Supermarkets Vs Butchers

stephen77

snowcat75 wrote: »

The Fact that someone like Mcdonalds who pay UK producers decently, but who are very particular about where there product comes from, never became part of scandal proves the point.
.

suggesting MacDonald's use a decent quality of meat on this forum is completely against the grain of most posters.


But they have used the same suppliers/farms as Tesco for some of there products.
Of course Tesco uses a far greater range as lots of different lines.

snowcat75

stephen77 wrote: »

suggesting MacDonald's use a decent quality of meat on this forum is completely against the grain of most posters.


But they have used the same suppliers/farms as Tesco for some of there products.
Of course Tesco uses a far greater range as lots of different lines.

Mcdonalds has some of the best tractability systems in place within the industry, maybe that might be hard to swallow for some posters, but how many of them produce Hi-olec oils to there standards???.. There eithics as a corporation and there food nutrition are possibly of some debate, but if you want to know where any of there ingredients have come from I can 100% guarantee you that someone in there office could even find you the service intervals on the machinery used to produce that ingredient.

Farms can supply to multiple outlets, the major difference is the contract spec, however if its produced in the UK it will conform to ACCS, allong with all the other Defra regs, we are audited annually.

The problem is many supermarkets for many many years, were and are buying food from the cheapest source then using misleading packaging to somehow make it look like it was UK produced. They still do it with things like mushrooms which they destroyed 95% of the home market set up in eastern Europe repack in the UK then stick a nice big Union jack on front.


One things for sure, foods cheep, It wont remain this way, Fuel prices an inputs have quadrupled over the last 15 years, they are not going to fall, populations rise, and our ability to produce food yield wise remains static at best. I think every politician is dreading the day when supermarket shelves can no longer be kept full, I have no doubt however it will happen.

A._Badger

stephen77 wrote: »

Not making it up. In general on this forum, not just this post. If you read between the lines there are many claiming super markets are bad, with Tesco taking the brunt of the criticism. Aldi and Lidl are some where in the middle. With local small stores being the brilliant.


As for not knowing quality meat when I see it. May be you need to get better at cooking it.

That's "reading between the lines" as in "making up what I want to have read"isn't it?

Presumably that's why you never quote.

If you actually read what I have written, you would have seen that I have repeatedly said that I find meat from Morrisons (pretty much at the lower end of the market in the food snob ratings) superior to that from Saisnbury's (somewhere in the middle of the supermarket class war).

So much for the snobbery theory.

And why did I start using Morrisons? Because people on this forum kept posting that Morrison's meat was generally better than that from the rest. Eventually, I tried it and I agreed.

Then came the horsemeat saga and explanations started to appear. Morrison's were one of the few supermarkets to have came out of the whole debacle quite well. Better than Waitrose in fact.

So, no, this isn't about snobbery,. it's about discernment and recognising quality when you see it.

stephen77

snowcat75 wrote: »

Mcdonalds has some of the best tractability systems in place within the industry, maybe that might be hard to swallow for some posters, but how many of them produce Hi-olec oils to there standards???.. There eithics as a corporation and there food nutrition are possibly of some debate, but if you want to know where any of there ingredients have come from I can 100% guarantee you that someone in there office could even find you the service intervals on the machinery used to produce that ingredient.

.

Easy for me to swallow as MacDonald's have to be whiter than white. one slip up and the daily mail will be ready to pounce.


Nutritionally they are what they are, and with out checking, they are likely to decreased there salt levels in food in line with FSA guidelines etc.

stephen77

A._Badger wrote: »

That's "reading between the lines" as in "making up what I want to have read"isn't it?

Presumably that's why you never quote..

When I say "in general" on this forum.

I did not say you said it, hence no quote, as it a feeling I and other people have commented on.


Are you denying there is a fair amount of hatred towards Tesco on here then?

A._Badger wrote: »

If you actually read what I have written, you would have seen that I have repeatedly said that I find meat from Morrisons (pretty much at the lower end of the market in the food snob ratings) superior to that from Saisnbury's (somewhere in the middle of the supermarket class war).

So much for the snobbery theory.
.

Where did I mention snobbery? Please quote where I mentioned that?
that was another poster.

A._Badger wrote: »

And why did I start using Morrisons? Because people on this forum kept posting that Morrison's meat was generally better than that from the rest. Eventually, I tried it and I agreed.

Then came the horsemeat saga and explanations started to appear. Morrison's were one of the few supermarkets to have came out of the whole debacle quite well. Better than Waitrose in fact.

So, no, this isn't about snobbery,. it's about discernment and recognising quality when you see it.

stephen77

snowcat75 wrote: »

One things for sure, foods cheep, It wont remain this way, Fuel prices an inputs have quadrupled over the last 15 years, they are not going to fall, populations rise, and our ability to produce food yield wise remains static at best. I think every politician is dreading the day when supermarket shelves can no longer be kept full, I have no doubt however it will happen.

I think that's when the GM push will come along.


Plus organic might suffer as well.

snowcat75

stephen77 wrote: »

I think that's when the GM push will come along.


Plus organic might suffer as well.

GM crops have lower yields, they are more about reduceing production costs, In North America and Australia they have much lower yield crops anyhow and use land and scales of production to compensate, here in the UK especially we push to get the highest yields possible, mostly due to or kind temperate climate.

I do think however GM crops could be of some benefit, and would like to see them trialed rationally, however as Monsanto got sick of the trail by Middle class suburbanites and idots without jobs in white suits making the decisions rather than scientific facts that, they have no interest in the UK market.

Organic is a gimmick pure and simple, the food has no benefits to either humans, our feathered friends or them with four legs, in actual fact wildlife tends to decline on Organic farms as dragging a hoe through once a week destroys anything that is attempting to nest. I would even go as far as saying its moral wrong as land should be used to its full providential and providing sustainable food for the masses, not providing a small niche product aimed firmly at the Chelsea mothers.

stephen77

snowcat75 wrote: »

Organic is a gimmick pure and simple, the food has no benefits to either humans, our feathered friends or them with four legs, in actual fact wildlife tends to decline on Organic farms as dragging a hoe through once a week destroys anything that is attempting to nest. I would even go as far as saying its moral wrong as land should be used to its full providential and providing sustainable food for the masses, not providing a small niche product aimed firmly at the Chelsea mothers.

Very interesting thank you.
I am not a fan of organic. Well more I see no benefit from organoleptic / nutritional benefits over the non-organic equivalent so no point paying a premium for this.

However I never seen a moral argument against it before.