Supply chain control ... do you have any views?

The issue for me isn't so much the mix of meat in the products (although if I want beef or lamb or whatever clearly i should be able to rely 100% on the product being what it says on its particular tin). No, the sale of any meat from places like Tesco carries with it an implicit guarantee that, whatever meat it is, they [iknow[/i where it has come from, what it is, how it was produced, and are happy it conforms to all applicable standards.

Thus the problem with unexpectedly finding a different ingredient isn't what that ingredient is, it's the obvious point that as it shouldn't be there, by definition Tesco are buying meat products where unbeknownst to them they suddenly cannot, at all, rely on anything the supplier says about the safety of their meat. Because somewhere along the line, somebody is [imaking money[/i by chucking horse into the mix (and would of course not be doing it for any other reason - as has been pointed out, properly produced horsemeat is not cheap).

The clear implication is that padding out with horsemeat made somebody money, because the horsemeat they used was nearer "unfit for human consumption" standard than French gourmet standard. Maybe someone, just for instance, nicked a container load destined for the dogfood factory.

So It's not that it's horse. That is an issue, but safety is the big thing, and type of meat is very secondary. It's that they've no idea what state that meat was in.

I couldn't agree more - the issue here is about appropriate labelling of food and the retailer having some realiable information about the provenance of what they are selling; if there is a scandal, it's that. I don't suppose many consumers will question themselves - is it reasonable for example to expect to buy a packet of burgers for ten bob and expect them to be made with the finest beef cuts? You are certainly eating mechanically reclaimed 'meat', consisting of lips, eyelids and s, but I suppose having made that choice, you are entitled to know that you're eating mechanically reclaimed cows aresholes as opposed to horses.

The wider issue about the morality of eating a horse is a bit lost on me; if you're ok with killing animals to eat, I don't really understand how the line is drawn, other than the social construct that affords horses with more likeability than cows.

I'm a vegetarian by the way, hence the smugness.

You must be knackered after typing all that

If we are eating horse in our burgers we deserve to know the tr-hoof.

Neigh, neigh, thrice neigh!

Just a quick note that 100% beef means 100% of the meat has come from a cow - it does not mean 100% prime cuts.

If you see 100% beef you could still be eating cow's lips, udders, hoofs, etc.

Or seemingly the offal of any other farm animal whose carcass is to hand.

I don't think you'll start nuzzling people, eating hay or jumping fences if you eat horse burgers.

I've nearly lost my voice since I ate one.

I popped into Tesco's cafe today and got a burger. The girl asked me if I wanted anything on it so said 'a fiver each way'

Some serious misinformation on here.

"Meat" means skeletal muscle with naturally included or attached fat and connective tissue.

Mechanically recovered meat (MRM) is NOT offal, it is what they blast off the bones AFTER they have removed everything else. It's basically like a slurry. Most cheap hotdogs are made of it.

MRM, heart, tongue, etc. are NOT meat for the purposes of calculating other type of meat contents.

To call something "beef" it can be up to 25% fat and up to 25% connective tissue but NOT "unconnected" fat that is not part of the cut, and NOT tissue from elsewhere.

A burger must be 62% meat (as per above definition).
An economy burger described as such can be 47%.
(for pork burgers it's 67% and 50%)

Meat pies - between 10% - 12%

Meat + something else eg steak and kidney pie or pasty 6%-7%

rl The Meat Products (England) Regulations 2003rl