow have enough to take care of yourself for a month, don't count on this Republcian Federal Government on takign care of you.. you are the wrong kind of person... and yes that is the way they think

But in a disaster it means the resource to take care of were srained to the limit... and yes it is a CAT 4 event... class four disaster... but hey... this means we ar no longer the essencial nation that never needs help... anyhow, have a good night and hope you don't have a disaster.

[Pithlet]

47. You do not know that about me

You have no idea what my experiences are. My whole point, and only point, is that the US government has no excuse serving food to us when they've banned it for issues concerning safety. How that shows that I have no experience in the matter of disasters is beyond me. Why anyone has to disregard safety issues when helping disaster victims is not being made clear to me.

I've already stated multiple times that if there IS no ban, and the government withheld that food anyway, then I believe that is wrong. But if the ban is there it should not ignore it and feed it to the victims anyway.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Ok these MREs are safe for NATO troops to eat

including ours, but not safe for our people? BSE was a full canard, this is POLITICS from OUR DISGRACEFUL goverment

[Pithlet]

12. I'm not arguing that.

What I'm saying is if a food has been restricted for me to eat *for whatever reason*, then I don't think it's right to tell Katrina victims that it's okay for them to eat. Either lift the restrictions for everyone because the food is safe, or keep the restrictions for everyone. Because it's not like we don't have enough food ourselves to replace the food that will be destroyed because of this mess. I'm not questioning the safety of the food involved. I'm questioning the idea that the government should lift food restrictions based on safety for needy people.

Let me make this clear. I'm questioning a policy that would disregard safety issues if food has been donated for charity. I'm NOT defending the way our government handled this business to begin with. That food should never have been accepted and brought into this country to begin with, unless the FDA changed it's policy for EVERYONE, and not just Katrina victims.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. But the policy has been changed on a whim by FDA for

poltiical reasons, since OUR TROOPS are eating it right now in theater.

[Pithlet]

16. There have been restrictions on beef from the UK for quite some time

Because of mad cow disease. If those restrictions are still in place for those reasons, then I do not believe our troops should be eating them either. I'm not doubting there are political motivations for that.

My whole point is I don't think we should lift safety restrictions and feed needy people whatever happens to be on hand. I think food safety and the limits we impose to ensure them should be equal across the board for everyone, and anyone who offers food donations that don't meet those requirments should be thanked 100 times but told we can't accept. It's not as if the whole country became 3rd world when Katrina hit. If that were the case it would be an entirely different story. But as it stands, I don't think we should accept food donations that don't meet safety requirments. Those food shipments should never have been received in the first place, but now that they're here I don't think we should just forget about those safety concerns and feed it to them anyway.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. and my point is, they allow US Troops to eath them

they are deemed safe and the restrictions on BSE were lifted by 2000... this is BS from the administration... and we have a far higher risk of BSE from American beef than we have from European beef where it is tested.

Bush and cronies have many political reasons not to allow it in period... and it has nothign to do with your safety.

Sorry, the incompetence has been on purpose from day one... and it just continues... nice to play devil's advocate, but does not wash

[Pithlet]

23. Yes, I understand that.

If safety requirments were ignored for our troops, then that is wrong. It would be just as wrong to ignore them for Katrina victims. That is my point.

Beef and beef products from the UK has been banned because of mad cow disease since 1998, before Bush.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. the bans were lifted, well before Katrina

this is politics

[Pithlet]

33. I understand. Politics. Yes.

I'm not saying it hasn't, but I've googled multiple times using different phrases and I can't find anywhere that gives the information about the ban being lifted and when.

And you keep telling me it's politics. I'm not arguing that. Please quit talking to me like I'm ignorant and know nothing of politics. Because I can't find otherwise, I'm still forming my opinion based on the information I know, and as far as I know, there are still restrictions on beef imports from the UK. And, if this is still the case, then those bans should not be lifed for Katrina victims. Or US troops. If I find that there is no restriction on food from the UK, then I will change my opinion. If the only UK food restricted were these rations donated, and all other UK food is deemed safe, then I will change my opinion accordingly.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. here you go

http://audfs.eng.auburn.edu/popup_madcowchrono.htm

http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/capts/documents/SpecialReport03-4_001.pdf

And will keep lookign for sources

[Pithlet]

38. Found nothing in the first source

that states the ban was lifted. I'm looking right now at the 2nd one and it is a big longer, but so far seeing nothing there either.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. the fisrt one does not even mention the US Ban and taht is the o

official Reuters time line

[Pithlet]

43. I didn't see it in the second link, either.

Am I missing it? Really, if the FDA has lifted the ban completely and there was no good reason to deny the Katrina victims the food, then that is really outragious and I will change my position on this, so I'm interested in finding out if that is the case. If not, then I don't think the government should have accepted them in the first place.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Given the Official Reuters time line does not even have

the ban, I give up.. yuo win

[Pithlet]

46. I didn't want to win

I want to have an informed opinion. You're not an opponent I wish to defeat. I don't know why Reuters doesn't list the ban, but the fact is there is one, or at least there was one enacted in 1998, and a later ban enacted for Canadian beef, and I haven't heard or seen anything about them being lifted. I could be wrong about the bans not being lifted, but I'm pretty sure the ban existed.

If I'm wrong, and there isn't a current ban, then I change my position. I want to be informed, I don't want to win.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. the official time linedoes not have it

how much clearner can it be? Yes one was enacted on FEED... from the Reuters time line... but hey.. whatever

And hwat is more here yuo go
The Harvard study identified the feed ban as the linchpin of protection against the spread of BSE. Established in 1997 by the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), the animal feed regulation prohibits feeding to cattle and other ruminants (such as sheep and goats) most mammalian protein, including a feed supplement known as meat-and-bone meal (MBM). Feeding cattle MBM that is contaminated with BSE is believed to be the most likely way for BSE to spread throughout a cattle herd.

Import controls are the critical safeguard against BSE being introduced into the United States. Since 1989, the USDA has banned the import of live ruminants and most ruminant products from the United Kingdom and other countries where BSE has been reported and from countries thought to be at high risk for BSE. The ban was expanded to include most of Europe in 1997 and Japan in 2001.

The third essential component of the firewall system of BSE prevention is the USDA's active surveillance program. The USDA has tested more than 21,000 cattle brains for BSE in the United States and Puerto Rico during the program's 11 years of operation and has found no evidence of BSE in American cattle.

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2002/302_bse.html

LIVE RUMIANTS are not DEAD meat products.. the firewall does not mention anywhere animal products for HUMAN CONSUMPTION

[Pithlet]

50. From this link

http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/bsefaq.html

Quote: Since 1989, USDA has banned imports of live ruminants, such as cattle, sheep and goats, and most products from these animals from countries known to have BSE.

Emphaiss mine. Look, I'm really not determined to win an argument. Only stating my opinion that we shouldn't feed needy people food otherwise banned for everyone else. And since UK beef is banned, it goes for that as well. Unless that ban has been lifted and I wasn't aware of it, I stand by that. If it has indeed been lifted, then I think the food should be given to the victims and not burned

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. As I said I give up

you win, have fun

:toast: :toast: :toast:

[Pithlet]

52. It wasn't about that.

Really.

[Seansky]

22. But, still, what would you say if you were starving in one of the

poorest African country?

[Pithlet]

26. If I were starving in a 3rd world country

I doubt I'd refuse anything. But that doesn't change the fact that the US government shouldn't just forget about the safety restrictions when it comes to Katrina victims and feed them the food anyway. The food should never have been accepted, and it is shameful that the US government took it anyway only for it to be destroyed and the UK government has every right to be upset. But, since it has happened, and the food is here, it would be just as bad to ignore those safety concerns and feed it to them anyway when we are perfectly capable of replacing them with food that isn't a safety concern.

[Seansky]

28. so, the food would be OK for a starving person?

[Pithlet]

32. No, and that is my point

It isn't okay to feed unsafe food to a starving person if there are alternatives. By stating that I would desparately take any food given to me, it doesn't then follow that I would support feeding unsafe food to a starving person if there were alternatives. It's not as if the US has no means to provide the food. It isn't "Feed those UK provided MREs or the Katrina victims starve".

I'm not condoning the US's actions, here. I'm simply stating that now that the food has arrived, no matter how awful it is that that happened, we shouldn't just ignore whatever concerns there may be and lift safety restrictions to feed it to them.

[Seansky]

36. Got it. It is rather sad

that things work this way and when African countries desperatedly need food, most of the world seem to ignore it.

Good night!

[Pithlet]

41. It is sad

I agree.

[Seansky]

37. Got it. As all of us probably feel, it is rather sad

that when African countries desperatedly need food, most of the world seem to ignore it, and then this happens.

Good night!

[spuddonna]

9. Yes, this makes perfect sense to this administration...

Burn the food... screw the poor... If the US didn't want it, why can't some other country come get it?! Just tell them "You need to provide shipping and transport, and it's YOURS!"

Idiots!

[paineinthearse]

15. Note the poll to the right

IS it time to pull British troops out of Iraq?
YES
59.41%
NO
40.59%

DU this poll!

[Maple]

17. A German plane was sent back to Germany

Canadian sailors and 4 ships were sent home early. Fully loaded Swedish aircraft never even got to leave the runway in Sweden...and now tons of perfectly good food are being burned.

It has nothing to do with any 'mad cow' nonsense.

And the next time you need aid.....

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Oh I know trust me

many games were played to get the aide in... but some will justify this stupid action by FDA because of BSE... stupid people... especially when American beef is NOT safe for human consumtion due to ... BSE

[Pithlet]

53. I'm not stupid

I just don't think "feed the desperate people whatever, and to hell with guidelines" is such a great idea. If American beef is not safe due to BSE, then what makes you so certain the UK's beef is, considering there have been cases of BSE in both places?

Again, I assure you, I'm not stupid. I'm not defending our governments ineptitude simply because I'm not willing to let our government ignore safety concerns when it comes to the needy. Inept government or not, needy victims are entitled to safe food. I don't care if their motivations are political if it means the victims won't get tainted food.

[ladylibertee]

21. I can slowly feel patriotism leaving my body.....

[Seansky]

27. That was a good one. I heard today an interview with the

author of book about the Civil War's only execution of a deserter. I was very fascinated by the stories about how those who fought in the War did not use or refer to patritiosims in even remotedly ways as they do today. So, don't feel too bad if it does leave your body. It might just be turning into what it is meant to be.

[KingFlorez]

29. It's disgusting

I mean people needed help and food was allowed to sit in a warehouse. This stuff needs to be repeated over and over again so the people know what kind of leadership we have.

[Theduckno2]

49. Politics and ineptness.

Agreeing with 'nadinbrzezinski', I find it hard to decide which is the major culprit. Destroying food that apparently is suitable for our active duty forces in theater seems like such a great waste. I would think that active duty forces or National Guard in areas affected by Katrina could use the rations if only as a supplement. Otherwise contact Canada or Mexico, maybe they aren't as fussy with UK beef, and we could ship it to them by rail. Incineration is the best solution? No way!

I liked the bit about p*ss and the brewery. :)
I'm inclined, at times, to believe this administration is too stupid to pour p*ss out of a boot, even if you wrote the directions on the bottom of the sole.