You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
From the bbc
More than a fifth of meat sample tests in 2017 found DNA from animals not on the labelling, the BBC has learned.
Not fantastic especially following the horse meat excitement. And
Samples contaminated by un-named DNA at a level of less than 1% were excluded from the results on the basis they could have been caused by poor hygiene.
Oddly I find that up to 1% contamination due to “poor hygiene” being acceptable as slightly more disturbing. I always assumed stuff was cleaned between production runs...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45371852
Chicken washed in chlorine?
No fanx.
It's our own fault, generally, same as the milk issue, we the consumer want cheaper and cheaper products, ye canny polish a turd, and glitter doesn't get past the sampling process..
It’s our own fault, generally, same as the milk issue, we the consumer want cheaper and cheaper products,
I totally agree.
Our chippy has "meat" pies so owt could be in those. As for the items simply labeled "pudding", who knows?
Chicken washed in chlorine?
No fanx.
How about bread washed in caustic soda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lye_roll
The most commonly mis-labelled product was mince meat, while sausages, kebabs and restaurant curries also featured prominently
Other products in the dataset include ready meals such as spaghetti Bolognese and curries, pizzas and a portion of ostrich meat, which contained only beef
Yep when you grind it down that causes issues. It will also reduce the amount we are talking about significantly.
I think the argument against chlorine washed chicken is that it's a sticking plaster applied to compensate for poor welfare/hygiene.
There's been very good work done showing the amount of product which would need to be discarded to eliminate ;carry-over' when changing from one product to another and it's significant.
As above, if you want your 99p burgers you pretty much cannot afford to throw anything away.
Modern molecular testing methods have a very low limit of detection, so it is a pragmatic solution to have a limit below which 'contamination' is 'acceptable'. The only way to get to 'zero' would be entirely separate facilities.
Matt
Without seeing the data (how much above 1%) and the processes it is hard to get the pitchforks out. Also if it is being handled at a local level I am guessing these checks are on the stuff your local butcher is making rather than the stuff mass made for the supermarkets but I could be wrong.
it was odd to me to see goat and ostrich contamination. The “contamination” has probably been going on for years but it did make me wonder in the trial by Twitter age what would happen if you were only selling 99% of what was expected for other products.