On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 09:50:10 +0100 (BST), Dave Liquorice wrote:
[snip]

Evidence for that please? "Sewage" implies foul water from a toilet,
rather than waste machine washing water.

Sewage implies foul water heading for the sewers from any source. Cadbury
are being disingenuous (to the point of being lying *******s) simply
referring to "a pipe". However to get the levels of contamination referred
to from drips of water there must have been a high level of faecal material
in the source. Remember salmonella spp will form a tiny part of the
bacterial load of sewage and salmonella is sensitive to detergents and
temperature and hence much less likely to have come from hand washing or
machine washing waste water.


I've not seen any reference to
"crossing" only running adjacent and splashes from drips reaching the
line.

sigh

You can get picky about whether the pipe crossed a production line at right
angles or ran parallel to it, but the fact is that for water to drop
vertically from a pipe the pipe must be above the production line.

Reported levels of contamination are extremely low as well. Figures
commonly quoted are 0.3 cells/100g, the "alert" level is 10 cells/100g,
with the level required to make you ill around 1,000,000 cells/100g.

Only a ****wit would regard contamination by salmonella as low or
insignificant.

I suspect that as the level detected was way below the "alert" level
Cadbury didn't bother to tell the FSA but just quietly found and fixed
the leak.

Yup, there's no doubt that they covered up. And that some marketing bod
made the decision that a few million contaminated bars of chocolate
wouldn't hurt Cadbury's image too much. It only came to light when an
independent laboratory blew the whistle.

The FSA spotted an increase in the number of cases involving
this rare strain salmonella and started digging. Eventually finding the a
lab that had some +ve results for samples from Cadbury. As they hadn't
been told (no need, level so low...)


Untrue, the lab volunteered the information to the FSA, Cadbury did not.


the FSA then go "overboard" telling
Cadbury to remove all products from the market place that might
conceivably be contaminated, even though Cadbury have reported that only
about 5,000 bars have any significant risk. The rest is pure media hype.

The question that should be asked, as there has been a rise in the number
of cases, is: Is the general testing for and reporting of salmonella
strict enough?

The question is, what sort of disgusting ******* discovers salmonella and
evidence of sewage contamination in a foodstuff and puts commerce ahead of
common sense? We've not seen, and we should by now have seen the figures
for faecal coliforms in this chocolate.

Personally we have a box of 60 Freddo Bars bought about a month ago. Many
of which have been eaten with no ill effects what so ever. We aren't
going to return 'em.

I can only hope that you like eating ****, and have eaten sufficient in the
past that you don't have reason to fear either salmonella or coliforms.

It's amusing to see that you and others have swallowed (literally in your
case) Cadbury's **** and are happy to accept these repetitions of the term
"insignificant". FSA have acted correctly IMO, and Cadburys bull**** about
increasing number of infections being the trigger rather than the fact that
they knowingly sold contaminated food rather than lose some money, remains
simply bull****. I heard their spokesdroid on R4 this weekend and it was a
masterpiece of spin designed to confuse the issue as much as possible.

They should be forced to come clean (ha!) and state openly that they sold
****-contaminated chocolate.