IT may well be the case that beef deep frozen and carefully stored for
six years is ''absolutely safe'', as Ministry of Agriculture spokesmen
and experts say. Many people will have doubts. Should they be sold the
food without any mention of its age? Today's beef producers should be as
worried about this development as consumers, for beef consumption is
already under pressure from the health-conscious move away from red
meat. If would-be buyers suspect that what they are being offered in
their butchers is so old, they will be deterred from purchase. If the
meat involved were clearly labelled, as it should be, it would have to
be sold for far less than the normal rate, but it is perfectly possible
that even cut-price beef of this age would not be sold at all.
The meat involved is part of the EC's food mountain and part of the
consequence of the Common Agricultural Policy which encouraged the
over-production of foodstuffs to the general detriment of those who have
to buy them. The cost of warehousing this beef for six years would
already make it far dearer than fresh produce, but sales now would at
least recover part of that cost, whereas disposal would lose everything,
and an alternative use (in pet food, for example) would hardly save very
much. The argument that beef benefits from long keeping is misleading:
not many gourmets or chefs would think beef improved after about six
months. The Consumers' Association is right to say that it is
''nonsense'' to offer beef this old without warning, and reassurance
that it is indeed absolutely safe.
That guarantee would have to come from sources other than the
government-sponsored Meat and Livestock Commission. Even then many would
not be tempted. It would be better if the
beef were recalled and classed as unfit for human consumption. Any
resultant loss would not be the first of the
financial consequences of the CAP which is, fortunately, in the throes
of reform.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article