(un)fit for (human) consumption (for sure), but (un)fit to eat or (un)fit to be eaten

[JACEK1]

Hello everybody!

I think we can say "the meat is (un)fit for (human) consumption" with 100 % certainty.

What about these ways of expressing the same thought?

"The meat is (un)fit to eat" or "The meat is (un)fit to be eaten"?

In my opinion, both of them may be used, but I may be wrong.

Thank you.

 

[bhaisahab]

Hello everybody!

I think we can say "the meat is (un)fit for (human) consumption" with 100 % certainty.

What about these ways of expressing the same thought?

"The meat is (un)fit to eat" or "The meat is (un)fit to be eaten"?

In my opinion, both of them may be used, but I may be wrong.

Thank you.

They are OK.

 

[Raymott]

But of course if you add 'human', then it doesn't necessarily apply to feeding it to animals. So, you'd need to add "by humans" if you want the second lot to mean the same thing.

 

[JACEK1]

Would it be possible to say "The meat is (un)fit for human to eat"?

I think so, but I prefer to check with you.

 

[Raymott]

Would it be possible to say "The meat is (un)fit for humans to eat"?

I think so, but I prefer to check with you.

Or, "The meat is unfit to be eaten by humans."

 

[MikeNewYork]

Would it be possible to say "The meat is (un)fit for human to eat"?

I think so, but I prefer to check with you.

In your sentence, it must be "humans".

 

[beesting]

**Not A Teacher**

Would it be possible to say "The meat is (un)fit for humans to eat"?

I think so, but I prefer to check with you.

With the added "s", it is correct.

As an aside note,
I couldn't help noticing the unintentional double entendre in your post. ;-)

 

[Raymott]

In your sentence, it must be "humans".

That's why I corrected it.

 

[MikeNewYork]

That's why I corrected it.

I didn't see that.