Recall of all pork in public health alert
- Thread starter Blinder
- Start date
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,618
This is a very serious issue. This topic will be restricted to practical questions and factual discussion of it. Letting Off Steam and hilariously funny puns have been deleted. If you want to Let Off Steam on the topic, do so in the LoS forum or even better, on some other website.
For the moment, we will allow limited discussion of the medical implications of this in this thread only.
[broken link removed]
Helpline: 1890 33 66 77
For the moment, we will allow limited discussion of the medical implications of this in this thread only.
[broken link removed]
Helpline: 1890 33 66 77
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
Conor Pope has a good Q&A on the Irish Times website at [broken link removed]
He notes that consumers are entitled to refunds for any returned products.
He notes that consumers are entitled to refunds for any returned products.
PCBs are chemicals that are concentrated in body fats, as the are "lipophilic " chemicals. As a results, they are present in fatty secretions, such as breast milk. We are exposed to dioxins daily though our diet, albeit at hopefully low levels.
This will hopefully just be another "scare", that will be limited in scope, and only have economic consequences, not a major public health effect.
www.fsai.ie has a good information leaflet and Q&A on dioxins.
Like other organic compounds, they become concentrated in animals the higher you go up the food chain. There is a big problem with dioxin toxicity now in sea mammals such as Beluga whales.
Dioxins got into the food chain in Belgium in 1999, via contaminated oil for animal feed. The irish incident obviously needs a full investigation, to see how it happened, see if guidlines were followed, and put in place structures to ensure it, or related contamination, does not happen again.
Tis is an extract from a 2004 British Medical journal review article on environmental chemicals and human reproduction.
Link to full text of article http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/328/7437/447
Surveys show that the public suspects that synthetic (manmade) chemicals released into the environment, especially pesticides, have adverse effects on human health and cause disease, including cancer. In reality, few scientifically documented examples support this view, especially for effects on the general population. However, the observation that many synthetic chemicals have intrinsic hormonal activity—they are "endocrine disruptors"—has reopened this debate. Pressure groups have called for all synthetic environmental chemicals with the potential to cause harm to be phased out or banned, whereas the chemical industry argues that such action must be based on proof of harm. Vociferous cases have been made on both sides, each lacking definitive data. Yet it is clear that environmental and lifestyle factors are key determinants of human disease—accounting for perhaps 75% of most cancers. New understanding and emerging results are reshaping our thinking, as is the recognition that establishing cause and effect for environmental chemical exposures is a daunting task.
This will hopefully just be another "scare", that will be limited in scope, and only have economic consequences, not a major public health effect.
www.fsai.ie has a good information leaflet and Q&A on dioxins.
Like other organic compounds, they become concentrated in animals the higher you go up the food chain. There is a big problem with dioxin toxicity now in sea mammals such as Beluga whales.
Dioxins got into the food chain in Belgium in 1999, via contaminated oil for animal feed. The irish incident obviously needs a full investigation, to see how it happened, see if guidlines were followed, and put in place structures to ensure it, or related contamination, does not happen again.
Tis is an extract from a 2004 British Medical journal review article on environmental chemicals and human reproduction.
Link to full text of article http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/328/7437/447
Surveys show that the public suspects that synthetic (manmade) chemicals released into the environment, especially pesticides, have adverse effects on human health and cause disease, including cancer. In reality, few scientifically documented examples support this view, especially for effects on the general population. However, the observation that many synthetic chemicals have intrinsic hormonal activity—they are "endocrine disruptors"—has reopened this debate. Pressure groups have called for all synthetic environmental chemicals with the potential to cause harm to be phased out or banned, whereas the chemical industry argues that such action must be based on proof of harm. Vociferous cases have been made on both sides, each lacking definitive data. Yet it is clear that environmental and lifestyle factors are key determinants of human disease—accounting for perhaps 75% of most cancers. New understanding and emerging results are reshaping our thinking, as is the recognition that establishing cause and effect for environmental chemical exposures is a daunting task.
R
rmelly
Guest
Thanks, I was wondering if that was the case.
Does anyone know (the scientific reason possibly) why no beef seems to have been affected?
Is it time for the same level of tracability that exists for beef to be brought in, or would that be too expensive to implement?
On the radio this morning the minister explained that pigs are fed a concentrated ration. Cattle on the other hand in Ireland eat grass and concentrates are only used on a small scale to supplement feed.
Incidenlty I found the response by the FG Agri spokesman to be opportunistic taking cheap shots at the agencies involved. (Im starting a LOS thread about this here. Pigmeat recall: Ml Creed FG Agri spokesman, cheap and nast shot on MI this AM)
Markjbloggs
Registered User
- Messages
- 384
Why has there been a news black-out on the source of the contamination - it is just adding to the sense of unease for a lot of vulnerable people, pregnant women especially. The reassurances regarding the health effects from the HSE are useless in this respect. At this stage it seems that the commercial interests of the supplier and the unfortunate farmers are taking precedence over genuine health concerns.....
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,618
The guy from the food safety authority was very good on the radio this morning.
He said that eating this infected pork is like smoking. Smoking one or two cigarettes will not do you any damage. Smoking 20 a day for 20 years will increase your chances of getting cancer. Likewise, occasionally eating this infected pork will do you no harm. However, eating it for years would do you potential harm.
Based on that, those of us who have eaten rashers and sausages over the past few months have absolutely nothing to worry about.
Brendan
He said that eating this infected pork is like smoking. Smoking one or two cigarettes will not do you any damage. Smoking 20 a day for 20 years will increase your chances of getting cancer. Likewise, occasionally eating this infected pork will do you no harm. However, eating it for years would do you potential harm.
Based on that, those of us who have eaten rashers and sausages over the past few months have absolutely nothing to worry about.
Brendan
I've got 3 pounds of sausages in the freezer. Should I chuck them or eat them? Given that the problem has been identified and dealt with (i.e. probably won't happen again) then it would seem that I'm unlikely to be exposed to dioxins again in the near future. If I consider the assertion that only long-term, not one-off, exposure to dioxins will do me harm then probably it's not a huge risk to eat them.
I think that many of these issues have the danger attached blown out of proportion. Just consider the salmonella in eggs scandal for example.
Am I a total idiot for thinking i'll just fry them up anyway? I'm not inclined to be overly cautious but I'm also not totally reckless.
I think that many of these issues have the danger attached blown out of proportion. Just consider the salmonella in eggs scandal for example.
Am I a total idiot for thinking i'll just fry them up anyway? I'm not inclined to be overly cautious but I'm also not totally reckless.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
Superquinn are doing refunds, no questions asked. It does seem a bit of a shame to see the trolley loads of sausies and rashers which will presumably have to be destroyed, but I'm not taking even a small chance with my family's health.
I'd eat them.
My guess is the total recall has been done to avoid an outcry from the usual suspects - Evening Hysterical, Daily Muck & jooooe Duffy, whereby if a total recall was not done, everyone would be confused and eventually a total recall would be done.
In the overall scheme of things, the cost is quite small and gives people conficence in the irish food inductry - unlike what hapened in Britain with BSE, where they waited til it caused ill health before they did anything.
The german bratwusrts in Lidl are gorgeous for those craving their sausages!
As for me, I have a lovely fillet of ham in the oven as we speak.
Anyone know if all supermarkets are giving refunds?
M&S only seems to have withdrawn their pock chops, bacon and sausages.
Pre cooked stuff like bacon/sausage wraps, pork pies, packets of ham, quiches etc were still on the shelves.
Super Valu had everything gone.
M&S only seems to have withdrawn their pock chops, bacon and sausages.
Pre cooked stuff like bacon/sausage wraps, pork pies, packets of ham, quiches etc were still on the shelves.
Super Valu had everything gone.
Presumably, made in the UK.
G
Guest128
Guest
Dunnes doing refunds, no questions asked, didnt even ask for a receipt