"PeterC" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 00:41:47 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

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.

That is the problem. Telling if something is wrong is fairly easy - it's
not
'as it should be', but there are hundreds of ways that something can be
wrong and many different tests needed. There doesn't seem to be a test to
tell if it's right.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway


But surely, that is the point ? If it's 'wrong', it ain't 'right', and if it
ain't *right*, then it's not 100% beef or whatever. Yes, it would be nice to
know what the contaminant was, but not actually necessary to know that it's
there. More detailed testing would then no doubt, be able to determine
exactly *what* the contaminant was ?

Arfa