you cook it and put it back in the fridge...

11/6/2007 9:27:04 AM

smartest thing ive heard all day so far

11/6/2007 9:27:48 AM

like a suspect? is that because it's black?

that's racist

11/6/2007 9:28:02 AM

if it's black, i think it's too late

11/6/2007 9:29:23 AM

once you go black you never go back

[Edited on November 6, 2007 at 9:31 AM. Reason : -l]

11/6/2007 9:31:12 AM

^i liked it the way it was at first

11/6/2007 9:31:48 AM

blackening flesh is a symptom of arsenic poisoning, so that may very well be true

11/6/2007 9:34:59 AM

you probably bought it from food lion.

11/6/2007 11:53:58 AM

pictures of suspect meat

11/6/2007 11:54:42 AM

or you throw it away

this is what intelligent people do

NOT FECAL JAPAN

11/6/2007 11:55:10 AM

I remember when abc or nbc got caught foodlion changing the expiration date on meat in teh early 90s then got sued

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_19961211/ai_n10096518

there ya go - in case you youngins were too young to remember what was going on at the time

i remember watching the expose when it first aired

[Edited on November 6, 2007 at 11:56 AM. Reason : ]

11/6/2007 11:55:15 AM

more:

Quote :

"If there was one point of agreement in the Food Lion vs. ABC legal battle, it was the devastation the exposÉ caused. It aired Nov. 2, 1992, on the network's "Prime Time Live" news show, which — using hidden cameras worn by two producers who surreptitiously gained employment at two separate Food Lion stores — exposed behind-the-scenes handling of putrid food. Caught on tape: old meat and fish repackaged and sold, and expired chicken smeared with barbeque sauce to hide the stench. By the end of the following day, Food Lion executives watched the company's stock plummet more than 11% — an estimated $1.9 billion. The grocer fought back by wreaking havoc in how ABC News conducts its business. It made a multibillion-dollar legal claim based not on libel but on the way in which the producers infiltrated the stores. Food Lion won a $5.5-million jury verdict in punitive damages (later reduced to $315,000) in 1997 on claims the producers and network committed fraud and trespass, and "breached their duty to loyalty" to the grocer. The decision pinned the case as a First Amendment "poster child" of what some call a new era of media litigation — news-gathering tort lawsuits, which attack a story's reporting, rather than its content. Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit swung the pendulum back in ABC's, and journalism's, favor when it ruled 2-1 that the $315,000 award tied directly to the fraud claim would be thrown out. The court let stand the two other Food Lion victories — trespass and breach of loyalty — along with the original jury awards for damage: $1 for each. "Food Lion was hoping to send a message that what was done to them was awful, and winning big damages would help make that point," said Lee Levine, an expert in news-gathering torts and an attorney at the Washington firm of Levine, Sullivan & Koch. "Well, '$2' says that's what their claim was worth." The grocer faxed a press release stating it was disappointed in the verdict, but noted the court did uphold two of its claims. Company executives have not said whether they will appeal. Most media organizations touted the verdict as a vindication for ABC and journalism, as well as a turning point in the news-gathering tort era. ABC News President David Westin said journalists "can be reassured that the First Amendment continues to protect investigative journalism." Yet, the decision didn't resolve what some say is the most compelling concern embodied in the Food Lion saga: that as long as the reporting tells a truthful story, news gathering should have some First Amendment protection from lawsuits. In fact, the court noted the press "has no special immunity from the application of general laws." And, where the court struck down the most damaging claim — fraud — it did so relying on misapplied law rather than some privilege in gathering the news, according to the ruling. Meanwhile, the court's dissenting judge said he would have affirmed the fraud finding. The three justices did offer one First Amendment reassurance when it said Food Lion could not ask for damages to its reputation from ABC stemming from torts not pertaining to libel or defamation. In other words, ABC may have trespassed, but trespass has little to do with Food Lion's public image. That's an issue for a libel suit. Still, Levine calls the ruling "two dollars shy from a slam dunk." He added in an interview last week, "There may be still a little chill in the air. But it's a lot warmer than it was three days ago." Comments like that, in turn, demands the question: could ABC conduct the same exposÉ today with impunity? When Eileen Murphy, an ABC spokeswoman, was asked about the network's willingness to tackle, with the same vigor, a project mirroring the Food Lion investigation tomorrow, she replied: "It would be a lengthy conversation. We would have to consider how important [the story is] and the risks of going forward." "

11/6/2007 12:01:01 PM

i hear foodlion's handling of the parking lot is suspect as well

11/6/2007 12:04:54 PM

The meat in the fridge wouldn't look suspect if it wasn't walking around in neighborhoods where it didn't belong.

11/6/2007 12:06:06 PM

the meat wouldn't have anything to worry about if it was innocent

11/6/2007 12:07:49 PM

i try to avoid foodlion meat; it "goes to the bad" faster than meat from HT

11/6/2007 12:54:29 PM

Quote :

"like a suspect? is that because it's black? that's racist "

11/6/2007 12:55:34 PM

^^

i don't agree with that statement.

i purchased a "nice" cut of steak from HT, a day later it started turning colors and smelling.

11/6/2007 1:09:09 PM