I doubt that Cadbury's is entirely to blame for the addition of **** to
their foodstuff no matter how reprehensible we all find their conduct
since January.

Once upon a time all products were -as far as it was possible, produced
to the highest standards. That is how prepackaged foods got a market
place over real foods. Real food, fresh food, required a long wheelbase
from farm to city. Stuff perished and unscrupulous merchants got rid of
it as best they could.

The alternative was to buy tinned and preserved stuff that was produced
by people with great reputations.

I bet the fools responsible for the penny pinching are regretting
things there at the moment. I hope they have to eat their ****.

Weatherlawyer wrote:
I doubt that Cadbury's is entirely to blame for the addition of ****
to their foodstuff no matter how reprehensible we all find their
conduct since January.

Once upon a time all products were -as far as it was possible,
produced to the highest standards. That is how prepackaged foods got
a market place over real foods. Real food, fresh food, required a
long wheelbase from farm to city. Stuff perished and unscrupulous
merchants got rid of it as best they could.

The alternative was to buy tinned and preserved stuff that was
produced by people with great reputations.

I bet the fools responsible for the penny pinching are regretting
things there at the moment. I hope they have to eat their ****.

It is quite clear from the above, that you have no idea about what goes on
in the food industry.

On 24 Jun 2006 14:44:13 -0700 Weatherlawyer wrote :
Once upon a time all products were -as far as it was possible,
produced to the highest standards.

In Victorian times adulterated foodstuffs were far from unknown.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

Tony Bryer wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote :
Once upon a time all products were -as far as it was possible,
produced to the highest standards.

In Victorian times adulterated foodstuffs were far from unknown.

"How are the mighty fallen", shirley?

Weatherlawyer wrote:

I doubt that Cadbury's is entirely to blame for the addition of **** to
their foodstuff no matter how reprehensible we all find their conduct
since January.

A couple of pedants seem to have read into the above not what is
written.

This is what it says:
Cadbury's, for some not widely known reason, lost control of the the
hygiene on their production line.

No doubt they were employing some perverse people. Such is life.

Once upon a time all products were -as far as it was possible, produced
to the highest standards. That is how prepackaged foods got a market
place over real foods.

Again the tits failed to reason on the subject, coloured as they are by
their own cleverness.

This is what I wrote:

Once upon a time modern standards did not exist.

Real food, fresh food, required a long wheelbase from farm to city. Stuff perished
and unscrupulous merchants got rid of it as best they could.

As can be reasoned from the above.

The alternative was to buy tinned and preserved stuff that was produced
by people with great reputations.

Victorian standards being what they were the right to expect the best
did not necessarily mean that the customer would not go down with a
poisonous dose of something or other.

Processed food failed on a regular basis. Read any account of early
naval vvoyages and you will find accounts of barrels of salted meat
found wanting and a variety of other problems.

Even in the 1960's when the vogue of crossing oceans single handed
required individual food packaging of an high standard, problems of
packaging occurred. And these things still happen.

I bet the fools responsible for the penny pinching are regretting
things there at the moment.

This means that I believe the people responsibewl for hiding the
problem wish they hadn't.

If you have any conclusions about my writing that is not contained in
my writung, feel free to ask.

If you have conclusions of your own that bear no relationship to
anything that I have written by all meqns add whatever.

If you can't be bothered to read what I said before passing comment;
kindly feck off.

Weatherlawyer wrote:
I doubt that Cadbury's is entirely to blame for the addition of **** to
their foodstuff no matter how reprehensible we all find their conduct
since January.

Once upon a time all products were -as far as it was possible, produced
to the highest standards. That is how prepackaged foods got a market
place over real foods. Real food, fresh food, required a long wheelbase
from farm to city. Stuff perished and unscrupulous merchants got rid of
it as best they could.

The alternative was to buy tinned and preserved stuff that was produced
by people with great reputations.

I bet the fools responsible for the penny pinching are regretting
things there at the moment. I hope they have to eat their ****.

Once upon a time people accepted that they loved in a world full of bugs
that were out to get them.

Before they built sanitised little boxes full of plastics that gave them
asthma, and peered out in horror at the ugly nasty world outside,
through plastic net curtains, and only ate things full of chemicals that
came in boxes with brightly coloured labels just like the toys they were
brought up on.

Replacing the general thrill of living in a real world with the
synthetic thrill of reading the tabloids and imagining the worst that
could happen to them...

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
ups.com...
I doubt that Cadbury's is entirely to blame for the addition of **** to
their foodstuff no matter how reprehensible we all find their conduct
since January.

Once upon a time all products were -as far as it was possible, produced
to the highest standards. That is how prepackaged foods got a market
place over real foods. Real food, fresh food, required a long wheelbase
from farm to city. Stuff perished and unscrupulous merchants got rid of
it as best they could.

The alternative was to buy tinned and preserved stuff that was produced
by people with great reputations.

I bet the fools responsible for the penny pinching are regretting
things there at the moment. I hope they have to eat their ****.


Two things which may, or may not, be relevant:

I haven't bought any Cadbury's chocolate for a long time. I found that any
other chocolates that I ate, always tasted better.
It must be all that milk that they put in (rather than cocoa solids).

I used to be very fond of Horlicks light malt drinking chocolate. Then one
day I bought a carton of it which _didn't taste quite so good_. So I phoned
the company, and was instructed to send the item back ( I received a stamped
jiffy bag and a £5.00 voucher).
To come to the point, I find that the product is still the same (inferior);
and that if I add a small amount of pure cocoa per cup, that drink tastes
better. I believe that the manufacter have reduced the cocoa content. It
says 4% on the carton; which is only a small amount, after all. Can you
believe that, or are my taste buds lying to me?

Sylvain.

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 17:09:39 GMT, Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote:

I haven't bought any Cadbury's chocolate for a long time. I found that
any other chocolates that I ate, always tasted better. It must be all
that milk that they put in (rather than cocoa solids).

ISTR that the european chocolate makers tried to stop Cadburys calling
their product "chocolate" because it has so little cocoa in it. If a bit
of chocolate, at room temp, only quietly tears rather than a brittle
break with with an audible snap it hasn't got enough cocoa in it.

Current favorite chocolates are Bendicks Bittermints, 95% cocoa solids
chocolate. B-)

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 18:30:47 +0100 (BST), Dave Liquorice wrote:

Current favorite chocolates are Bendicks Bittermints, 95% cocoa solids
chocolate. B-)

Made just down the road from me, people who work there tend not to eat the
product. But then again, anyone I have met who has ever worked in a food
factory tends to refuse to eat the product.

Cadbury have however hit a new all time low AFAIC. Having a factory in
which a sewage pipe crosses a food manufacturing line is bad enough to
start with. Letting it leak is worse and then discovering a leak, the
consequences of the leak and doing nothing is absolutely reprehensible.

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:

Made just down the road from me, people who work there tend not
to eat the product. But then again, anyone I have met who has
ever worked in a food factory tends to refuse to eat the product.

When I was a lad there was a chocolate factory just
across town. On your first day there you were told
that you could eat anything and everything, as much
as you liked. By the end of the first week even just
the smell of chocolate was distasteful.

--
Tony Williams.

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 03:42:41 +0100, Steve Firth wrote:

Made just down the road from me, people who work there tend not to eat
the product. But then again, anyone I have met who has ever worked in a
food factory tends to refuse to eat the product.

Same here, makes you wonder doesn't it...

Cadbury have however hit a new all time low AFAIC. Having a factory in
which a sewage pipe crosses a food manufacturing line is bad enough to
start with.

Evidence for that please? "Sewage" implies foul water from a toilet,
rather than waste machine washing water. I've not seen any reference to
"crossing" only running adjacent and splashes from drips reaching the
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.

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. 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...) 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?

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.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

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.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
ISTR that the european chocolate makers tried to stop Cadburys calling
their product "chocolate" because it has so little cocoa in it.

It was protectionism. They were worried that the Cadbury (and other)
brands would have a very severe impact on their sales.

In article ,
Chris Bacon wrote:
ISTR that the european chocolate makers tried to stop Cadburys calling
their product "chocolate" because it has so little cocoa in it.

It was protectionism. They were worried that the Cadbury (and other)
brands would have a very severe impact on their sales.

Sounds like Mailspeak. Most makers love to substitute the expensive core
constituent for something cheaper or to reduce the percentage in other
ways. Water in ham and bacon, for example. Jams containing little in the
way of fruit. Fruit juices called say a 'cranberry drink' which contain
only 5% cranberry. The list is endless.

A directive on the minimum amount of the constituent which the foodstuff
is called after is no bad thing. But *of course* some makers will call it
restricting choice, etc, and certain parts of the meja will take it as an
opportunity to have a pop at the EU...

--
*Shin: a device for finding furniture in the dark *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...


Current favorite chocolates are Bendicks Bittermints, 95% cocoa solids
chocolate. B-)

Yes, but I wish they wouldn't put the minty stuff in it, it contaminates the
chocolate.

Mary

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...


Current favorite chocolates are Bendicks Bittermints, 95% cocoa solids
chocolate. B-)

Yes, but I wish they wouldn't put the minty stuff in it, it contaminates the
chocolate.

Well said. Mint in chocolate is just plain wrong.

I can't understand the people who think that 'after eights' are the
dogs pods and yet wont touch a chocolate coated coffee bean. Weirdos.

--
Steve F

"Fitz" wrote in message
ups.com...

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...


Current favorite chocolates are Bendicks Bittermints, 95% cocoa solids
chocolate. B-)

Yes, but I wish they wouldn't put the minty stuff in it, it contaminates
the
chocolate.

Well said. Mint in chocolate is just plain wrong.

I can't understand the people who think that 'after eights' are the
dogs pods and yet wont touch a chocolate coated coffee bean. Weirdos.

I wouldn't be so rude about them.

I'd ignore them :-)

Mary

--
Steve F

Weatherlawyer wrote:
I doubt that Cadbury's is entirely to blame for the addition of **** to
their foodstuff no matter how reprehensible we all find their conduct
since January.

I once had a lecturer at Uni who did consultancy work for Cadbury
(~10yrs agoi). He claimed that the hygene standards at their factory
were pretty poor and that they didn't care too much. He claimed that
they believed there was little risk because the fat and sugar content
of the chocolate was so high that nothing could "breed" in the
chocolate anyway. I'm not sure about the science behind that, but it's
interesting considering recent events.

Jon.

Tournifreak wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote:
I doubt that Cadbury's is entirely to blame for the addition of **** to
their foodstuff no matter how reprehensible we all find their conduct
since January.

I once had a lecturer at Uni who did consultancy work for Cadbury
(~10yrs agoi). He claimed that the hygene standards at their factory
were pretty poor and that they didn't care too much. He claimed that
they believed there was little risk because the fat and sugar content
of the chocolate was so high that nothing could "breed" in the
chocolate anyway. I'm not sure about the science behind that, but it's
interesting considering recent events.

Yet if you look closely at a wrapper, you will never see a blemish in
the printing. Not a smidgeon. All fur coat and no knickers.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Tournifreak"
saying something like:

I once had a lecturer at Uni who did consultancy work for Cadbury
(~10yrs agoi). He claimed that the hygene standards at their factory
were pretty poor and that they didn't care too much. He claimed that
they believed there was little risk because the fat and sugar content
of the chocolate was so high that nothing could "breed" in the
chocolate anyway. I'm not sure about the science behind that, but it's
interesting considering recent events.

Istr that's the reasoning behind coating wounds with honey to prevent
sepsis. Apart from some slight antisepsis effect in the honey, the high
conc of sugar kills bacteria by osmosis through the cell wall.
--

Dave

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...


Istr that's the reasoning behind coating wounds with honey to prevent
sepsis. Apart from some slight antisepsis effect in the honey, the high
conc of sugar kills bacteria by osmosis through the cell wall.

There's some basis of fact in that but it's not the whole story. And sugar
syrup doesn't work in the same way ...

Mary
--

Dave