Category: in the news

The Ridiculously Sensitive Water Buffalo Meat Issue

Posted on

In more ways than one.

Look, we’re not going to die just by eating water buffalo, goat or donkey. We might die because the meat processing plants have been breaching other regulations that we didn’t know they were either though.
But since we haven’t died yet (and here, I’m speaking for myself), it seems unlikely that that’s actually the case.

So let’s not get carried away here.

But, as long time reader, first time emailer Richard Atkinson pointed out when sending me the Stellenbosch paper – that’s not the only ridiculously sensitive problem here:

They use mtDNA PCR for species typing of the samples. My biggest criticism is how ridiculously sensitive that technique is. They would be picking up contamination from an animal that was slaughtered in the same area, or processed with the same equipment. This would obviously be a problem if found in Halaal/Kosher meat, but they never specifically state that they found contamination in those meats, which is something I’m sure they would have harped on about at length if they had to help drive the PR machine.

It’s a very reasonable point, and furthermore, there’s no mention of any controls on the methods they used (which would have raised alarm bells and prevented Richard’s concerns).
Not to go into too much detail, but mtDNA PCR is a method of analysis which could detect even the tiniest amount of DNA and present it as a possibly significant result. Which is a good thing, because there rightly shouldn’t be any “foreign” DNA in your “100% beef” mince, so the fact even a minute amount of “foreign” DNA can be detected makes the test sensitive. Sensitivity is good.
However, given that abattoirs generally don’t work solely with one species of meat, there’s likely to be a lot of DNA floating around in the areas in which our meat is processed, and it’s entirely likely that some of it may have found its way into “other meat”.
And here, over-sensitivity is bad.

So from that point of view, maybe we shouldn’t be reading too much into the results of this study. Except to perhaps question the donkey (not literally, because he’s dead and he couldn’t talk he was alive). While beef, pork, chicken and even goat and water buffalo are recognised foodstuffs in SA; donkey isn’t. So Eeyore – described in the paper as “undeclared donkey” – shouldn’t be in there:

Perhaps of greatest concern from a regulatory, health and ethical standpoint was the detection of undeclared donkey (E. asinus) in one meat sample sold in KZN as ‘quality sausage’, for which the only animal species declared was beef. Since donkey is not a species commercially processed for human consumption in South Africa, there is a high probability that this indicates a further case of intentional substitution for economic gain.

Although to be fair to the food labellers, it does appear that they never stated that the ‘quality sausage’ was good quality sausage.

Not horse

Posted on

Well, you can’t have missed the whole EU horsemeat scandal, but apparently the local government is having none of those unexciting, non-exotic meats. We can do better than that. And we do, because:

68% of our local meat contains Water Buffalo (and other meats)!

But Water Buffalo??!!?? Come on!

There’s a fair share of fraudulent meat products on the South African market, according to a new study by meat scientists from Stellenbosch University. The study found that anything from soya, donkey, goat and water buffalo were to be found in up to 68% of the 139 minced meats, burger patties, deli meats, sausages and dried meats that were tested. In other cases, even undeclared plant matter was detected. These ingredients were not declared on the products’ packaging labels.

These are the findings of Meat Scientists – yes, Meat Scientists – at Stellenbosch University here.

More concerning for certain religious groups will be this revelation:

A strong case of meat substitution was also reported. Pork (37%) and chicken (23%) were the most commonly detected animal species in products that were not supposed to contain them.

Of course, I recognise that there’s a serious side to this, but meat is meat. And water buffalo actually sounds kinda cool.

DSTV E45 error – Monday 25th February

Posted on

If you are reading this, then you, like me, are probably struggling with an E45 “Service Not Authorised” error on your DSTV.

A little bit of searching – I used “Google” – gave me this from Fathima at MultiChoice:

Please don’t try any trouble shooting from your side.
Services will resume shortly.

So – please don’t try any troubleshooting from your side. Services will resume shortly.

Have a special day. (I added that bit myself.)

UPDATE: Incidentally, I had a quick look at twitter as well and while people were getting irate about the problem, they weren’t actually doing anything other than… er… getting irate about the problem. Read around a bit (which, I appreciate, you are doing now) and you can lower your blood pressure.
Many were also annoyed at the lack of response from the @dstv account, but with over 150 tweets per minute going through, I’m not sure  how people could reasonably expect a personal response.

UPDATE 2: Aaaaaand… it’s back. For me at least.

UPDATE 3: Aaaaaand… it’s gone again. Oh dear.

UPDATE 4: Aaaaaand it’s back again.

Now we’re DOOMed

Posted on

LOL. See what I did there?

No, of course not, not yet anyway.

wastesometimem

But:

The widely-used insect repellent Deet appears to be losing its effectiveness against mosquitoes, scientists say.

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine say mosquitoes are first deterred by the substance, but then later ignore it.

This explains a lot. Despite my best efforts, I am still regularly attacked in my bedroom late at night (please note that no links to current bail hearings are implied here). And while I’ve tried many different repellents, I’ve never been able to get hold of any N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide. Just as well, it turns out, since, like antibiotics,  it doesn’t work anymore.

But how did it even work in the first place?

For many years, it was not clear exactly how the chemical worked, but recent research suggests that insects simply do not like the smell.

So whoever came up with Deet obviously never had to change a nappy then. Because you have to become resistant and immune to that nasty smell as well. You can overcome it. As can mosquitoes with Deet, it seems.

So we need something else. Some way of “Deet”erring these vicious bloodsuckers. And there’s definitely money to be made here.

I’m still working on my Castle Milk Stout ingestion method. As yet, there appears to be no discernible effect on the insects, but the research has been fun and probably deserves a whole lot more investigation.

“Twitter not the judge” revelation shocker

Posted on

An article in today’s Business Tech warns twitter users (primarily South African twitter users, one would imagine) against tweeting potentially defamatory statements about athlete Oscar Pistorius, currently – in case you hadn’t heard – charged with the murder of his girlfriend  Reeva Steenkamp.

According to legal expert Paul Jacobson:

“While our Bill of rights gives us the right to express our opinions, our rights are not absolute and, in the context of defamation, the defamed person’s right to dignity often holds sway unless there are clear public policy reasons to allow the comments to stand.”

He pointed out that Pistorius is yet to be found guilty and is therefore, still under law, innocent.

“Drawing conclusions about Pistorius’ guilt and publishing those conclusions online can lead to a defamation claim down the line.”

Who knew?

Well, aside from the whole common sense thing, the warning signs were there for all to see late last year in the Lord McAlpine/Newsnight scandal:

The legal position of an individual who posts content online, be it on Facebook, Twitter, or on comment sections of online news pages, is clear: He or she is responsible for that content. Ignorance of the law is not a defence.

It’s not that hard to understand why: the viral nature with which content – and therefore false or defamatory content – can spread on social networks is one of their strengths and yet one of their biggest downfalls as well. And:

When individuals post material online, they act as publishers and their publications are subject to the same laws as those of professional publishers, such as newspapers.

This includes publications made by way of a tweet. A retweet also amounts to a further publication.

The person who retweets that material will be responsible for the content of that retweet.

So yes, we each have to be responsible for our 140-character output. And that seems reasonable to me.

One wonders, however, where that leaves twitter users who – in good faith – share stories from recognised and “reputable” sources – namely our national newspapers.
Last Sunday’s City Press is a good case in point. The “facts” it published ahead of the Pistorius bail hearing, have since been shown to be almost entirely incorrect, but they were widely lapped up and regurgitated by a gossip-hungry twitter audience on the weekend.  That “Exclusive” was shared on over 1000 occasions directly from the page alone and excerpts and quotes from it many more times over.

That’s a lot of people who could potentially find themselves in trouble.

UPDATE: Or at least be “asked” to make a donation to charity.