What is logically wrong with eating horse meat?

Gabbo

In all seriousness, what is wrong with eating horse meat? I mean, animals are animals.

Cows are commodities
Pigs are commodities
Sheep are commodities
Hens are commodities
As are plenty of fish (pun not intended)

So what makes it morally wrong to kill horses by means of food production? Ok, there is a huge element of deception and corruption, but logically thinking about it, horses are lean and mean animals. What nutritional implications are there when eating horse opposed to cow?

5tew ST

Isn't the problem the fact that people are saying things are beef and then cutting costs by putting horse in ???

smoggysteve

It's not really in our culture. They eat insects and cats and dogs in Asia but I'll be f@cked if I would give it a try.

There is nothing morally wrong in all this except the deception and the fact that when you buy something that says its beef you expect it to be that. I would think there would be an outcry if it was pork or lamb or venison. It not what people were expecting. Another problem was not knowing where the meat came from. How was it reared? What chemicals were put in its system? What else is in other food that we don't know about? It opens a massive can of worms and dents consumer confidence.

danlikesbikes

SmoggySteve wrote:

It's not really in our culture. They eat insects and cats and dogs in Asia but I'll be f@cked if I would give it a try.

There is nothing morally wrong in all this except the deception and the fact that when you buy something that says its beef you expect it to be that. I would think there would be an outcry if it was pork or lamb or venison. It not what people were expecting. Another problem was not knowing where the meat came from. How was it reared? What chemicals were put in its system? What else is in other food that we don't know about? It opens a massive can of worms and dents consumer confidence.

Think Pork may be an issue but only as so many religions do not eat it.

If were being honest I'm not that keen on being lied to about whats in my food, I buy beef and I expect it to be beef. Having said that I would be more worried about all the other none meat items that you can find in ready meals etc that are going to do you much worse than a different kind of meat. That will be me not eating those sorts of things though so does not affect me as much.

Guess thats just me though as I have eaten horse in France and was not that bothered by.

ben@31

The sensationalism sells newspapers.

Just like the millennium bug, the credit crunch and how every winter is the big freeze like on the film 'Day After Tomorrow'.

"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story".

Lagrange

Because almost certainly a horse has had sex with its mother. That's why.

ooermissus

ben@31 wrote:

The sensationalism sells newspapers....

Just like the credit crunch...

They made the credit crunch up?

chrisaonabike

5tew ST wrote:

Isn't the problem the fact that people are saying things are beef and then cutting costs by putting horse in ???

It's mostly this ^^, but also that if the suppliers are lying about what animal it comes from, who's to know they're not also lying about what it's been fed?

Remember BSE? That came from the transmission of an infectious agent (a type of protein called a prion), which spread through cattle as a result of them being fed ground up bits (brain, spinal cord, other offal) of other cattle. Then it spread to humans - not in large numbers, fortunately, but it killed every one that got it.

I don't buy Findus ready meals, but it is a serious issue. If I wanted to eat horse, I'd want it labelled as horse, and I'd want the powers that be to be making sure that the cheap lowlife scum that would put any old crap in food to save a buck can't put in anything actually dangerous.

I also think that the food minister that said he wouldn't ban meat imports from Romania until there was evidence that there was a public health issue was displaying the same head-in-the-sand attitude that they did years ago when BSE was starting to hit the headlines. Personally I think it should be banned until it's been shown that there's no health issue - not not banned until it's shown there is. The hitting of the suppliers a bit harder in the wallet would encourage them to be a bit more careful next time.

This horse scandal is probably the tip of the iceberg, unfortunately.

I wouldn't mind trying horse steak. I had kangaroo in Australia a few years ago, and it was delicious.

Lagrange

ChrisAOnABike wrote:

5tew ST wrote:

I had kangaroo in Australia a few years ago.

team47b

Nothing is wrong with the logic.

I think it is more a case of it being not socially acceptable to eat horses in the UK.

Still not necessarily moral though.

Killing an animal for the sole purpose of eating it to satisfy your taste, causing pain, injury and death solely to bring an unnecessary diversity to your diet is not moral.

This is my opinion and does not need to agree with yours, you should not feel threatened by my opinion or feel the need to become defensive or offensive, you are responsible for your own morality

Garry H

Lagrange wrote:

Because almost certainly a horse has had sex with its mother. That's why.

That's almost certaintly the correct answer

Tom Butcher

team47b wrote:

Killing an animal for the sole purpose of eating it to satisfy your taste, causing pain, injury and death solely to bring an unnecessary diversity to your diet is not moral.

Agreed, that's why I let other people do it.

capt_slog

+1 with what others have said. I have no problem eating dobbin at all, but it should be labeled as such.

The best place for horse is in a field, cat food or a pie. Anywhere but on the road.

cornerblock

Tom Butcher wrote:

team47b wrote:

Killing an animal for the sole purpose of eating it to satisfy your taste, causing pain, injury and death solely to bring an unnecessary diversity to your diet is not moral.

Agreed, that's why I let other people do it.

Your forefathers will be turning in their graves to hear you say that.

dynamicbrick

Apart from the cultural issues, there's food chain issues as well.

Horses are not classified as livestock, and so not subject to the same veterinary restrictions as sheep, cows, and pigs. So whilst beef used in supermarket beef burgers is typically, literally, the arse end of the cow, you can be fairly sure that whatever medication it received during its life, and when it was killed, and may be lingering in the meat, is safe for human consumption.

Then there's the wider issue - if firms can't be arsed to check that the beef they've bought is actually beef, what else can't they be bothered to check?

For me it opens up a lot of questions as to the way we accept the congealed mass of 'beef' in the packet of whatever is actually decent food. Beef burgers, for example - how much does a packet of two 1/4 pounders cost? Three quid? Read the ingredients on the box? Or, you can go to your local butchers, buy 1/2 pound of mince (with a greater surety that the meat in question is actually deceased cow, and hasn't been kicking around a factory floor for several weeks, subject to hugely variable storage temps, at least three trips in a lorry, and then left in your freezer for a week), add a bit of flour, bit of egg, and some onion, and there you have two homemade beef burgers for probably half the price and only four ingredients.

Same applies with fish - I know it's convenient buying things in a box, but would you rather buy a fish from the local fishmonger where it's been out of the water for three days at most, having travelled via Billingsgate. Or would you rather buy fish which may have been landed by the same boat, gone to Billingsgate, but then via a factory in Ireland, to a distribution centre, then to a supermarket, then to your table, with the bonus of an unknown amount of salt, preservatives, emulsifiers, and god knows what else?

Coriander

dynamicbrick wrote:

Apart from the cultural issues, there's food chain issues as well.

Horses are not classified as livestock, and so not subject to the same veterinary restrictions as sheep, cows, and pigs. So whilst beef used in supermarket beef burgers is typically, literally, the ars* end of the cow, you can be fairly sure that whatever medication it received during its life, and when it was killed, and may be lingering in the meat, is safe for human consumption.

Then there's the wider issue - if firms can't be arsed to check that the beef they've bought is actually beef, what else can't they be bothered to check?

For me it opens up a lot of questions as to the way we accept the congealed mass of 'beef' in the packet of whatever is actually decent food. Beef burgers, for example - how much does a packet of two 1/4 pounders cost? Three quid? Read the ingredients on the box? Or, you can go to your local butchers, buy 1/2 pound of mince (with a greater surety that the meat in question is actually deceased cow, and hasn't been kicking around a factory floor for several weeks, subject to hugely variable storage temps, at least three trips in a lorry, and then left in your freezer for a week), add a bit of flour, bit of egg, and some onion, and there you have two homemade beef burgers for probably half the price and only four ingredients.

Same applies with fish - I know it's convenient buying things in a box, but would you rather buy a fish from the local fishmonger where it's been out of the water for three days at most, having travelled via Billingsgate. Or would you rather buy fish which may have been landed by the same boat, gone to Billingsgate, but then via a factory in Ireland, to a distribution centre, then to a supermarket, then to your table, with the bonus of an unknown amount of salt, preservatives, emulsifiers, and god knows what else?

Horses born in the EU are considered to be destined for the food chain, so are subject to medicine restrictions. Se EC response to an MEP question:

"horses born in the EU are considered by default as intended for the food chain, unless individual animals are, according to Article 10(2) of Directive 2001/82, declared as not being intended for slaughter for human consumption in Section IX of the identification document (the "horse passport") set up by Commission Regulation 504/2008 on the methods for the identification of equidae.

That identification document is part of the food chain information which the slaughterhouse operator, under the supervision of the official veterinarian, is to receive, check and act upon in accordance with Regulation 853/2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin."

bompington

team47b wrote:

Killing an animal for the sole purpose of eating it to satisfy your taste, causing pain, injury and death solely to bring an unnecessary diversity to your diet is not moral.

This is my opinion and does not need to agree with yours, you should not feel threatened by my opinion or feel the need to become defensive or offensive, you are responsible for your own morality

Ahhhh, good old moral relativism. My morality includes killing people to eat, I'm glad you don't have a problem with that.

dynamicbrick

Ah, okay, I stand corrected.

However, having a horse, I can confirm the Horse Passport is a bit of a joke, as it seems quite a lot of horses don't have them.

smoggysteve

dynamicbrick wrote:

Ah, okay, I stand corrected.

However, having a horse, I can confirm the Horse Passport is a bit of a joke, as it seems quite a lot of horses don't have them.

Damn right. Most horses look the same. The passport photo must be next to useless. :-)

dynamicbrick

team47b wrote:

Killing an animal for the sole purpose of eating it to satisfy your taste, causing pain, injury and death solely to bring an unnecessary diversity to your diet is not moral.

Omnivores we are not.

However, I'm happy for you to find the eating of meat repulsive - all the more bacon sarnies for the rest of us.

dynamicbrick

SmoggySteve wrote:

dynamicbrick wrote:

Ah, okay, I stand corrected.

However, having a horse, I can confirm the Horse Passport is a bit of a joke, as it seems quite a lot of horses don't have them.

Damn right. Most horses look the same. The passport photo must be next to useless. :-)

I frequently make the error of saying "it's just a horse to me, dear... I'm really not taking any of this onboard". This usually happens when words like 'Welsh cross cob' or 'pikey leadflashing halfbred' or something are being spoken at me

team47b

Tom Butcher wrote:

team47b wrote:

Killing an animal for the sole purpose of eating it to satisfy your taste, causing pain, injury and death solely to bring an unnecessary diversity to your diet is not moral.

Agreed, that's why I let other people do it.

Scavenger

Phil Fouracre

Nothing logically wrong with eating horse - much more worrying is all the other unnamed sh1t they put into these products. If it is really cheap, why is it? too good to be true!! Don't eat this sort of rubbish if you can avoid it

team47b

bompington wrote:

team47b wrote:

Killing an animal for the sole purpose of eating it to satisfy your taste, causing pain, injury and death solely to bring an unnecessary diversity to your diet is not moral.

This is my opinion and does not need to agree with yours, you should not feel threatened by my opinion or feel the need to become defensive or offensive, you are responsible for your own morality

Ahhhh, good old moral relativism. My morality includes killing people to eat, I'm glad you don't have a problem with that.

When I said 'animal' I suppose I was trying to avoid using the term 'sentient being'. No problem, too many people anyway!

and to be clear, this time, I meant in this instance sentience being the ability to have sensations or experiences as in Western philosophy, as opposed to sentience being a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care as in Eastern philosophy

Don't you just love pedantry first thing in the morning.

cornerblock

team47b wrote:

bompington wrote:

team47b wrote:

Killing an animal for the sole purpose of eating it to satisfy your taste, causing pain, injury and death solely to bring an unnecessary diversity to your diet is not moral.

This is my opinion and does not need to agree with yours, you should not feel threatened by my opinion or feel the need to become defensive or offensive, you are responsible for your own morality

Ahhhh, good old moral relativism. My morality includes killing people to eat, I'm glad you don't have a problem with that.

When I said 'animal' I suppose I was trying to avoid using the term 'sentient being'. No problem, too many people anyway!

and to be clear, this time, I meant in this instance sentience being the ability to have sensations or experiences as in Western philosophy, as opposed to sentience being a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care as in Eastern philosophy

Don't you just love pedantry first thing in the morning.

10.53am is not first thing in the morning.

Pross

Tom Butcher wrote:

team47b wrote:

Killing an animal for the sole purpose of eating it to satisfy your taste, causing pain, injury and death solely to bring an unnecessary diversity to your diet is not moral.

Agreed, that's why I let other people do it.

You should change your surname then, you're misrepresenting yourself

team47b Why is it not moral to eat something that we have been designed to eat?

cornerblock

Pross wrote:

You should change your surname then, you're misrepresenting yourself

Yeah that horse has bolted Pross! I can see now why you're usually off the back.

keef66

Pross wrote:

Tom Butcher wrote:

team47b wrote:

Killing an animal for the sole purpose of eating it to satisfy your taste, causing pain, injury and death solely to bring an unnecessary diversity to your diet is not moral.

Agreed, that's why I let other people do it.

You should change your surname then, you're misrepresenting yourself

team47b Why is it not moral to eat something that we have been designed to eat?

Different subject, but do you really think we were designed??

VTech

ooermissus wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

The sensationalism sells newspapers....

Just like the credit crunch...

They made the credit crunch up?

They made it worse for sure :!:
People who know little about finance and how it works listen to the TV in the morning before work and stop spending, this is a proven fact which in turn slows down the sales of goods which in turn closes down business and less tax is generated etc etc etc.
Its a reasonable thing to assume (as some do) that credit crunch and recession is man made and ON PURPOSE in order to keep people in order.
Not many people understand (not saying you don't) some of the priorities of government, its far more complex but ever so easy in reality.

As for the main question, horses that are not bred for meat are given so many different types of inoculations that are not meant for the human genome so without regulation we are open to genetic disorders that are not generally associated with the meat in question.

team47b

Cornerblock wrote:

team47b wrote:

bompington wrote:

team47b wrote:

Killing an animal for the sole purpose of eating it to satisfy your taste, causing pain, injury and death solely to bring an unnecessary diversity to your diet is not moral.

Don't you just love pedantry first thing in the morning.

10.53am is not first thing in the morning.

Don't you just love pedantry at 26 minutes before my lunch time

Cleat Eastwood

team47b wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

team47b wrote:

bompington wrote:

team47b wrote:

Killing an animal for the sole purpose of eating it to satisfy your taste, causing pain, injury and death solely to bring an unnecessary diversity to your diet is not moral.

Don't you just love pedantry first thing in the morning.

10.53am is not first thing in the morning.

Don't you just love pedantry at 26 minutes before my lunch time

I like the fact you posted at 1234 - well played.