Has the Horse Meat scandal effected what food you buy and eat?

It worries me that criminal gangs are involved in tampering with the production line, there must be lots more revelations to come. I don't see why these gangs wouldn't end up seeing profit from pigeons, rats etc like they done with horses.

Tbf on the supermarkets, I don't think it's fair to blame them when it was the fault of their suppliers and as soon as they knew, they removed the offending products from the shelves.

It's like the whole Asda credit card thing. That was Sygma's fault,yet Asda got in trouble for it from the media.The supermarkets shouldn't be taking the blame here.

If this isn't a great example of incompetence and deceitfulness, I don't know what is.

Supermarkets are responsible for what is supplied and sold.

There was clearly no real communication between the supplier, the distributed and the seller.

Products were not tested.

Supermarkets confidently displayed the percentage of beef on products without being certain of its contents.


Without sounding too much of a conspiracist:

I think supermarkets were aware they were false advertising. I would even go as far as to say that the officials involved between the dealings of the supplier and seller encouraged the production of cheap horse meat (whether is was intended to have only small traces is anyone's guess). I think supermarkets are more concerned about making money and less concerned about the welfare of their customers.


I find it hard to believe that communication was so poor, that knowledge of some of the products they were selling were non-existent. They probably would have continued to such sell incorrect meats for a healthy profit had the scandal not been brought to the surface.

OK. So say I own a sandwich shop. I get all my supplies from supplier x. They tell me that their sandwiches may be 100% beef, or whatever.

It turns out it's not 100% beef. I tell my customers it is, because my suppliers tell me it is. It is not my fault if the suppliers deceived me, and once I knew, I would either withdraw said products from the menu or say "product may also contain elements of y meat"

If this isn't a great example of incompetence and deceitfulness, I don't know what is.

Supermarkets are responsible for what is supplied and sold.

There was clearly no real communication between the supplier, the distributed and the seller.

Products were not tested.

Supermarkets confidently displayed the percentage of beef on products without being certain of its contents.


Without sounding too much of a conspiracist:

I think supermarkets were aware they were false advertising. I would even go as far as to say that the officials involved between the dealings of the supplier and seller encouraged the production of cheap horse meat (whether is was intended to have only small traces is anyone's guess). I think supermarkets are more concerned about making money and less concerned about the welfare of their customers.


I find it hard to believe that communication was so poor, that knowledge of some of the products they were selling were non-existent. They probably would have continued to such sell incorrect meats for a healthy profit had the scandal not been brought to the surface.

No. Luckily I don't and won't ever find myself buying horse.

No. I shop at Waitrose and only ever buy fine cuts of beef.

One product was affected.

With Waitrose it was that pork had been found in the "beef meatballs" although it had been labeled wrong it's not really an issue like it is with everything else found with horse in it.

Technically its a shared competence between corporate governance and the FSA.

The exporting country is supposed to have their FSA ensure that what they are exporting is what it says on the label and the supermarket is supposed to ensure that their supply chain meets their corporate governance objectives.