£2.7 million worth of UK rejected by the US!

[HRHQoQ]

here

and now it's costing them $16,000 a month storing it while they find a suitable foreign recipient!

[jacobsmummy]

Bloody Americans! don't get me started(and don't even mention the French! )

[pixel]

Why don't they send them back then? If they can afford to waste $16000 a month then imo they didn't really need our help in the first place.

[aloha]

ooh, can I have it?

[munz]

bloody cheek send them back our boys can use them then can't they - I knwo the food's not the best but it's better than nothing.

[LadySherlockofLGJ]

Leave it there until we need it, let them pay the rental costs.


There are people starving in the world. FGS

[Medea]

I know it seems stupid, by the US is paranoid about BSE. . .I mean, I'm technically not even allowed to donate blood over there b/c I've lived in the UK for too long. It's probably quite a red-tape legal thing, I should think, having to do with strict Food & Drug Adminstration guidelines. So even if rationally people over there know the food isn't tainted, there's probably not much that can be done about allowing its use.

[Blu]

It's shelf-life is running out.
I read in the Observer on sunday that they are looking into the possibility of sending it to Guatamala.
Aloha - you cannot eat half a million packs of army rations, you will explode, and you won't like it anyway.

[aloha]

Oh bugger, couldn't be bothered to click on link and thought it was lovely money. Poo!

[slug]

So what's more obscene here, that the US rejected aid because of a negligible risk of BSE? Or that we are spending £2.7 million of tax payers money sending food to the most overfed nation on earth?