which supports my point:"US rejects British Katrina beef
 The US said meals were overlooked due to the chaos after Katrina
The US has blocked the distribution of around 350,000 packaged meals donated by Britain for victims of Hurricane Katrina, because of mad cow disease."

the US has decided, rightly or wrongly, that they don't want Brit beef.  so that is the issue, nothing about rudely turning down charity.

No takers'

"By the time our inspectors were on the ground, we had confirmed that there was no longer the emergency need," she said.

"It's critical to the story that our inspectors confirmed that the people were being fed before they held back any MREs (Meals Ready to Eat)."

Adam Ereli, deputy spokesman at the State Department, said Washington was looking at other countries to donate the food to, but had not yet found any takers.

"We are looking to use these MREs in the same spirit of charity and goodwill that they were provided to us.

"We would certainly hope that other countries in need, or other needy populations would be able to make use of them, and we certainly invite any countries that see a need to contact us," he said.

While I'm glad you referenced the article, it seems odd that your comments slanted the meaning of the article, don't you think?