Katrina Food Donations to be Burned?

[Nieninque]

From: http://www.mirror.co.uk/archive/archive/tm_objectid=16147117%26method=full%26siteid=94762-name_page.html

EXCLUSIVE: UP IN FLAMES
Tons of British aid donated to help Hurricane Katrina victims to be BURNED by Americans
From Ryan Parry, US Correspondent in New York

HUNDREDS of tons of British food aid shipped to America for starving Hurricane Katrina survivors is to be burned.

US red tape is stopping it from reaching hungry evacuees.

Instead tons of the badly needed Nato ration packs, the same as those eaten by British troops in Iraq, has been condemned as unfit for human consumption.

And unless the bureaucratic mess is cleared up soon it could be sent for incineration.

One British aid worker last night called the move "sickening senselessness" and said furious colleagues were "spitting blood".

The food, which cost British taxpayers millions, is sitting idle in a huge warehouse after the Food and Drug Agency recalled it when it had already left to be distributed.

Scores of lorries headed back to a warehouse in Little Rock, Arkansas, to dump it at an FDA incineration plant.

The Ministry of Defence in London said last night that 400,000 operational ration packs had been shipped to the US.

But officials blamed the US Department of Agriculture, which impounded the shipment under regulations relating to the import and export of meat.

The aid worker, who would not be named, said: "This is the most appalling act of sickening senselessness while people starve.

"The FDA has recalled aid from Britain because it has been condemned as unfit for human consumption, despite the fact that these are Nato approved rations of exactly the same type fed to British soldiers in Iraq.

"Under Nato, American soldiers are also entitled to eat such rations, yet the starving of the American South will see them go up in smoke because of FDA red tape madness."

The worker added: "There will be a cloud of smoke above Little Rock soon - of burned food, of anger and of shame that the world's richest nation couldn't organise a p**s up in a brewery and lets Americans starve while they arrogantly observe petty regulations.

"Everyone is revolted by the chaotic shambles the US is making of this crisis. Guys from Unicef are walking around spitting blood.

"This is utter madness. People have worked their socks off to get food into the region.

"It is perfectly good Nato approved food of the type British servicemen have. Yet the FDA are saying that because there is a meat content and it has come from Britain it must be destroyed.

"If they are trying to argue there is a BSE reason then that is ludicrously out of date. There is more BSE in the States than there ever was in Britain and UK meat has been safe for years."

The Ministry of Defence said: "We understand there was a glitch and these packs have been impounded by the US Department of Agriculture under regulations relating to the import and export of meat.

"The situation is changing all the time and at our last meeting on Friday we were told progress was being made in relation to the release of these packs. The Americans certainly haven't indicated to us that there are any more problems and they haven't asked us to take them back."

Food from Spain and Italy is also being held because it fails to meet US standards and has been judged unfit for human consumption.

And Israeli relief agencies are furious that thousands of gallons of pear juice are to be destroyed because it has been judged unfit.

The FDA said: "We did inspect some MREs (meals ready to eat) on September 13. They are the only MREs we looked at. There were 70 huge pallets of vegetarian MREs.

"They were from a foreign nation. We inspected them and then released them for distribution."

[Sean of the Thread]

No one is going to starve. Do you know how many KFC buckets you can buy with a 2000.00 dollar debit card?

[CrystalTears]

Still. WTF is that all about? That's that bullshit.

[Sean of the Thread]

Obviously I was kidding. I'm not sure what to think based soley on that article. I mean if the shit is really unfit then???

[xtc]

Ridiculous that other nations were kind enough to send food and beaurocrats won't allow it to be sent to those who need it.

Millions of dollars wasted. If I was a British taxpayer I would be pissed off.

[CrystalTears]

Oh sorry Xyelin. Only the "still" referred to your post, the rest was about the story. My bad for not being more clear.

[The Ponzzz]

The kits are last resort kits, hence the reason NATO has allowed soldiers to eat them.

I believe, and I'm not 100% sure, but those kits contain those "crackers" that are compared to by dog biscuits. And because the FDA will not approve dog food, it will not approve this.

This whole article is a fucking mess first of all. You would think the fucking Brits would call the FDA and go, "WE ARE SENDING FOOD, IS THAT OK?!" But by the lack of facts in this article, who knows what really fucking happened. Staples don't just send us the wrong paper here at work because we are out. We generally fill out an order. Just like all this money flow that's being raised isn't just being shipped to:

JOHN DOE
1152 NEW ORLEANS AVE...

It's going to the right funding groups...

[Edited on 9-20-2005 by The Ponzzz]

[Shari]

Originally posted by Xyelin
No one is going to starve. Do you know how many KFC buckets you can buy with a 2000.00 dollar debit card?


Um, if this made me laugh, does this mean I'm going to hell now? :(

[Edited on 9-20-2005 by Jesae]

[xtc]

Originally posted by The Ponzzz
The kits are last resort kits, hence the reason NATO has allowed soldiers to eat them.

Better than starving


I believe, and I'm not 100% sure, but those kits contain those "crackers" that are compared to by dog biscuits. And because the FDA will not approve dog food, it will not approve this.

You can't be serious, it is being held up because the biscuits soldiers eat are considered dog food?


This whole article is a fucking mess first of all. You would think the fucking Brits would call the FDA and go, "WE ARE SENDING FOOD, IS THAT OK?!" But by the lack of facts in this article, who knows what really fucking happened. Staples don't just send us the wrong paper here at work because we are out. We generally fill out an order. Just like all this money flow that's being raised isn't just being shipped to:

JOHN DOE
1152 NEW ORLEANS AVE...

It's going to the right funding groups...

[Edited on 9-20-2005 by The Ponzzz]

So the Brits should have held off on sending food until they cleared it with Huey, Duey and Luey at the FDA? Perhaps they were concerned with those in New Orleans starving.

[CrystalTears]

I hate to be mean... and laugh at Xyelin's post again... but they're not starving. Sure the extra food would be nice.. but no one is starving.

[DeV]

Anymore...

It was a nice gesture from the British government and their people nonetheless.

[AnticorRifling]

This is crap some of the food I ate in the field I wouldn't feed to my dog so I know this isn't an issue. Hell I've eaten worse food on a bet!

[Sean of the Thread]

Originally posted by DeV
Anymore...

It was a nice gesture from the British government and their people nonetheless.

And it was tax deductable.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Xyelin

Originally posted by DeV
Anymore...

It was a nice gesture from the British government and their people nonetheless.

And it was tax deductable.

Deductable for who? The British Government? Governments don't pay taxes they collect them.


....and what happens if KFC runs out of chicken in these places? Then they will wish the had those ration packs.:lol:

[Sean of the Thread]

Why burn them? Why not toss them into the harbor(harbour if your prefer lol )?


::throws ration kit overboard::


[Edited on 9-20-2005 by Xyelin]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Xyelin

Originally posted by DeV
Anymore...

It was a nice gesture from the British government and their people nonetheless.

And it was tax deductable. :rah:

[xtc]

Originally posted by Xyelin
Why burn them? Why not toss them into the harbor(harbour if your prefer lol )?


::throws ration kit overboard::


[Edited on 9-20-2005 by Xyelin]

They could use them to feed the guests at that charity wedding.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/viewthread.php?tid=17693

[Viridian]

Originally posted by xtc
Ridiculous that other nations were kind enough to send food and beaurocrats won't allow it to be sent to those who need it.

Millions of dollars wasted. If I was a British taxpayer I would be pissed off.

Agreed, I would be too, but I don't like making such rash decisions. I don't believe they would send food unfit for consumption to us to feed our citizens, then again perhaps the FDA mishandled the shipments. Regardless its still sad that all that food that was intended for the people who really need it, won't get it.

[TheRoseLady]

Why is there no other coverage of this? I just did a search and couldn't find a single other source that is talking about this.

Isn't this news outlet like the National Enquirer in the US?

[Sean of the Thread]

I bet Michael Moore would eat em.

[xtc]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady
Why is there no other coverage of this? I just did a search and couldn't find a single other source that is talking about this.

Isn't this news outlet like the National Enquirer in the US?

The Mirror is equivalent to the Sun paper in Canada. It is above the National Enquirer. I guess you could call it a working class paper.

I found the story other places as well:

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050920/APN/509200762&cachetime=3&template=dateline

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/British_Katrina_aid_to_be_b_0920.html

[Viridian]

Yeah...if the paper is like the national enquirer, something tells me there isn't much fact to back it up.

[Wezas]

I call BS on this story as well. The AP or a somewhat known paper/online news organization would have picked up on this.

[Jayvn]

I bet MRE's are unfit for human consumption too, And I've eatten enough of those to preserve my insides till the year 2090. The human body can go AT LEAST 30 days without food, no one is starving yet.. I don't know about their water situation though... water is good stuff :)

[Skeeter]

I have been to England, and I will testify that their food is mos def unfit for consumption.

[iomelindi]

I'm bothered by the fact that it's fit for soldiers, but not for other people.

:talktohand:

I'm sure someone would eat them.

[Jolena]

I would have, if I had gone without food for more then 2 days.

[TheRoseLady]

XTC,

This is what Yahoo Search said about The Mirror:


* Daily Mirror, The - British tabloid newspaper with news, showbiz, sports, and analysis.
* Sunday Mirror

I will wait to see if the big newswires pick it up and see if there's any truth to it.

[Keller]

It probably has something to do with soldiers being under legal custody of the US government while private citizens are not. If this is true, which some of you speculate it is not, then I'm sure the FDA is protecting tax-payers from senseless litigation when Latesha get's "food-poisoning" from the crackers.

[Jazuela]

1) The rawstory article is just an exerpt of the Mirror article, and cites the Mirror right on the heading. So that isn't "new information," it's just a partial copy of the original that appeared in the Mirror.

2) The Dateline Alabama is a college online newspaper that got the story from the Associated Press, as noted in its dateline. That story says absolutely nothing about burning the food, and in fact stresses that the MREs are being set aside while they use food that isn't banned from the states first. This story states that due to the Mad Cow disease problems, no beef from Britain is allowed to be imported into the States. And so - since those MREs contain UK beef, it has to be shelved for the time being. It's understandable that they'd want to be cautious. These folks are weakened from dehydration, temporary starvation, and dangerously unclean living conditions. Introducing even the *risk* of a known disease into their diet could kill them.

The Mirror doesn't cite any sources at all, exept for a single "unnamed worker." It says "The ministry of defence says.." but doesn't mention WHO in the ministry of defence, nor does it offer a link to any official announcement. It says "The FDA says..." but doesn't mention WHO in the FDA made the statements or reference any documentation to that effect.

From what I've read, it sounds like some well-meaning British government types sent food that they knew was banned from the states, into the states. It was probably an oversight on their part, but the fact remains that any food containing british beef poses a health *risk* (meaning, not a guarantee of illness, just the risk). Better safe than sorry, and in this case I think the feds did the right thing. There's plenty other food to hand out to those who need it right now, in fact our state was told to stop sending food because they have too much and not enough people to give it to.

[Sean of the Thread]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,23889-1773364,00.html

More reputable source? I dunno shit about media abroad.

[Jazuela]

I don't know if the Times is credible or not, but it had errors, and didn't cite any of its sources. Usually, a credible paper will cite at least -some- of its sources, unless there's some security issue requiring that they keep them under wraps. They mentioned "a spokeswoman" - if the person really was a spokeswoman, they wouldn't mind being named - since that's their function. They mentioned a few of those, and didn't name any of them.

The errors: They said the food was shipped to an airfield in Little Rock, Arkansas. The food was shipped to the Little Rock Air Force Base, which is in JACKSONVILLE, Arkansas.

The second that I noticed was the misspelling of Arkansas in the next paragraph.

[Tromp]

Originally posted by Jazuela
I don't know if the Times is credible or not, but it had errors, and didn't cite any of its sources. Usually, a credible paper will cite at least -some- of its sources, unless there's some security issue requiring that they keep them under wraps. They mentioned "a spokeswoman" - if the person really was a spokeswoman, they wouldn't mind being named - since that's their function. They mentioned a few of those, and didn't name any of them.

The errors: They said the food was shipped to an airfield in Little Rock, Arkansas. The food was shipped to the Little Rock Air Force Base, which is in JACKSONVILLE, Arkansas.

The second that I noticed was the misspelling of Arkansas in the next paragraph.

So what?

[Jazuela]

Uh, Xyelin asked if it was a more reputable source. I read the article and noticed that the author didn't research his article's information very well (Or he would've learned that the air force base isn't in Little Rock, Arkansas), that the copy editor missed a spelling (and obviously they didn't use a mechanical spellchecker which would've picked it up), and that the author didn't cite any of his sources. I mentioned these things to suggest that the paper might not be more reputable. He asked, I checked, and answered.

Spokesmen/women for organizations have such titles because they are authorized by those organizations to speak to the press. Since they are authorized, there's no reason to omit their names, and including their names gives the article credibility. It's something people can check on, something they can confirm, and something they can say, "Well it was only Sue, the Janitor's secretary, so who cares what she says?" or "Ah - it was the Chief Justice of the department, and he would have access to the information he gave to the journalist."

Without citing the sources, the credibility of the article drops dramatically - and the publisher of the paper containing the article falls into dubious credibility as well for allowing it to be published without any sources cited.

[Tromp]

There's another story going around about Mexico sending the disaster response team of their Army to NO to help out. Whilst they were cooking for hundreds of people an FDA official made them stop until he checked out the correct temp on their "casserole" etc. Thus ruining the hot meal. Once again this is a rumor.

Moral of the story is that 1 story is a rumor... numerous stories of not knowing your a$$ from your elbow makes one think about the legitamcy of it all.

my2cents so go ahead and tear it up to shreds.

Aticle reference:

Home : Press Room : News Clips : Featured News

http://www.immigrationforum.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=609



[Edited on 9-21-2005 by Tromp]

[Edited on 9-21-2005 by Tromp]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Xyelin
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,23889-1773364,00.html

More reputable source? I dunno shit about media abroad.

The Times is a very reputable paper. They spelt Arkansas wrong. To be honest they made the same small mistakes that US Newspapers do all the time when writing about other countries. I have found errors in the New York Times and The Washington Post when writing about Canada.

If the Times has written it I am inclined to believe it.

[xtc]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady
XTC,

This is what Yahoo Search said about The Mirror:


* Daily Mirror, The - British tabloid newspaper with news, showbiz, sports, and analysis.
* Sunday Mirror

I will wait to see if the big newswires pick it up and see if there's any truth to it.

I think the use of the word tabloid is misleading for people. They immediately think The National Enquirer, it is a tabloid the way The Toronto Sun is a tabloid.

Here is Oxford's dictionary defintion of tabloid.

tabloid

• noun a newspaper having pages half the size of those of the average broadsheet, typically popular in style.

— ORIGIN originally a proprietary term for a medicinal tablet: the current sense reflects the notion of information being presented in a form that is concentrated and easily assimilable


Tabloid does not mean untrue.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Jazuela
That story says absolutely nothing about burning the food

It mentions burning the food in several parts of the article.

"HUNDREDS of tons of British food aid shipped to America for starving Hurricane Katrina survivors is to be burned."



This story states that due to the Mad Cow disease problems, no beef from Britain is allowed to be imported into the States. And so - since those MREs contain UK beef, it has to be shelved for the time being. It's understandable that they'd want to be cautious. These folks are weakened from dehydration, temporary starvation, and dangerously unclean living conditions. Introducing even the *risk* of a known disease into their diet could kill them.


There are more cases of Mad cow disease in America than Britain these days, so it is a ridiculous excuse for holding the food. British soldiers in Iraq are eating this food.


The Mirror doesn't cite any sources at all, exept for a single "unnamed worker." It says "The ministry of defence says.." but doesn't mention WHO in the ministry of defence, nor does it offer a link to any official announcement. It says "The FDA says..." but doesn't mention WHO in the FDA made the statements or reference any documentation to that effect.

Anonymous sources are not unheard of in journalism.

[Jazuela]

xtc, try reading my post again. I'll copy the quote that you quoted out of context:


2) The Dateline Alabama is a college online newspaper that got the story from the Associated Press, as noted in its dateline. That story says absolutely nothing about burning the food, and in fact stresses that the MREs are being set aside while they use food that isn't banned from the states first.

The Dateline Alabama story says absolutely nothing about burning the food. Check it out for yourself. It says absolutely nothing about burning food. Nothing. It isn't even mentioned.

As for not citing sources, this is often how "editorial" or "sensational" journalists get away with passing rumors as truth: They make claims, but don't mention names (and don't even claim anyone asked to remain anonymous), so no one can do any fact checking. In the Times story, there were departments mentioned as "saying" thing, with no reference to the name or even the official title of the person (other than "spokeswoman"). This article doesn't say the "spokeswoman" asked for her name to be left out. It doesn't say it was an anonymous source. It was a "spokesperson," which by journalistic definition, implies that the person was authorized to speak on behalf of whoever she was working for. If she was authorized to speak on their behalf, there should be absolutely no problem mentioning her name - because, y'know, she was authorized to talk. That is the function of a spokesperson. To speak officially on behalf of his or her department/employer.

The fact that there was no "requested to be unnamed" or "anonymous source within the department", and the term "spokeswoman" was specified, it stands to reason that the article is dubious, at best.