The context that fails to justify “some girls rape easy” »« Too many things.

Wayback: remember when Harper’s government wanted to process dead animals too?

Someone tweeted a link to this story a few days ago. The story happened in May, but it’s chilling in light of current events.

The Conservative government is pitching the change as a way to cut red tape and provide greater flexibility to slaughterhouse operators.

But the New Democrats are raising a red flag saying the move invites possible “contamination” of the food supply.

“Under the present regulations . . . it has to come in alive, be slaughtered on site,” said NDP MP Malcolm Allen (Welland), the party’s agriculture critic.

“Now you can bring in dead stock. It’s okay to bring in that animal into a slaughterhouse, have it cut, wrapped . . . for human consumption.

“The real fear is how did it die, (and) under what circumstances did it die.”

[...]“As for concerns that this amendment may allow unfit animal into the food supply system, this would not be the case.”

“CFIA inspectors, including veterinarians, are present daily during operations at federally registered establishments to verify that food safety requirements are met. All carcasses are individually inspected to protect the health and safety of Canadians,” he said in an email.

Considering the ongoing crazy-big beef recall which has been expanded YET AGAIN, is it any wonder Mulcair’s calling for the resignation of Ag minister Gerry Ritz? The government is not doing its job, and loosening restrictions that impede profit at the expense of safety as is the Conservatives’ MO is not exactly what I’d call protecting the health and safety of Canadians. Bad enough that under the current regime, the meat recall got as bad as it has. Could you imagine if they had to contend with yet more disease vectors?

Comments

  1. Anonymouse says

    Now there’s Canadian beef contaminated with e. coli in the USA, too. What, you guys didn’t think we had enough contaminated meat from our own American sources? :-)

    Seriously, I look at Canada mostly as what the USA could be if we grew up and got a clue. It’s so disappointing that you’re also suffering with lack of oversight.

  2. says

    I heard the interview the Minister had with Dave Rutherford this morning. Biggest smoke and mirrors job I’ve heard in years.
    “But we have inspectors there all the time” So what was the hold up then? “Our inspectors halted shipment immediately…12 days later…enhanced screening happened during that period…but Excel didn’t give us the data for 4 days…so the enhanced screening was so very thorough…except we can’t compel them to give us the data without court order…but there were inspectors…but we are certain no contaminated meat left the plant that was produced after the 4th…” On and on. Dave kept repeating the question over and over, and the minister dodged and dodged for about half an hour! It was incredible. I cannot believe how dodgy and shortsighted this guy was, how could he believe anyone was going to buy the ‘but there was enhanced screening and testing after the 4th’ line after Rutherford basically dragged out of him that the process makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the inspectors to actually know that!

    Gong. Show.

  3. says

    “The real fear is how did it die, (and) under what circumstances did it die.”

    Conveniently such a lack of restrictions also means that you have to spend less care on the animal transport. If you lose money if it’s dead you’re going to pay attention it arrives alive. If you don’t, who cares?

  4. TX_secular says

    5. Good point about the incentives to treat animals well when being transported. I wonder how long the animal can be dead?

  5. kemist, Dark Lord of the Sith says

    It’s what I’ve been saying for à while:

    Harper’s government can best be understood when one has read 1984.

    If they talk about peace, think war. If somebody is named minister for environment, you can assume he’ll promote the most polluting stuff there is.

    Just look at the human refuse that was named minister for women’s condition.

  6. lorn says

    Allowing already previously deceased animals to be butchered for food? What’s to worry about … it’s all good … preprocessed meatloaf dinners goes down a nickel, the poor can make extra money scraping critters off the pavement with flat-blade shovel, and the streets are free of roadkill. Full of win.

  7. John Horstman says

    @2: A lot of it may be willful ignorance/repression. My mother, for example, eats meat but HATES the idea of killing anything other than smallish arthropods (and even some of those she’s not too keen on swatting), or handling animal carcasses (that haven’t been dressed and packaged as food). Ironically, she’s an anthropologist and archaeologist, and has no problem working with human remains.

    I do also know a few people who gave up meat after learning about how most of it is produced.

  8. NitricAcid says

    #3- You say Canada is what the USA could be if it grew up. Ever see a middle-aged man look at teenagers and want to go back to the days of youthful abandon? That’s what the conservatives want to do…they look at the USA’s worst aspects, and say, “Look at that- doesn’t that seem like fun?”

  9. says

    Wonderful blog! I found it while surfing around on
    Yahoo News. Do you have any tips on how to get listed in Yahoo
    News? I’ve been trying for a while but I never seem to get there! Appreciate it

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>