"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...


"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.

And with eaten meat all you need to do is see if there is any horse, beef,
sheep, goat etc DNA and even with the most exotic stuff like deer etc, that
stands out like dogs balls. That's the beauty of DNA, it isnt even that
expensive.