Talk:Meat and bone meal

Merge from bone meal

Why don't you agree with the merge proposal? Also, the proposal was up for more than 5 days without reply, so I went through with it. I think it should be merged as a quality issue. You could have created all the information on that article under "meat and bone meal" which would have been more logical. The fact that it was created apart does not change this. I kept all the information after the merge; nothing was lost through it. Tom 21:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Bone meal is a completely different product from "meat and bone meal", and is used for different purposes. Dbfirs (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I can not see any good reason to merge these two items. They are different things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.84.205 (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look on the internet, the vast majority of hits are a) garden fertilizer or b) the controversy over using bone meal as an animal feed. Neither of which really lead into human food, which is what I assume this "Food and Drink" section is. Maureen Johnson Smith Long (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the merge proposal tag from both articles, since it's been up for a year and they are pretty clearly different products used for different purposes. --Fullobeans (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

But what IS it?

This article doesn't actually say what materials go into meat meal. Is there a range of possibilities? Is it just rendered beef & chicken? Is it anything that can be called "meat"? Does it have Soylent Green in it?  ;)

Thanks, DG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.168.188.130 (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a Canadian documentary on google video called FrankenSteer - The Passionate Eye, that shows how "meat and bone meal" is manufactured (and fed to cows for its protein content) at minute 19:30, discussing its relation with the mad cow disease.

"Frankensteer is a disturbing documentary that reveals how the ordinary cow has been turned into an antibiotic-dependent, hormone-laced potential carrier of toxic bacteria.. ":

Here's the link: FrankenSteer - The Passionate Eye --84.229.191.140 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguity

"Regulation (EC) No.999/2001 introduced EU-wide regulations, which relaxed UK controls." This seems to imply the UK had tight domestic regulations which were loosened by an EU regulation, but this seems dubious since AIUI an EU regulation can only make regulations tighter than a member state's domestic regulations (in the same way a Directive lays down minimum standards, which a member state may exceed but may not fall short of). Should this say "controls on UK products" instead? Hairy Dude (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)