Reply to: Chlorinated Chickens are OK

[WTFH]

Surely you just raid whichever henhouse is nearest to your den?

I do. That's where my three egg suppliers live. Cluckingham Palace.

[Bean]

It depends whether you are interested in the ethics of how the animal was raised, what it was pumped full of, how it was transported, how it was slaughtered, etc.
How unnatural do you like your food?

So while the chicken came first, next is the egg...
Why do US shops keep their eggs in fridges, but UK shops keep them on the shelves?

It's because the Americans wash the eggs in soap and water to "remove bacteria", but it also removes the protective membrane that keeps an egg fresh. A washed egg will go off quickly and is more prone to picking up other smells etc by proximity. The eggs are washed because of the risk of bacteria such as salmonella but also to clean the chemicals off them that they may have been contaminated with when they were laid.
UK shop-bought eggs are not washed, so the membrane remains. Instead the chickens are injected against salmonella. The UK also has strict rules about how chickens can be raised, regarding food standards (oops, said it again) and animal welfare. Even with our higher standards, the way most layers are treated in this country is not good.
The best way to get round that is to set your own standards, make sure your suppliers are up to scratch and monitor them carefully. I currently have 3 egg suppliers I've been using for the last year, although one of them is not as regular as the other two.

Well, we're talking about chlorinated chicken vis-à-vis good hygiene.

The main problem is not exactly with the chlorination itself, the problem is in the reason why it's used in the first place. And that is to "nuke" any traces of otherwise unsanitary slaughtering, eliminating the need of a good hygiene throughout the whole process.

Ethics, antibiotics and other things, are other issues (of which I believe someone from UK gov said the UK still wouldn't accept antibiotic pumped animals from the US)

Interesting info on eggs, cheers. Hardly eat any nowadays anyway!

Surely you just raid whichever henhouse is nearest to your den?

[meridian]

Chlorinated Chickens are OK

Should probably put this in this thread;


http://forums.contractoruk.com/brexi...ml#post2492270

Comigel had been supplying Findus (and possibly with horsemeat) since at least 2012, the scandal was made public in 2013. (Publicly available sources)

Please tell me more about how Findus QA'd a ready-made lasagne and gave it a PASS for possibly a year, with a 0.1% check, let alone on a 100% check on the first few deliveries.....simple probabilities indicate it would have been found, if they had...

Hail WTFH and your supply chain QA knowledge

I think I can answer this one, as well.

Initial QA would be visual, by the inbound logistics team at the receiving point. This is a simple damage/quantity/SKU check to ensure that was was being received is what was on the purchase order and inbound delivery docket.

A quality inspection would be drawn based on the product and supplier. This would be Findlay's internal QM checks. However, they would probably only check for variables such as contamination, volume of product, volume of components (cheese vs pasta vs bolognese), viscosity of ingredients, etc. They may also do random inspections of the supply chain to check for things such as ensuring the product has been kept at the correct temperature, etc.

It would be rare for a warehouse receiving 3rd party manufacturing to go to a molecular level to check that the meat matches the label. This may be done at the start of a relationship but would normally be completed at the start of the supply chain so that Findlays would go to Comigels factory to check batch traceability, recipes, raw material QI practices, etc.

It would be more likely for the recipient to want to audit any QI results from the 3PM, or perhaps even interface them directly so they can be tracked real-time, rather than recreating those themselves.

[WTFH]

Should probably put this in this thread;


http://forums.contractoruk.com/brexi...ml#post2492270

Comigel had been supplying Findus (and possibly with horsemeat) since at least 2012, the scandal was made public in 2013. (Publicly available sources)

Please tell me more about how Findus QA'd a ready-made lasagne and gave it a PASS for possibly a year, with a 0.1% check, let alone on a 100% check on the first few deliveries.....simple probabilities indicate it would have been found, if they had...

Hail WTFH and your supply chain QA knowledge

The scandal came to light in January 2013 (you provided the source yourself earlier)
The supply started in August 2012.
So for 6 months Findus' procurement and QA checks proved to be inadequate.

As for my supply chain knowledge, it's kept my rate high and my bench time low since the millennium.
What's your supply chain knowledge like?

[WTFH]

If it has nuked everything, does the ends justify the means?

Does it ultimately matter?
As the customer gets chicken, free from harmful bacteria etc in both cases of;

1. Bad hygiene throughout process, but chlorine nuked = chicken free from....
2. Good hygiene " " , but not chlorine nuked = chicken free from....

It depends whether you are interested in the ethics of how the animal was raised, what it was pumped full of, how it was transported, how it was slaughtered, etc.
How unnatural do you like your food?

So while the chicken came first, next is the egg...
Why do US shops keep their eggs in fridges, but UK shops keep them on the shelves?

It's because the Americans wash the eggs in soap and water to "remove bacteria", but it also removes the protective membrane that keeps an egg fresh. A washed egg will go off quickly and is more prone to picking up other smells etc by proximity. The eggs are washed because of the risk of bacteria such as salmonella but also to clean the chemicals off them that they may have been contaminated with when they were laid.
UK shop-bought eggs are not washed, so the membrane remains. Instead the chickens are injected against salmonella. The UK also has strict rules about how chickens can be raised, regarding food standards (oops, said it again) and animal welfare. Even with our higher standards, the way most layers are treated in this country is not good.
The best way to get round that is to set your own standards, make sure your suppliers are up to scratch and monitor them carefully. I currently have 3 egg suppliers I've been using for the last year, although one of them is not as regular as the other two.

[Bean]

Should probably put this in this thread;

And as per previous post you seem to know very little about supply chain process. And as per your MO, you're trying to tie two discussions together to drag both down to your level.
Two ways your argument is false.
1. When a customer places an order with a supplier for products, the customer will want said products to be produced to the standards they request (this is irrespective of regulations). If the customer wants the product to also comply with particular regulations then these will also be included in the RFQ and should be in the contractual documentation as well.
2. On receipt of the products there will be a receiving process that will also include validation and checks to confirm that the delivery matches the order. These checks occur before putaway. Some receiving routes will be straightforward, particularly from trusted suppliers, so it may only be a 0.1% check, for example. When a new supplier is taken on, they should not be on the trusted supplier route so the first few deliveries may be 100% checked, then reduced down over time.

It's all part of testing and quality control.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/brexi...ml#post2492270

Comigel had been supplying Findus (and possibly with horsemeat) since at least 2012, the scandal was made public in 2013. (Publicly available sources)

Please tell me more about how Findus QA'd a ready-made lasagne and gave it a PASS for possibly a year, with a 0.1% check, let alone on a 100% check on the first few deliveries.....simple probabilities indicate it would have been found, if they had...

Hail WTFH and your supply chain QA knowledge

[Bean]

The main problem is not exactly with the chlorination itself, the problem is in the reason why it's used in the first place. And that is to "nuke" any traces of otherwise unsanitary slaughtering, eliminating the need of a good hygiene throughout the whole process.

If it has nuked everything, does the ends justify the means?

Does it ultimately matter?
As the customer gets chicken, free from harmful bacteria etc in both cases of;

1. Bad hygiene throughout process, but chlorine nuked = chicken free from....
2. Good hygiene " " , but not chlorine nuked = chicken free from....

[Bean]

In all honesty, I would think that their risk factors would depend on a combination of country of origin and stated quality of product. Bear in mind that they will also have limited resources, hence the risk factors.

Country of origin can be split into value of the trade to the country (think NZ lamb, if there was an issue with the product then that would decimate the entire industry so it's likely that that type of country would have better check s pre-export) and the perception of internal inspectorates (think China, where inspections of food are less likely to conform to our perceptions of what is required).

Intra-EU will be similar, but less of a degree between the top end and lower end of the scale.

Quality of product is likely to be a reverse check - the higher the quality stated on the label, the more incentive there is to check that it meets those requirements. "Own brand" level of quality is where the customer gets what they pay for, so less incentive for a decent quality check.

The basics of ensuring that what is on the label is in the box shouldn't matter whatever the country, including food manufactured in the U.K. There's no quality perception here, it either is or isn't what it is, and these would be edge cases anyway as they are relatively easy to prove.

Thank you for taking the time to write all that out. It is well written and logical.

I hadn't taken into account quality of the product and the NZ quality argument - good points, well made!

I would add, levels of organised crime in originating countries should probably play a part too, but other than that, I agree with what you've said

[sal]

Apparently the EU says it has no concerns over the process, so why is everyone so up in arms? Do they know about 'Protective atmosphere' gas with regards to making beef looking redder?

The main problem is not exactly with the chlorination itself, the problem is in the reason why it's used in the first place. And that is to "nuke" any traces of otherwise unsanitary slaughtering, eliminating the need of a good hygiene throughout the whole process.

[meridian]

Yes, it's an inspection issue, but deffo not for supermarkets to undertake

I was just asking what you thought (not knew) about FSA risk factors - I gave you my thoughts on it first in the interests of fairness.

They've probably changed since the scandal now, so probably not worth asking about historical reasoning that they probably haven't kept recorded.....hence why I asked what you thought

In all honesty, I would think that their risk factors would depend on a combination of country of origin and stated quality of product. Bear in mind that they will also have limited resources, hence the risk factors.

Country of origin can be split into value of the trade to the country (think NZ lamb, if there was an issue with the product then that would decimate the entire industry so it's likely that that type of country would have better check s pre-export) and the perception of internal inspectorates (think China, where inspections of food are less likely to conform to our perceptions of what is required).

Intra-EU will be similar, but less of a degree between the top end and lower end of the scale.

Quality of product is likely to be a reverse check - the higher the quality stated on the label, the more incentive there is to check that it meets those requirements. "Own brand" level of quality is where the customer gets what they pay for, so less incentive for a decent quality check.

The basics of ensuring that what is on the label is in the box shouldn't matter whatever the country, including food manufactured in the U.K. There's no quality perception here, it either is or isn't what it is, and these would be edge cases anyway as they are relatively easy to prove.

[Bean]

Sorry, yes, you are correct, I should have clarified further - of course the FSA is not the only inspecting authority in the EU, there are complementary bodies in each EU country. However, the point still stands that this is not an EU regulatory issue but an inspection issue.

I can't tell you how the FSA decides their risk factors, I don't work for them. Ring them up if you're interested. I do work for an FMCG and I can tell you that there is no FSA inspector in our factories, but multiple internal QMs that take regular quality samples.

Yes, it's an inspection issue, but deffo not for supermarkets to undertake

I was just asking what you thought (not knew) about FSA risk factors - I gave you my thoughts on it first in the interests of fairness.

They've probably changed since the scandal now, so probably not worth asking about historical reasoning that they probably haven't kept recorded.....hence why I asked what you thought

[meridian]

(My original comment[#33] was in response to WTFH blaming supermarkets[#32], which I asked about regulators/inspectors - and WTFH then took that as an attack on the EU, rather than a question on who should be checking it)

Yes, see post #36 where I say Irish (but said regulators instead of inspectors) - hint, it's WTFH that said 'EU regulators' found the issue first [#35], not me.

I also stated [#36], that the EU had said;
"Constant vigilance from operators and competent authorities towards economically motivated fraud, that can be perpetrated at any step of the food supply chain is needed.""

So 'any step' includes the site of origin/production - not just the importing country (so your comments may still be true, but the EU wants that to change and then it won't solely be down to the FSA)

You talk about risk-basis - could you tell me what % risk you think the FSA determined EU-origin meat, and what may have led them to that figure?
(I'm thinking it was a low %, due to the single market and conformity, and reasons you listed too)

Sorry, yes, you are correct, I should have clarified further - of course the FSA is not the only inspecting authority in the EU, there are complementary bodies in each EU country. However, the point still stands that this is not an EU regulatory issue but an inspection issue.

I can't tell you how the FSA decides their risk factors, I don't work for them. Ring them up if you're interested. I do work for an FMCG and I can tell you that there is no FSA inspector in our factories, but multiple internal QMs that take regular quality samples.

[Bean]

ok back to the main topic, who is looking forward to a Sunday roast of chlorinated chicken ?

Milan.

Select from
Worldwide chicken eaters

Where
chicken in fridge = chlorinated American chicken

and
sunday roast planned = yes




Seriously though;
https://fullfact.org/europe/does-eu-...SAAEgICWfD_BwE

Apparently the EU says it has no concerns over the process, so why is everyone so up in arms? Do they know about 'Protective atmosphere' gas with regards to making beef looking redder?

[milanbenes]

ok back to the main topic, who is looking forward to a Sunday roast of chlorinated chicken ?

Milan.

[Bean]

That's great, then you're able to understand and acknowledge that EU regulators set the regulations and provide guidance, but it's up to the UK Food Standards Agency to carry out the inspections.

The FSA on their website makes it clear that they inspect food produced both in the EU and in the U.K. on a risk basis (i.e. where there is a perceived risk. This means that there will be instances where contaminated food slips through - horse meat is one example, but so are the many instances of bleached chicken intended as dog food but sold on.

It's not an EU conspiracy, it's just risk-based inspections where there is always a chance that an issue will slip through. And those inspections are completely the responsibility of the UK government agency.

(My original comment[#33] was in response to WTFH blaming supermarkets[#32], which I asked about regulators/inspectors - and WTFH then took that as an attack on the EU, rather than a question on who should be checking it)

Yes, see post #36 where I say Irish (but said regulators instead of inspectors) - hint, it's WTFH that said 'EU regulators' found the issue first [#35], not me.

I also stated [#36], that the EU had said;
"Constant vigilance from operators and competent authorities towards economically motivated fraud, that can be perpetrated at any step of the food supply chain is needed.""

So 'any step' includes the site of origin/production - not just the importing country (so your comments may still be true, but the EU wants that to change and then it won't solely be down to the FSA)

You talk about risk-basis - could you tell me what % risk you think the FSA determined EU-origin meat, and what may have led them to that figure?
(I'm thinking it was a low %, due to the single market and conformity, and reasons you listed too)