"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"harry" wrote in message
...
On Feb 15, 11:08 pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message

eb.com...

On 15/02/2013 18:59, PeterC wrote:

8

Yes. Tesing for one 'contaminant' doesn't detect others. We need to
know
that it's right, not that one aspect is wrong and others aren't
detected.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Its very hard to test for the absence of something unknown.

It isnt hard to test the claim that its 100% beef.

Yes it is.

Bull**** it is. Completely routine with DNA testing.


An interesting email from the head honcho at Tesco came through this
morning. It details how they are setting up a full DNA testing programme for
all of their meat products, and making their supply chains open and
transparent to the customers. They are clearly taking the whole thing very
seriously - as they should, of course - but seem to be implying that as a
result of their testing, and new on-going monitoring processes, they *will*
be able to say with 100% certainty, exactly what is in the product. I would
agree that it should be routine to determine this from the DNA testing, as
the police forensic labs seem to manage to be able to separate the tiniest
traces of DNA from larger bulks.

Arfa