The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has enhanced its roster of web-based food defense courses, designed...
|
Pregnant women should reduce the use of foods and beverages in cans and plastic containers to minimise...
|
Nestlé has backed the theme of this year’s World Environment Day by participating in the ‘Think.Eat.Save’ campaign...
|
Treofan and Max India will cancel their negotiations around the earlier agreed deal for the sale of Max...
|
According to a market study, revenues from sales of packaging machinery in European countries reached nearly 10...
|
Response from Kevin McWhinney...
In response to Mr Rossides, I just want to be completely clear that my view is not ‘narrow’. As a 5th generation butcher and a meat manufacturer all my life, I am well aware of the wider implications for both the high end and low end of the market, along with what this means for small independent shops and larger corporations in the meat industry. I’m not fully aware of Mr Rossides background in meat, so I cannot comment on that. What I will say is that Mr Rossides is simply deluded to claim that “everyone in the British meat industry was taken aback by the decision”, because we weren’t. Any manufacturer that refuses to use DSM will not have been “taken aback” either. How can he claim that everyone was, when it was reported that only a small fraction uses it? I’m not turning this into a tit-for-tat match on the internet. I tried to speak to Mr Rossides less that 2 weeks ago, but he told me he was simply too busy to talk about this with me, as I wasn’t even a member of his organisation. Yet I am in the British meat industry, which he claims he knows all about. My point in this is simple. Not everyone is against this ruling or is “taken aback”. The vast majority of the public do NOT want DSM in their food, at either end of the quality spectrum. I personally have not a single issue with its usage as long as it’s clearly labelled and people can make informed decisions.
Posted by Kevin McWhinney
30 April 2012 | 15h56