Paraphrase this article

Supporters of the Soda Tax:

Supporters of the soda tax might include public health advocates, nutritionists, and policymakers concerned about the rising rates of obesity and related health issues. They argue that implementing a soda tax can help reduce consumption of sugary beverages, which are linked to obesity, diabetes, and other health problems. They believe that the tax can serve as a deterrent and generate revenue that can be used for public health programs.

Opposition to the Soda Tax:

Those opposed to the soda tax could include beverage industry representatives, consumers, and individuals who prioritize personal choice and limited government intervention. They argue that the tax unfairly targets a specific industry and places an additional burden on consumers. They may also argue that the tax is regressive, as it disproportionately affects low-income individuals who may rely on affordable sugary drinks. Additionally, opponents may believe that education and personal responsibility, rather than taxation, are more effective in addressing public health concerns.

Paraphrase this

• Think about what you will write before you begin writing.
• State your opinion clearly and give two or more reasons to support your opinion.
• The paragraphs should include at least three complete sentences.
• Check your writing for correct grammar, capital letters, punctuation, and spelling.

One of the most catastrophic events in the food industry, known as the horse meat scandal or ‘Horsegate’, occurred only recently. 

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) carried out industry testing on frozen beef products, beef ingredients and other ingredients in December of 2012. The test results showed unknown DNA was present in the samples, so the samples were tested again for the presence of bovine (cow), porcine (pig), and equine (horse) DNA [1]. A total of 957 tests were performed. Out of those samples, 928 were found to be negative and 29 samples representing 7 products were found to be positive for the presence of equine meat [2]. These products were sold throughout the UK, Ireland and Europe until the FSAI released their findings in January of 2013. After the findings were released in 2013 all products were withdrawn from the market.

The testing done by the FSAI included a range of suppliers, caterers, processors, manufactures and retailers [2]. The wide range of testing showed major companies including Aldi, Findus and Tesco were main contributors in selling horse meat. Popular items were being sold as ‘beef’ products such as burgers, spaghetti bolognese, and frozen lasagne which tested up to 100% for the presence of horse meat [1].

Further investigation found common suppliers between the three companies for the burger products and the lasagne and spaghetti ready meals. Tesco released a public statement, confirming they immediately withdrew all sales from the suppliers in question and were working with authorities in both Ireland and the UK to ensure this did not occur again [3]. Aldi removed ready meals from their shelves and released in a public statement they were conducting their own investigations [3]. The third company, Findus, withdrew all sales from the supplier of their 100% horsemeat lasagnes.

Long paper trails made it difficult to find involved personnel, or place blame. In the case of the most contaminated product, the 100% horse meat lasagna sold by Findus, it took an investigation into two other suppliers before figuring out when the horse meat was labeled as beef. This popular lasagna was supplied to Findus by Comigel, a factory based in France. After extensive investigation, the next company, Spanghero who first supplied the beef to Comigel was investigated. It was found that Spanghero first imported the meat from Romania where it left labelled as horse meat. It wasn’t until the 750 tonnes of meat entered Spanghero was it labelled as beef [4]. After this finding Spanghero’s license was suspended, but it was of note that Comigel is also to blame. Staff should have noticed anomalies in the paperwork and realised the smell and appearance was not beef [4].

The public statement released by Prof Alan Reilly, Chief executive of the FSAI, stated the findings posed no risk to health, only raised concerns. He let consumers know any purchased implicated products could be returned to the retailer [3]. However, it was not mentioned that consuming horse meat does increase the possibility of consuming phenylbutazone, a common drug used in treatment of horses. Phenylbutazone is believed to have toxic effects when consumed by humans and has been removed from the market in many countries including the United States [1].

Consumers felt they were victimized when they paid for beef and instead unknowingly received a cheaper horsemeat alternative. They then learned the horsemeat they consumed could have been contaminated with illegal pharmaceuticals, such as phenylbutazone. They were also victims psychologically, having unintentionally eaten an animal they considered pets. Consumers have experienced and suffered from trauma, guilt and disgust [1]. Businesses suffered after the scandal, with 30% of shoppers buying less processed meat and 24% switching to vegetarian alternatives [1].

The Government Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) commissioned a report after the horsemeat scandal to determine how this happened and to prevent it from happening again. The report was titled the ‘Elliot Review’ and was published in 2013. The first issue the Elliott Review discovered was that there was no central body in charge of these food related crimes and there was no central database to store records. This meant you could not search for crimes related to food fraud or food crime. The lack of accountability and control heavily contributed to food fraud and is what made food crimes so accessible [1]. The food fraud business was estimated to be more lucrative than the small arms trade and drug smuggling combined [1].

In 2019 recommendations made by the Elliott Review were implemented. Starting with the National crime unit (NCU) which was established to help with investigations, gather information and have its own authority to make arrests or lead investigations. The NCU also works closely with the Food Fraud Network to help combat the issue as a team [1]. A considerable increase in authenticity testing has also been seen. It is now a part of general industry audit work and involves targeted, planned testing [1]. In 2014 a round of coordinated testing for horse meat DNA in beef products was launched and showed only 0.61% of samples tested positive [1].

The Food Authenticity Network recommended by Elliot, works with the network LGC, an UK biotechnology company to ensure there is access to laboratories to provide authenticity testing for foods [1]. Since Horsegate, individual retailers are putting their own stringent testing processes in place. It has been recommended as a general solution to have shorter supply chains, and traceable food [1].  

Questions

1. Do you think consumers should have been compensated for unknowingly consuming horse meat? Explain.
2. What procedures do you think laboratories will be doing to test for the presence of horse meat? Explain.
3. Why do you think it took the FSAI one year before they released their findings and a statement? Explain.

CSE references

[1] What Did We Learn from the Horsemeat Scandal and Should We Still be Worried? 2019 June 19.UK: High Speed Training; [ accessed 2023 February 5]. 

[2] Food Safety Authority of Ireland. 2013 March 4. FSAI Publishes Results of Industry Tests for Horse Meat. [accessed 2023 February 5]. 

[3] Horsemeat discovered in burgers sold by Four British Supermarkets. 2013 January 16. UK news: The Guardian; [accessed 2023 February 5]. 

After reading briefly answers the 3 questions. 

One of the most catastrophic events in the food industry, known as the horse meat scandal or ‘Horsegate’, occurred only recently. 

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) carried out industry testing on frozen beef products, beef ingredients and other ingredients in December of 2012. The test results showed unknown DNA was present in the samples, so the samples were tested again for the presence of bovine (cow), porcine (pig), and equine (horse) DNA [1]. A total of 957 tests were performed. Out of those samples, 928 were found to be negative and 29 samples representing 7 products were found to be positive for the presence of equine meat [2]. These products were sold throughout the UK, Ireland and Europe until the FSAI released their findings in January of 2013. After the findings were released in 2013 all products were withdrawn from the market.

The testing done by the FSAI included a range of suppliers, caterers, processors, manufactures and retailers [2]. The wide range of testing showed major companies including Aldi, Findus and Tesco were main contributors in selling horse meat. Popular items were being sold as ‘beef’ products such as burgers, spaghetti bolognese, and frozen lasagne which tested up to 100% for the presence of horse meat [1].

Further investigation found common suppliers between the three companies for the burger products and the lasagne and spaghetti ready meals. Tesco released a public statement, confirming they immediately withdrew all sales from the suppliers in question and were working with authorities in both Ireland and the UK to ensure this did not occur again [3]. Aldi removed ready meals from their shelves and released in a public statement they were conducting their own investigations [3]. The third company, Findus, withdrew all sales from the supplier of their 100% horsemeat lasagnes.

Long paper trails made it difficult to find involved personnel, or place blame. In the case of the most contaminated product, the 100% horse meat lasagna sold by Findus, it took an investigation into two other suppliers before figuring out when the horse meat was labeled as beef. This popular lasagna was supplied to Findus by Comigel, a factory based in France. After extensive investigation, the next company, Spanghero who first supplied the beef to Comigel was investigated. It was found that Spanghero first imported the meat from Romania where it left labelled as horse meat. It wasn’t until the 750 tonnes of meat entered Spanghero was it labelled as beef [4]. After this finding Spanghero’s license was suspended, but it was of note that Comigel is also to blame. Staff should have noticed anomalies in the paperwork and realised the smell and appearance was not beef [4].

The public statement released by Prof Alan Reilly, Chief executive of the FSAI, stated the findings posed no risk to health, only raised concerns. He let consumers know any purchased implicated products could be returned to the retailer [3]. However, it was not mentioned that consuming horse meat does increase the possibility of consuming phenylbutazone, a common drug used in treatment of horses. Phenylbutazone is believed to have toxic effects when consumed by humans and has been removed from the market in many countries including the United States [1].

Consumers felt they were victimized when they paid for beef and instead unknowingly received a cheaper horsemeat alternative. They then learned the horsemeat they consumed could have been contaminated with illegal pharmaceuticals, such as phenylbutazone. They were also victims psychologically, having unintentionally eaten an animal they considered pets. Consumers have experienced and suffered from trauma, guilt and disgust [1]. Businesses suffered after the scandal, with 30% of shoppers buying less processed meat and 24% switching to vegetarian alternatives [1].

The Government Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) commissioned a report after the horsemeat scandal to determine how this happened and to prevent it from happening again. The report was titled the ‘Elliot Review’ and was published in 2013. The first issue the Elliott Review discovered was that there was no central body in charge of these food related crimes and there was no central database to store records. This meant you could not search for crimes related to food fraud or food crime. The lack of accountability and control heavily contributed to food fraud and is what made food crimes so accessible [1]. The food fraud business was estimated to be more lucrative than the small arms trade and drug smuggling combined [1].

In 2019 recommendations made by the Elliott Review were implemented. Starting with the National crime unit (NCU) which was established to help with investigations, gather information and have its own authority to make arrests or lead investigations. The NCU also works closely with the Food Fraud Network to help combat the issue as a team [1]. A considerable increase in authenticity testing has also been seen. It is now a part of general industry audit work and involves targeted, planned testing [1]. In 2014 a round of coordinated testing for horse meat DNA in beef products was launched and showed only 0.61% of samples tested positive [1].

The Food Authenticity Network recommended by Elliot, works with the network LGC, an UK biotechnology company to ensure there is access to laboratories to provide authenticity testing for foods [1]. Since Horsegate, individual retailers are putting their own stringent testing processes in place. It has been recommended as a general solution to have shorter supply chains, and traceable food [1].  

Questions

1. Do you think consumers should have been compensated for unknowingly consuming horse meat? Explain.
2. What procedures do you think laboratories will be doing to test for the presence of horse meat? Explain.
3. Why do you think it took the FSAI one year before they released their findings and a statement? Explain.

CSE references

[1] What Did We Learn from the Horsemeat Scandal and Should We Still be Worried? 2019 June 19.UK: High Speed Training; [ accessed 2023 February 5]. 

[2] Food Safety Authority of Ireland. 2013 March 4. FSAI Publishes Results of Industry Tests for Horse Meat. [accessed 2023 February 5]. 

[3] Horsemeat discovered in burgers sold by Four British Supermarkets. 2013 January 16. UK news: The Guardian; [accessed 2023 February 5].