On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 05:39:21 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 9:06:24 AM UTC, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 23:19:49 -0800 (PST), harry

wrote:

No doubt this story will run forever......



Looks like it's the Welsh now. Might have known.

Human DNA found in sheep?

Maybe just Welsh human DNA in sheep, wonder how that'd get there ;-)

Well, it probably wasn't with any criminal intent - more likely just a
cock-up.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Rod Speed
writes


"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Andrew Gabriel) writes:
Real horse meat for human consumption in countries which eat it
costs more than beef, so it's not a simple case of substituting
a cheaper ingredient, although in these cases it's going to be
the mechanically recovered meat that's used anyway, where this
may not apply. It may well be that the horse meat used wasn't
intended for human consumption, and that's being tested at the
moment.

Just heard an interview with the Germam company doing most of
the food DNA testing across the EU. They were initially very
surprised to find horse meat in beef, because they said horse
meat is normally much more expensive than beef. The interviewer
suggested that may mean the horse meat wasn't meant for human
consumption, and he said he couldn't tell, but he said it in a
way which implied that was his suspicion too. He said over half
the samples he's being sent for testing are testing positive
for horse DNA.

Yeah, sounds plausible. Bet they're using the old
nags that used to just be used for pet food now.
Local market, foals going for a fiver.

Dunno, you don't see much of that with other animals
except when the young ones are better eating like with
lamb, veal etc. Don't recall that there is anything like that
with horses tho, but then I don't eat them knowingly either.

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:27:11 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

Wool insulation is treated with borax to prevent insect attack.

Right.........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borax#Toxicity

At what does levels, scroll up it's been used as a food addative in the
past. So it's not *that* dangerous.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Feb 14, 2:16*am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:27:11 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:
Wool insulation is treated with borax to prevent insect attack.

Right.........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borax#Toxicity

At what does levels, scroll up it's been used as a food addative in the
past. So it's not *that* dangerous.

That applies to lots of stuff no longer used.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Feb 14, 2:16 am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:27:11 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:
Wool insulation is treated with borax to prevent insect attack.

Right.........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borax#Toxicity

At what does levels, scroll up it's been used as a food addative in the
past. So it's not *that* dangerous.

That applies to lots of stuff no longer used.

Not that many really.

On 14/02/2013 02:16, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:27:11 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

Wool insulation is treated with borax to prevent insect attack.

Right.........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borax#Toxicity

At what does levels, scroll up it's been used as a food addative in the
past. So it's not *that* dangerous.

Especially in Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.

:-)

--
Rod

On Thursday, February 14, 2013 8:45:32 AM UTC, harry wrote:
On Feb 14, 2:16*am, "Dave Liquorice"

wrote:

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:27:11 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

Wool insulation is treated with borax to prevent insect attack.



Right.........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borax#Toxicity



At what does levels, scroll up it's been used as a food addative in the

past. So it's not *that* dangerous.



That applies to lots of stuff no longer used.

yep, including tobacco and asbestos .
Didn't they use mercury in sweets in the late 19th century.

On Feb 14, 2:07*pm, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, February 14, 2013 8:45:32 AM UTC, harry wrote:
On Feb 14, 2:16*am, "Dave Liquorice"

wrote:

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:27:11 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

Wool insulation is treated with borax to prevent insect attack.

Right.........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borax#Toxicity

At what does levels, scroll up it's been used as a food addative in the

past. So it's not *that* dangerous.

That applies to lots of stuff no longer used.

yep, including tobacco and asbestos .
Didn't they use mercury in sweets in the late 19th century.

And arsenic. Apparently tastes sweet.

On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:46:45 PM UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:


What I find rather disturbing is that no one in the whole long supply

chain, from abattoir to retail outlet, appears to have been routinely

testing that a batch of meat or product called "beef" really is 100%

beef.

PCR assays for horse could be made cheap enough for widespread surveillance,
but it's not really the right approach. If you have to figure out after the fact
what animal it came from, you really don't know enough about the suppliers.

What's the next yucky thing going to be that we then have to check all meat for?


Leo

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:15:47 +0000, Andy Champ
wrote:

We had squirrels nesting in ours. But there are insects that _eat_ wool,
and AFAIK none that eat glass fibre.

The sheepwool insulation comes treated.
How long it remains effective, I don't know.

On Feb 15, 2:35*pm, wrote:
On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:46:45 PM UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:

What I find rather disturbing is that no one in the whole long supply

chain, from abattoir to retail outlet, appears to have been routinely

testing that a batch of meat or product called "beef" really is 100%

beef.

PCR assays for horse could be made cheap enough for widespread surveillance,
but it's not really the right approach. *If you have to figure out after the fact
what animal *it came from, you really don't know enough about the suppliers.

What's the next yucky thing going to be that we then have to check all meat for?

Leo

Rats?

On 15/02/2013 14:35, wrote:
On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:46:45 PM UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:


What I find rather disturbing is that no one in the whole long supply

chain, from abattoir to retail outlet, appears to have been routinely

testing that a batch of meat or product called "beef" really is 100%

beef.

PCR assays for horse could be made cheap enough for widespread surveillance,
but it's not really the right approach. If you have to figure out after the fact
what animal it came from, you really don't know enough about the suppliers.

What's the next yucky thing going to be that we then have to check all meat for?


Leo

Isn't that arse about face? We shouldn't be checking that beef isn't
horse - but that beef positively is beef! Anything else is not acceptable.

--
Rod

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.

On 15/02/2013 14:35, wrote:
PCR assays for horse could be made cheap enough for widespread surveillance,
but it's not really the right approach. If you have to figure out after the fact
what animal it came from, you really don't know enough about the suppliers.

What's the next yucky thing going to be that we then have to check all meat for?

I'm not that bothered whether my beefburger turns out to be horse or
pork, so long as it is fit for human consumption. So no bute etc.

Andy

Andy Champ wrote:
On 15/02/2013 14:35, wrote:
PCR assays for horse could be made cheap enough for widespread
surveillance,
but it's not really the right approach. If you have to figure out
after the fact
what animal it came from, you really don't know enough about the
suppliers.

What's the next yucky thing going to be that we then have to check all
meat for?

I'm not that bothered whether my beefburger turns out to be horse or
pork, so long as it is fit for human consumption. So no bute etc.

Which is the heart of the current problem. If it's not on the label,
then there is no control over what it is, or where it came from, and you
can't make an informed choice.

A local radio story today implicated a local horse abbatoir, and said
that two of the carcasses tested and on their way out yesterday tested
positive for Bute. These were destroyed after testing, but before they
left the site. This was not a routine test. This abbatoir sells horses
to the French market as food for humans, among other customers.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 13/02/2013 09:06, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:


Looks like it's the Welsh now. Might have known.

Human DNA found in sheep?


You jest but judging by some in depth interviews on the radio they just
don't know what else is being sold as beef (or any other processed meat
product). They are only testing for horse, pig, sheep and chicken.
Anything else would not be found because they are not looking for it.
Your local Romanian undertaker's activity would not be detected with the
current testing regime.


--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

In article ,
alan wrote:
On 13/02/2013 09:06, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:


Looks like it's the Welsh now. Might have known.

Human DNA found in sheep?


You jest but judging by some in depth interviews on the radio they just
don't know what else is being sold as beef (or any other processed meat
product). They are only testing for horse, pig, sheep and chicken.
Anything else would not be found because they are not looking for it.
Your local Romanian undertaker's activity would not be detected with the
current testing regime.

When I was a student (50+ years ago), curries tended to be called "meat".
At those prices who worried whether it was lamb or something else.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote

What I find rather disturbing is that no one in the whole long supply
chain, from abattoir to retail outlet, appears to have been routinely
testing that a batch of meat or product called "beef" really is 100%
beef.

PCR assays for horse could be made cheap enough for
widespread surveillance, but it's not really the right approach.

It is when you want to rub the supplier's noses in the fact that
whatever they try fraud wise will get caught very quickly.

If you have to figure out after the fact what animal it came
from, you really don't know enough about the suppliers.

That last just isnt feasible with an EU wide system.

Its never going to be feasible to have your own staff
permanently inside all your suppliers EU wide and
even that wont work because they can be bribed etc.

What's the next yucky thing going to be
that we then have to check all meat for?

Animals getting killed outside inspected abattoirs etc.

In message , John Williamson
writes
Andy Champ wrote:
On 15/02/2013 14:35, wrote:
PCR assays for horse could be made cheap enough for widespread
surveillance,
but it's not really the right approach. If you have to figure out
after the fact
what animal it came from, you really don't know enough about the
suppliers.

What's the next yucky thing going to be that we then have to check
all meat for?
I'm not that bothered whether my beefburger turns out to be horse or
pork, so long as it is fit for human consumption. So no bute etc.

Which is the heart of the current problem. If it's not on the label,
then there is no control over what it is, or where it came from, and
you can't make an informed choice.

A local radio story today implicated a local horse abbatoir, and said
that two of the carcasses tested and on their way out yesterday tested
positive for Bute. These were destroyed after testing, but before they
left the site. This was not a routine test. This abbatoir sells horses
to the French market as food for humans, among other customers.

Someone said on Question time last night that you would have to have
eaten 6 horses to get an effect in a human#


--
geoff

"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2013 14:35, wrote:
On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:46:45 PM UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:


What I find rather disturbing is that no one in the whole long supply

chain, from abattoir to retail outlet, appears to have been routinely

testing that a batch of meat or product called "beef" really is 100%

beef.

PCR assays for horse could be made cheap enough for widespread
surveillance,
but it's not really the right approach. If you have to figure out after
the fact
what animal it came from, you really don't know enough about the
suppliers.

What's the next yucky thing going to be that we then have to check all
meat for?


Leo

Isn't that arse about face? We shouldn't be checking that beef isn't
horse - but that beef positively is beef! Anything else is not acceptable.

Dunno, with some stuff like lasagne etc, does it really matter what
meat it is as long as its not dead rats, cats, dogs, diseased nags etc ?

"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.

"alan" wrote in message
...
On 13/02/2013 09:06, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:


Looks like it's the Welsh now. Might have known.

Human DNA found in sheep?


You jest but judging by some in depth interviews on the radio they just
don't know what else is being sold as beef (or any other processed meat
product). They are only testing for horse, pig, sheep and chicken.
Anything else would not be found because they are not looking for it. Your
local Romanian undertaker's activity would not be detected with the
current testing regime.

I'm not sure that's true with DNA testing.

In message , Rod Speed
writes


"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2013 14:35, wrote:
On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:46:45 PM UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:


What I find rather disturbing is that no one in the whole long supply

chain, from abattoir to retail outlet, appears to have been routinely

testing that a batch of meat or product called "beef" really is 100%

beef.

PCR assays for horse could be made cheap enough for widespread
surveillance,
but it's not really the right approach. If you have to figure out
after the fact
what animal it came from, you really don't know enough about the
suppliers.

What's the next yucky thing going to be that we then have to check
all meat for?


Leo

Isn't that arse about face? We shouldn't be checking that beef isn't
horse - but that beef positively is beef! Anything else is not
acceptable.

Dunno, with some stuff like lasagne etc, does it really matter what
meat it is as long as its not dead rats, cats, dogs, diseased nags etc
?
2 separate issues. Is it fit for human consumption and will not do you
physical harm.
Secondly, are you actually buying what you are being told you are buying
and so you can make a choice about what you buy.
--
bert

In message , John Williamson
writes
Andy Champ wrote:
On 15/02/2013 14:35, wrote:
PCR assays for horse could be made cheap enough for widespread
surveillance,
but it's not really the right approach. If you have to figure out
after the fact
what animal it came from, you really don't know enough about the
suppliers.

What's the next yucky thing going to be that we then have to check
all meat for?
I'm not that bothered whether my beefburger turns out to be horse or
pork, so long as it is fit for human consumption. So no bute etc.

Which is the heart of the current problem. If it's not on the label,
then there is no control over what it is, or where it came from, and
you can't make an informed choice.

A local radio story today implicated a local horse abbatoir, and said
that two of the carcasses tested and on their way out yesterday tested
positive for Bute. These were destroyed after testing, but before they
left the site. This was not a routine test. This abbatoir sells horses
to the French market as food for humans, among other customers.

It is being said that the level of bute would be so minute compared to
that necessary to be harmful that it is negligible.
--
bert

In message , Rod Speed
writes
wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote

What I find rather disturbing is that no one in the whole long supply
chain, from abattoir to retail outlet, appears to have been routinely
testing that a batch of meat or product called "beef" really is 100%
beef.

PCR assays for horse could be made cheap enough for
widespread surveillance, but it's not really the right approach.

It is when you want to rub the supplier's noses in the fact that
whatever they try fraud wise will get caught very quickly.

If you have to figure out after the fact what animal it came
from, you really don't know enough about the suppliers.

That last just isnt feasible with an EU wide system.

Its never going to be feasible to have your own staff
permanently inside all your suppliers EU wide and
even that wont work because they can be bribed etc.

What's the next yucky thing going to be
that we then have to check all meat for?

Animals getting killed outside inspected abattoirs etc.
You cannot inspect absolute quality into a system. That depends on the
integrity of everyone involved in the task. That is not going to happen
anywhere so when you do catch anyone out you have to come down on them
HARD - to deter les autres.
--
bert

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 21:11:57 +0000, Andy Champ
wrote:

So no bute etc.

I protest this denigration of Bute - it's a lovely place in the
winter, when the midges aren't eating your face off.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 21:42:51 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

When I was a student (50+ years ago), curries tended to be called "meat".
At those prices who worried whether it was lamb or something else.

Kept the feral moggie population under control, at least.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 21:20:11 +0000, John Williamson wrote:

A local radio story today implicated a local horse abbatoir, and said
that two of the carcasses tested and on their way out yesterday tested
positive for Bute. These were destroyed after testing, but before they
left the site. This was not a routine test. This abbatoir sells horses
to the French market as food for humans, among other customers.

I bet the relevant horse passports had no mention of phenylbutazone on
them...

But I agree the entire system seems to rely on bits of paper just saying
the X is X and everyone believing the bits of paper. An no one is
actually checking that what the bits of paper say agrees with reality.

--
Cheers
Dave.

polygonum writes:

On 15/02/2013 14:35, wrote:
On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:46:45 PM UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:


What I find rather disturbing is that no one in the whole long supply

chain, from abattoir to retail outlet, appears to have been routinely

testing that a batch of meat or product called "beef" really is 100%

beef.

PCR assays for horse could be made cheap enough for widespread surveillance,
but it's not really the right approach. If you have to figure out after the fact
what animal it came from, you really don't know enough about the suppliers.

What's the next yucky thing going to be that we then have to check all meat for?


Leo

Isn't that arse about face? We shouldn't be checking that beef isn't
horse - but that beef positively is beef! Anything else is not acceptable.

I suppose that some non-beef DNA is bound to be present. Plant DNA from
wheat/spices/whatever will also get multiplied by the PCR.

Maybe they could take just a few samples, every few months, and subject
them to rigorous analysis to identify every kind of DNA. That would be OK
for many purposes because no one will be poisoned in the intervening
months.
But also do frequent widespread checks for the presence of a wide range
of noxious substances. Iodine 131 from Chernobyl (or Japan?), growth
hormones, antibiotics fed to cattle, etc.
Those checks would likely be much simpler than a detailed DNA analysis.


--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

"Rod Speed" writes:

wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote

What I find rather disturbing is that no one in the whole long supply
chain, from abattoir to retail outlet, appears to have been routinely
testing that a batch of meat or product called "beef" really is 100%
beef.

PCR assays for horse could be made cheap enough for
widespread surveillance, but it's not really the right approach.

It is when you want to rub the supplier's noses in the fact that
whatever they try fraud wise will get caught very quickly.

If you have to figure out after the fact what animal it came
from, you really don't know enough about the suppliers.

That last just isnt feasible with an EU wide system.

We don't merely have an EU-wide system, we have a worldwide system.
While I'm not completely paranoid about it, I've been unhappy for a
decade or two that no-one can possibly know always what else is in the
Brazil nuts, bananas, Kiwi fruit, frozen shrimp, .........

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

Windmill wrote
polygonum wrote
wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote

What I find rather disturbing is that no one in the whole long supply
chain, from abattoir to retail outlet, appears to have been routinely
testing that a batch of meat or product called "beef" really is 100%
beef.

PCR assays for horse could be made cheap enough for widespread
surveillance,
but it's not really the right approach. If you have to figure out after
the fact
what animal it came from, you really don't know enough about the
suppliers.

What's the next yucky thing going to be that we then have to check all
meat for?

Isn't that arse about face? We shouldn't be checking that beef isn't
horse - but that beef positively is beef! Anything else is not
acceptable.

I don’t care what meat is used as long as its fit for human consumption.

That’s not easy to test for tho, so its more practical to test whether
its any of the meats usually used for human consumption.

I suppose that some non-beef DNA is bound to be present. Plant DNA
from wheat/spices/whatever will also get multiplied by the PCR.

Yes, but its easy enough to just ignore all plant DNA if you
test for the meats usually used for human consumption and
don’t bother with the less likely stuff like fish DNA etc.

Maybe they could take just a few samples, every few months, and
subject them to rigorous analysis to identify every kind of DNA.

Its going to be much easier to just test for the DNA of the
meats normally used for human consumption instead.

That would be OK for many purposes because no
one will be poisoned in the intervening months.

It isnt about poisoning, there isnt much chance of getting
poisoned with the horse meat that’s been found lately.

And the other common situation seen currently is checking
that when an expensive type of fish is claimed that it isnt
one of much cheaper fish that’s been supplied instead.

But also do frequent widespread checks for the presence of a
wide range of noxious substances. Iodine 131 from Chernobyl
(or Japan?), growth hormones, antibiotics fed to cattle, etc.

It isnt really feasible to do that level of checking.

You basically have to check for only the most likely undesirables.

Those checks would likely be much simpler than a detailed DNA analysis.

They don’t do detailed DNA analysis of food, they just check for
specific DNAs and that very easy to do now and is done routinely now.

Windmill wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote

What I find rather disturbing is that no one in the whole long supply
chain, from abattoir to retail outlet, appears to have been routinely
testing that a batch of meat or product called "beef" really is 100%
beef.

PCR assays for horse could be made cheap enough for
widespread surveillance, but it's not really the right approach.

It is when you want to rub the supplier's noses in the fact that
whatever they try fraud wise will get caught very quickly.

If you have to figure out after the fact what animal it came
from, you really don't know enough about the suppliers.

That last just isnt feasible with an EU wide system.

We don't merely have an EU-wide system, we have a worldwide system.

Sure but its even more true of a world wide system.

While I'm not completely paranoid about it, I've been unhappy
for a decade or two that no-one can possibly know always what
else is in the Brazil nuts, bananas, Kiwi fruit, frozen shrimp, .........

It is possible, just not economically feasible to test everything
completely.

On Feb 15, 9:31*pm, alan wrote:
On 13/02/2013 09:06, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:



Looks like it's the Welsh now. *Might have known.

Human DNA found in sheep?

You jest but judging by some in depth interviews on the radio they just
don't know what else is being sold as beef (or any other processed meat
product). *They are only testing for horse, pig, sheep and chicken.
Anything else would not be found because they are not looking for it.
Your local Romanian undertaker's activity would not be detected with the
current testing regime.

What all this shows is that all these rules that cost so much to
create can't be enforced. The bigger and more complex the system, the
more likely things are to go wrong.
All EU ****e, inflicted on our own producers, ignored elsewhere.
Best out of the whole blasted, idiots shenanigan.

On Feb 15, 10:10*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"polygonum" wrote in message

...









On 15/02/2013 14:35, wrote:
On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:46:45 PM UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:

What I find rather disturbing is that no one in the whole long supply

chain, from abattoir to retail outlet, appears to have been routinely

testing that a batch of meat or product called "beef" really is 100%

beef.

PCR assays for horse could be made cheap enough for widespread
surveillance,
but it's not really the right approach. *If you have to figure out after
the fact
what animal *it came from, you really don't know enough about the
suppliers.

What's the next yucky thing going to be that we then have to check all
meat for?

Leo

Isn't that arse about face? We shouldn't be checking that beef isn't
horse - but that beef positively is beef! Anything else is not acceptable.

Dunno, with some stuff like lasagne etc, does it really matter what
meat it is as long as its not dead rats, cats, dogs, diseased nags etc ?

Some places rats are a delicacy. How much difference is there between
a rat and a rabbit?

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.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Feb 15, 9:31 pm, alan wrote:
On 13/02/2013 09:06, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:



Looks like it's the Welsh now. Might have known.

Human DNA found in sheep?

You jest but judging by some in depth interviews on the radio they just
don't know what else is being sold as beef (or any other processed meat
product). They are only testing for horse, pig, sheep and chicken.
Anything else would not be found because they are not looking for it.
Your local Romanian undertaker's activity would not be detected with the
current testing regime.

What all this shows is that all these rules that
cost so much to create can't be enforced.

Bull**** they can't. Its completely routine to enforce
them using DNA testing now. It isnt even expensive.

The bigger and more complex the system,
the more likely things are to go wrong.

But sometimes there are easy ways to check if something has gone wrong.

All EU ****e, inflicted on our own producers, ignored elsewhere.

That last is bull**** too.

Best out of the whole blasted, idiots shenanigan.

Its still going to happen even if you lot choose to leave.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Feb 15, 10:10 pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"polygonum" wrote in message

...









On 15/02/2013 14:35, wrote:
On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:46:45 PM UTC, Dave Liquorice wrote:

What I find rather disturbing is that no one in the whole long supply

chain, from abattoir to retail outlet, appears to have been routinely

testing that a batch of meat or product called "beef" really is 100%

beef.

PCR assays for horse could be made cheap enough for widespread
surveillance,
but it's not really the right approach. If you have to figure out
after
the fact
what animal it came from, you really don't know enough about the
suppliers.

What's the next yucky thing going to be that we then have to check all
meat for?

Leo

Isn't that arse about face? We shouldn't be checking that beef isn't
horse - but that beef positively is beef! Anything else is not
acceptable.

Dunno, with some stuff like lasagne etc, does it really matter what
meat it is as long as its not dead rats, cats, dogs, diseased nags etc ?

Some places rats are a delicacy.

Yes, but that doesn't happen in the modern first world.

How much difference is there between a rat and a rabbit?

Rabbits are usually bigger.

I cant see too many commercial operations bothering
with either rats or rabbits for lasagne tho.

"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.

On 16/02/2013 08:39, harry wrote:
On Feb 15, 9:31 pm, alan wrote:
On 13/02/2013 09:06, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:



Looks like it's the Welsh now. Might have known.

Human DNA found in sheep?

You jest but judging by some in depth interviews on the radio they just
don't know what else is being sold as beef (or any other processed meat
product). They are only testing for horse, pig, sheep and chicken.
Anything else would not be found because they are not looking for it.
Your local Romanian undertaker's activity would not be detected with the
current testing regime.

What all this shows is that all these rules that cost so much to
create can't be enforced. The bigger and more complex the system, the
more likely things are to go wrong.
All EU ****e, inflicted on our own producers, ignored elsewhere.
Best out of the whole blasted, idiots shenanigan.


Seems that combined species and bute testing is expected to cost in the
region EUR 300 to 400 per test.

Given the comprehensive DNA analysis now available for around GBP 100
for humans (e.g. 23andme type of test), I thought that a DNA-chip based
testing system might have been a) possible; b) relatively inexpensive.
Though how much of the cost is to identify vanishingly low levels of bute?


"Horsemeat scandal: DNA tests start with immediate effect
By Joanna Sopinska | Friday 15 February 2013

The member states gave their green light, on 15 February, to the
immediate launch of an EU-wide DNA testing of beef in the wake of the
horsemeat scandal, which erupted in mid-January in Ireland and has
spread throughout Europe. The exercise, recommended by the Commission
(see Europolitics4587) on 13 February, was approved at the extraordinary
meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,
with all member states except Italy in favour. The decision provides for
a one-month programme of DNA and phenylbutazone tests across the EU as
part of a bigger two-month action, starting “as soon as possible,”
rather than on 1 March as proposed. Co-financed by the Commission (75%
of costs, maximum €300 per test) the programme foresees controls, mainly
at retail level, of foods destined for the final consumer and marketed
as containing beef to detect the presence of unlabelled horse meat. A
total of 2,250 samples will be taken from across the EU (ten to 150 per
member state). One of the aims is to detect possible residues of
phenylbutazone in horse meat. To this end, each member state will carry
out a minimum of five tests, with one sample for every 50 tonnes of
horse meat. Member states will be obliged to “regularly” report the
results to the Commission, which will include them in the Rapid Alert
System for Food and Feed (RASFF). The full results of the programme will
be published by the Commission on 15 April. "

http://www.europolitics.info/horseme...art348312.html

--
Rod

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