Jump to content

Pork DNA found in cuttlefish and prawn balls


Unltd
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/pig-dna-found-cuttlefish-and-prawn-balls-nus-researchers

Jialat man, no doubt it is not marked as Halal but how can we have food that is labelled differently from what it is.... the only one which I can accept so far it “bird’s nest” which you buy at Pasar Malam, we all know that is actually jelly la... hahaha

↡ Advertisement
Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno whether you guys remember the meat grinder that you see in the wet market when your mum drags you along to the butcher when you were much younger. The meat grinder will grind out strands of meat aka mince meat. FYI for cuttlefish and prawn balls you have to mince them to make them into a ball etc.

To be honest, unless the butcher use a different meat grinder for different type of meat, seafood and whatever the washing process alone cannot be thorough. Even for knives why some atas cook label them and use them particularly for fruits&veg, seafood, meat. There's a reason cos they know they do not want to cross contaminate the food they prepare.

For us we dont care lah, we just use one knife for all cutting. But for those who know that no matter how much effort we put into cleaning the metal knife we will never remove some residuals left behind. Our eyes cant see microscopic stuff. We know it from those CSI drama shows. Blood and DNA will still be found on the knife. 

For the meat grinder it's mostly metal. The parts that grind the meat are metal. So if the butcher do not label and use them across all kinds of meat this is what we will get. Actually this shouldn't be news. It's because of religious reason that ppl cant take pork that the news make sure ppl are aware.

Edited by Watwheels
  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am more concern with this:

They also found that more premium seafood such as prawn roe, wild-caught Atlantic salmon and halibut have been replaced with lower-value ingredients such as fish roe, Pacific salmon and arrowtooth flounder respectively.

As for mixed-species samples, the rates were higher at 38.5 per cent.

Even though the rates of mislabelling for single-species were only 7.6 per cent, the researchers said that the low rates were “somewhat deceptive”. 

This is because of the widespread use of vague common species names that do not allow for the precise assessment of the expected ingredients.

Among samples of flatfish — a fish category that included halibut — the researchers found that about 40 per cent of its samples were mislabelled.

Some cases of mislabelling they found among the samples included:

  • Arrowtooth flounder were sold as halibut  
  • Chum salmon were sold as wild-caught Atlantic salmon
  • Capelin roe were sold as prawn roe  

The substituted product were less valuable than the species indicated on the label. For example, arrowtooth flounder, which usually develops a soft and mushy texture when cooked, was being substituted for the more highly valued halibut. 

As for the samples of mixed-seafood species that the researchers tested, this was what they said: “Many mixed-species products were labelled as ‘crab’, ‘prawn’, or ‘lobster’ sticks or balls. Only fish were listed as ingredients in six out of eight mixed-species samples, while two more explicitly listed shrimp meat or prawn powder in addition to fish in their ingredients.

“However, we were unable to find any crustacean DNA in all eight samples. Fish DNA was abundant and we suspect that overall, many of these products do not include any or have only minuscule amounts of crustacean tissues.”

The researchers argue that such “creative labelling” misleads consumers because the main product label suggests that the seafood product contains crustacean content, yet only when the ingredient list is examined does one realise that the product does not contain crustaceans.

This is probably due to the lack of clear regulations in the Sale of Food Act, defining which species should be included in products that are labelled with common names. 

The law states that labels need to provide a name or description which is “sufficient to indicate the true nature of the food”. “This state of affairs is no longer in line with the expectations of today’s consumers who expect labels to be precise,” the researchers said.

One classic example that pop up in my mind when I'm running through the article:

How many of you have really took these sliced "abalone" as real one?

8659977.jpeg

:excl: SFA, it is time to review your policies... ... :excl: 

 

  • Praise 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

My motto always right.

"Only eat what u can recognize as the original form."

Anything that is not in original form are considered processed or ultra processed with added unknown stuff

↡ Advertisement
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...