More information about our Cookie Policy.
The present website is hosted by WordPress.com, a service by Automattic. Automattic is a global company with thousands of servers located in several separate data centres around the world. While Automattic takes care of the security of the platform, we, the European Parliamentary Research Service, own the content of the blog. For more detailed information about the compliance of Automattic products and services with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), please see their dedicated page.
Data collected
We do not collect any personal data that could identify an individual user. The users that are registered in WordPress.com should consult wordpress.com terms of service. We do collect anonymised aggregate data for statistical purposes. The data collected for this purposes include: number of visits/visitors per page, the country of the user, and aggregate numbers of incoming and outgoing clicks.
We determine unique page counts by using a “hashed” version of the visitor’s IP address. The visitor’s full IP address is deleted from our logs after a little over a month. That timeframe is how long the data is needed in order to allow us to calculate your stats on a monthly basis and no longer.
We collect your email address only if you proactively requested to be notified about the updates on the blog. You can always contact us to remove your email address from our records or unsubscribe from the notification service.
We can also see your name and email address if you made a comment to one of our posts. We do not make the email address visible on the comment. Nevertheless, on request, we can delete your comments.
Cookies
We collect cookies only to facilitate your browsing experience, such as enabling you to share our posts via social media or comment on the post. The majority of cookies will be used only if you are a registered WordPress.com user. In this case, you are bound to WordPress.com terms of service.
Some pages embed content from third parties. In this case, you will need to actively consent to their terms in order to see the content.
We do not collect cookies to show advertisement nor resell any information collected with cookies to third parties. Read more about the wordpress.com cookie policy and the way to control cookies on their dedicated page.
[…] contribution to a global issue covers the worrying issue of wastefulness in developed society, and Fighting food fraud gives an overview of the EU’s response to scandals which affect all of us in the supermarkets […]
The horsemeat – beef scandal was far from NOT being a safety concern. They spot tested and found ‘bute’ – which is never allowed in food animals and they still have never determined the origin of the horsemeat or if the horses were safe to eat. SInce the UK continues to import Canadian and Mexican horsemeat, which is largely U.S. completely unregulated horses – just how ‘safe’ can any UK horsemeat actually be? U.S. horses don’t have passports and no drug history follows a horse from owner to owner. U.S. horse dealers are allowed to fabricate the foreign drug affidavits immediately after acquiring a horse and ship it the SAME day. Inspection or testing is not 100% and is just a cursory check of what is suppose to be a known quality. The known quality of U.S. horses or what would be U.S. horse meat is that it would be largely adulterated as horses are entirely unregulated and almost everything U.S. horse owners give them is labeled ‘not for use on animals used for human consumption’. What is the purpose of the UK horse passport system when the passports are easily lost and replaced clean pr they are forged AND the UK continues to import horse meat from the U.S. via Canada and Mexico that are entirely unregulated?
We based ourself on these test results:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-331_en.htm
These results correspond with the joint statement published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) on 15 April 2013 which concluded that the risks associated to bute were of “low concern for consumers due to the low likelihood of exposure and the overall low likelihood of toxic effects and that, on a given day, the probability of a consumer being both susceptible to developing aplastic anaemia and being exposed to phenylbutazone was estimated to range approximately from 2 in a trillion to 1 in 100 million.”