Clamp down on Campylobacter

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Proton pump inhibitors are very effective and have been handed out like sweeties. Anyone on long-term treatment should be taking the minimum possible dose and this should be monitored to minimise the cancer risk you mention, Duncan. According to friends in the medical profession, this isn’t happening. I wonder how many GPs appreciate the increased risk of food poisoning when they prescribe acid-suppressing drugs.

It is very difficult to establish why humans have become more susceptible to infection and allergies. Widespread use of antibiotics is likely to have had a major effect on bowel flora and there is no doubt that this has contributed to antibiotic resistance.

I should have acknowledged that campylobacter is an organism that is present in the environment and that chicken is not the only cause of human infections, but there is little doubt that poultry presents the greatest risk. The supermarkets have told us of the various ‘interventions’ that they are using to cut down campylobacter contamination of their chicken, but these have been introduced since the industry was shamed by the publication of campylobacter figures by the FSA.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

I would be very proud of Which? if it did advise people to avoid buying chicken, but doubt that this will happen.

To the best of my knowledge, none of the supermarkets made much of an attempt to address the growing problem of campylobacter food poisoning until there was talk about testing fresh chicken sold by retailers. I agree that improvements at each stage could achieve a great deal. Thankfully, most of the retailers use the same processing companies, so improvements will be shared.

It is not necessary to completely eliminate campylobacter to greatly reduce the risk of food poisoning. Our bodies are designed to cope with low level contamination by bacteria and the problem is when our defence systems are overwhelmed by large numbers of bacteria. Fortunately the focus has moved from the percentage of contaminated birds to the percentage of those that are highly contaminated, which is a more useful indicator of risk to health.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

“If worried then don’t buy chicken, but you can avoid a problem by cooking chicken correctly to destroy any campylobacter.”

As I have explained repeatedly, there is still the danger of cross contamination of cooked food and salads etc. with raw chicken juice laden with bacteria. A home cook may take appropriate measures but there is no guarantee that a restaurant will, and many cases of food poisoning are associated with eating out.

I could have gone on to say that if you are concerned about restaurant or takeaway hygiene then avoid chicken, but assumed that was taken for granted. Kitchen hygiene is important, not just for chicken but for other meats. I also understand frozen chicken is pretty well free from campylobacter. The FSA website has a lot of information including advice on how to handle chicken.

Campylobacter is present in many countries who are also grappling with the problem. If an acceptable magic solution was that easy then I presume it would be taken up by all producers. There is not – to my knowledge, but someone may know otherwise .

The inference in some of this Convo is that somehow the UK producers and retailers are resisting or avoiding remedies and writing a letter to them will put all that right. We need solutions, so if anyone has ideas as to how to deal with it better than the FSA can it would be useful to publish them. Universities have been contracted to carry out research projects; as far as I am aware they have not come up with remedies yet either.

Even if you avoid chicken when eating out you are still at risk because meat juices can contaminate cooked food and food such as salads that do not require cooking. Food hygiene inspections frequently identify risk of cross contamination in commercial premises. I have explained this before.

Since the first FSA survey of retailers there has been some reduction in campylobacter contamination, offering evidence that progress can be made. The pressure needs to be kept up and the decision to let the companies handle their own testing is a considerable setback in my view. The poor handling of addressing the problem of tumble dryer fires and the VW Group emissions problems clearly demonstrate the need for external intervention rather than leaving companies to sort out problems of their own creation.

I agree with you absolutely malcolm_r. It is a shame that the FSA side had to provided by a subscriber.

As is traditional in these campylobactor Conversations I would point out that the ratio of meals with chicken eaten is yet again not covered other than the incidence in big figures “hundreds of thousands”.
– It is by far the commonest eaten meat in the UK and if you eat it as much as I do over 100 times a year and say 50 million eat at that rate that is 5,000,000,000. [Say one incidence in 1700 meals?]
– there are many potential dangers in life BUT we cannot EVER guarantee complete safety
– the more rigorous the guarding against any potential problem you pay increasingly higher costs
– the incidence of campylobactor in household pets would seem a worthwhile survey to establish if in fact overly close contact by some owners is actually a common cause or not.
– the number of repeat sufferers would be interesting to see if there was a learning case

As you can understand statistics are a powerful tool to draw out potentially interesting facts. Given the weekly medical statistics [NOIDS] perhaps Which? could sponsor a researcher .

From the FSA:
“the FSA is encouraged by the recent significant improvements in Campylobacter levels”

“With the amount of work and commitment being done by industry and government to reduce the levels of campylobacter in chickens, and the recent encouraging sampling results, we would expect the target to be met in the near future. Particularly the retail survey results, demonstrate already the real progress being made by the industry”

“There is a growing list of interventions that have been developed and then implemented at scale, in different combinations, by different supply chains from farm to retail. These are having a demonstrable impact on the levels of contamination we are finding in the retail survey.”

“Additionally, in the longer-term, we will be asking industry to conduct their own testing and to publish their results to an agreed set of standards prescribed and maintained by us.” The FSA are seemingly a very competent organisation and I am sure will deal with this properly. The very large increase in the amount of data that results can only speed up the knowledge required to improve the production of safer chicken.

So progress is apparently more significant than a mere “some”. Let’s not continually downplay what is being done simply to make more of this problem. Generating the “scare stories” that have been produced in the past does not help the situation. Putting forward constructive proposals and doing some hard work to improve matters will.

Tumble driers and VW have no relevance to chickens.

The FSA, unusually, are very open about there meetings which are open to the public. The Agenda for the July meeting is available.
food.gov.uk/about-us/our-board/meetings/2016/010116/board-meeting-agenda-13-july-2016

It is very interesting to see what they are going to be checking for this coming year …. including plastic rice!
food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/food-sampling-guidance-2016-17.pdf

For the benefit of those new to this discussion, have a look at the video posted on this page: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/27/dirty-chicken-scandal-campylobacter-eight-out-10-uk-birds-supermarkets-asda Hopefully this is highly untypical but it gives an insight into what could happen on a bad day. In intensive chicken processing, even uncontaminated carcasses can become contaminated with faeces from the bowels of contaminated birds.

The fact that some reduction in campylobacter contamination has been achieved since the introduction of testing does show that there is scope for more effort. A friend of mine nearly died as a result of asphyxiation caused by paralysis and after nearly a year is still suffering the consequences of a campylobacter infection. If economics is the only consideration, then it must have cost a considerable amount of money to keep her in hospital for months.

I obviously cannot say what can be achieved by good management throughout the industry can achieve. The solution may be vaccination of chicken so that they do not become carriers of campylobacter, and rapid methods of testing individual birds before they are sent to the abattoir. I wonder if the poultry industry is funding either of these approaches.

To avoid sensationalising this topic I suggest people also read the reports on the FSA website about the real progress that is being made (summarised by them as :
“the FSA is encouraged by the recent significant improvements in Campylobacter levels””.

You can see what interventions are proposed, what research is being done, and rather than react to scare stories, judge from this how best to view the problem and come to your own conclusions.

food.gov.uk/news-updates/news/2016/15076/update-on-fsa-campylobacter-retail-survey

duncan, maybe this comment was meant for someone else? I have not been involved in a discussion on proton pump inhibitors. 🙂

If it is used to convert people into Which? members, contributing to support testing and investigations, then I see no problem. I’d never looked at i News until now – have many others? It seems you subscribe £4.99 a month to access it. Just how much are Which? departing from a Members organisation and charity, supported mostly by their annual subscriptions?

This comment was removed at the request of the user

As Duncan says, Which? is a brand name, and a well known and respected one. We do not know how widely Alex Neill’s letter was publicised but is not the basis of a press release. Perhaps it should have been.

duncan, as I said I hope it increases Which? membership. I just hope Which? continues to focus on its original – as I understand it – role of independent expert investigations, helping consumers make better choices, fighting their corner and both protecting and supporting their rights – “their” being all of us, as we are all consumers.

I just wonder whether a members’ organisation – 1 million of us provide £100 million a year to fund it – can also be a “universal” consumer watchdog, or whether this should be a separate organisation – a charity perhaps – supported by donations, a tax payer funded watchdog or whatever. I would not like Which? to be diverted from its key role by taking on too much that it can’t handle effectively. That key role is of great value to those who pay for it.

We have a European umbrella – BEUC – that covers all consumer groups and maybe we should look to them to them for more powerful campaigning.

I have another concern, that Which? combines a charity and a business where the lines may become blurred, and with criticisms of the extraordinarily high remunerations involved. There is perhaps a possible danger of commercialism influencing policy.

You also say going global is the way forward for a “western progressive company”.
One might also view it in the light of a subscriber based testing organisation losing touch with its paying membership and moving to become a media animal with an angle on consumer matters.

Duncan – You refer to Which? being much quoted in the US which I find surprising, very surprising.

Given the existence of Consumer Reports in the US which is a much more thorough testing body [Xhose excepted and no doubt some others] , like
consumerreports.org/cro/health/prescription-drugs/best-buy-drugs/index.htm
the weekly Consumerist magazine,
consumerist.com/
consumerhealthchoices.org/
consumersunion.org/
consumeraffairs.com/
safepatientproject.org/

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Hello Lauren. We eat chicken at least once a week and have done for as long as I can remember. We’ve always handled and cooked it properly with, as far as I know, no ill effects. As it happens yesterday we had steak pie. But I would have had no second thoughts, other than buying from a reputable outlet – M&S is our local and hence regular food shop.

We don’t want to scare people into avoiding chicken do we? Just inform them of the way to handle and cook it safely which should be found on the packaging. The same as not letting raw meat juices of other types get onto other fresh or cooked foods.

I wonder whether our schools educate kids in the basics?

The FSA are not “passing on the responsibility of campylobacter testing to retailers” as far as I am aware. They are going to add the existing retailers’ testing results to their own, but under a common protocol so all the results are obtained in identical ways. I asked them about the possibility of doing this last year and they indicated then they were considering how best to do it.

The VW emissions problem and other examples of cheating demonstrates the need for independence from the companies. As I have said many times, products tested for Which? are purchased from retailers, just as you or I would do. Involving the manufacturers or retailers could allow selection of individual products for testing. Their independent testing has rightly been pushed as a major benefit of Which? testing.

I don’t believe that nearly enough is being done, Malcolm. I would like to see the industry funding research institutions to develop interventions that can be shared by all. Fortunately there is some sharing of expertise because various supermarkets and other companies use the same processors.

We don’t need to eliminate campylobacter because our natural defences can usually take care of low levels of campylobacter (and most bugs, though there are some exceptions) but it is essential to tackle higher level contamination.

What you see as progress, I see as failure to take the measures needed to adequately tackle a serious health problem.

In an earlier Conversation I mentioned that it had been discovered that providing chickens with clean water rather than water contaminated with faeces was successful in reducing campylobacter contamination. Some interventions are undoubtedly more complicated.

If you look at the FSA’s website (as I’m sure you do) it will be seen that much work has been done on different kinds of “intervention” – ways that campylobacter contamination and reduction might be tackled. Some of these are unsuccessful, others more so, and these were trialled to see what benefits they gave in production. We seem now to have entered the phase of putting these into production practice and hopefully the trial results wi be repeated. We will no doubt see over the next 12 months that covers all seasons of the year.

We are seeing significant improvements. That is good progress if it is sustained.

There are methods of campylobacter reduction – freezing chicken, soaking in chemicals, irradiation for example – that some find unacceptable.

What must be remembered is that campylobacter is destroyed by simply cooking chicken properly.

I’m interested in the subject and do follow developments.

Let’s compare this with a subject that we are agreed on. We are fed-up that retailers usually say that nothing can be done or refer customers to the manufacturer if a product fails soon after the guarantee has expired. They should instead be discussing the possibility that the customer might have a valid claim under the Consumer Rights Act. If I learned that retailers were now handling a third of cases correctly, I would not be happy that good progress is being made. I would want to push harder for action.

Cooking chicken properly will indeed destroy campylobacter but bringing heavily contaminated raw meat into the home presents risk of cross contamination of cooked food and food such as salads that is eaten raw. As we get older, we may not take as much care as we did before mental degeneration had set in.

Please explain what your proposals are to reduce campylobacter more quickly. It could be worth you suggesting them to the FSA; when I have contacted them in the past they have been most helpful and forthcoming. Please keep us informed.

It is important that we understand food hygiene – it embraces much more than this one topic and is essential to our health. Cooking pork properly was once regarded as essential – I don’t know whether it still is. And whilst we can all enjoy rare beef, there is danger in undercooking mince – so beware of the fad for rare beefburgers.

My suggestion is that realistic targets are set for maximum contamination levels for poultry to be sold for human consumption, much in the same way that we have maximum allowable emissions for new cars. Monitoring should be done independently.

Having had contact with the Food Standards Agency on a number of occasions, I agree they are helpful and the information they make available is exemplary. However, the FSA has limited resources and independent monitoring of supermarkets has been cut back, for example.

Mincing meat spreads bacteria on the surface throughout the meat. That is why preservatives are added to sausages and many beefburgers. Tapeworm infection used to be the reason why we were told to cook pork properly. It must be an unpleasant condition to discover but it’s easily treated.

Targets are a normal part of such matters but they must be based on what is realistic. The main objective should be to get as large a reduction as possible, irrespective of targets.

Supermarkets have been given the testing regimes by FSA to do testing of their own products at independent laboratories. The retailers generally test much larger samples than the FSA and can get more precise results. If you doubt the integrity of supermarket’s own testing you could ask FSA for a comment. When I spoke to FSA some time ago, having standardised the testing regime (neck skin removal was introduced for example) they were intending to include the supermarkets results to get a better overall view of progress.

I have already said that targets must be realistic. In the same way that car emissions limits have been revised downwards, the same could be done with campylobacter targets. I have been aware of the risks of campylobacter since about the time I started working in the field of microbiology. Maybe we could have dealt with the problem long before now if it had not been allowed to become so bad that the FSA started warning us of the danger of washing chicken.

Why don’t you study the reasons for doing proper independent testing rather than leaving the retailers to organise it? Please don’t suggest that Which? lets manufacturers do their own product testing according to protocols laid down by Which? 🙂

Which>, of course, no longer do testing, They subcontract it to commercial laboratories. Commercial laboratories also do independent testing for many others, including Campylobacter for industry. The FSA have set the test regime so laboratories conduct the tests and analyse the results in the same way when results need to be compared like for like. The FSA do not have their own laboratories. they publish a list of official feed and food control laboratories in the UK. In the UK, official feed and food laboratories include Public and Agricultural Analyst Laboratories and other microbiological laboratories that undertake work for local authorities (Food Examiners).

Such testing is showing significant improvements in the contamination of chicken due to the commitment of all concerned.

In my view it would be better for the companies to pay for the work to be done and centrally coordinated so we can be assured that there is no possibility of cheating and that the testing has been done under comparable conditions.

There are some peculiarities that deserve comment. For example Marks & Spencer returned the best figures this time round but several months ago they were the worst.

I am aware that Which? don’t run their own testing labs and I understand the reasons.

The concept that all companies set out to cheat and mislead is quite erroneous. Companies research and test to make better products – that is my experience of a number of manufacturing industries that I worked in. There products are very often certified by independent authorities and regularly audited. Many companies use independent laboratories, even if they have their own in-house expertise and test facilities which are essential for innovation and quality control. We regularly used BSI Laboratories, like many others.

Who is saying that ‘all companies set out to cheat’? I don’t want to continue this discussion, Malcolm. 🙁

We don’t share the same view about testing and the integrity of producers, so perhaps we just agree to differ. Having worked in manufacturing industry and seen first hand how many commercial companies, trade associations and allied organisations behave you can regard me as providing views from either a biased or an informed position. I simply try to give my own views and pass on,and link to, information that I think is relevant.

Independent testing, as proposed for other things like all products of any description, might be attractive if you could trust all the independent laboratories to have properly trained and experienced staff and appropriate equipment. In my experience many such independent labs I visited did not and they are of course set up as profitable enterprises and, no doubt like accountancy firms, want to generate and retain clientelle. And that assumes we have enough of them to satisfy the huge market, which we are nowhere near having in my view.

Many manufacturers have far better facilities and specific to their operation, with staff appropriately specialised and experienced. In the end it seems to me we have to be pragmatic. Supermarkets carried out their own campylobacter tests alongside the FSA, generally with significantly greater sample sizes. The FSA produced a standardised test protocol for them all to follow. Should any evidence emerge to show they any of them are deliberately falsifying results then we can launch an attack. Until then I think it is an eminently sensible arrangement and leaves the FSA to focus on what some of us have thought were worse culprits – the small producers and cooked chicken outlets.

I share Wave’s concern about allowing the manufacturers to Police themselves in that regard. We know, from other industries such as the media, Police and car companies that independent assessment is the only safe way to monitor what’s happening. Companies simply can’t be trusted.

Ian. that is a point of view that you are, of course, entitled to hold. But to regard all “companies” as untrustworthy seems a sweeping statement that could do with substantiation. As in all walks of life – charities, police, armed services, academia, politics, local authorities, manufacturers. service industries, healthcare, education, banking, accountancy, test laboratories……there will always be individual examples where failures are seen to occur. What is rarely reported, of course, are the many instances where they behave with propriety.

My experience within the sector of manufacturing industry I was involved with is what I base my comments on – direct knowledge.

I think our views differed a long time ago, Malcolm. 🙂 Irrespective of integrity, an unknown quantity, it is recognised as good practice to carry out independent assessment. Obviously it is important to carry out checks to make sure that testing labs are performing well and there are various approaches. Would you want to see Which? leave it up to manufacturers to test their products for Which? and submit their results for inclusion in the next magazine? I have no reason to think that anyone is falsifying results but there can be no doubt that independent testing is the gold standard.

The procedure for campylobacter enumeration by counting viable cells is very straightforward and taking samples of chicken skin or swabs will be the most time-intensive part. The first practical my 250 students in my microbiology practical included an experiment involving viable counts, albeit using baker’s yeast rather than an infectious bacterium. It may be that Campden BRI are using an automated process for dilution and plating in their viable counts (I hope so because it’s a bit repetitive) after manually collecting the samples.

What concerns me most is that although high level contamination is still widespread, having the retailers testing their own chicken is no longer high profile, meaning that there is no longer the same pressure to improve as when the FSA was releasing summary information showing the current pecking order of retailers. I have already said that I support looking at small retailers. I believe some of the fast food outlets use frozen chicken and as we have discussed earlier this seems to reduce the extent of contamination.

I accept some of what you say, Malcolm, but I suspect if there’s one thing that experience teaches us it’s that independent assessment is always, always needed. And never more so than in instances where the health of the consumer can be at risk.

Most governments create legislation on a reactive basis; rarely is something put into place to guard against ‘what if’ scenarios. The 1968 Typhus outbreak, traced to contaminated Corned Beef in Scotland, led to a raft of improved food safety measures, and that might not have been prevented even with Independent checks but Independent monitoring instils confidence. And could save lives.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

I’ve been concerned about food poisoning since I was a student and avoided barbecues because it’s easy to eat undercooked chicken. I learned about campylobacter when I started to work with bacteria as a research student. Campylobacteriosis can just be unpleasant but can kill and as I’ve mentioned before a friend suffered from a rare complication that caused paralysis, requiring her to be intubated to save her life. It must be three years now and she can now walk unaided but still does not have full use of her hands. Life is precious and I’m keen that we do our best to protect the citizens of this country, whether that relates to improved measures to combat food poisoning or safer designs of appliances.

“I think our views differed a long time ago, Malcolm. 🙂“. That’s no problem with me – conversations without differing views would be rather pointless.

As far as widespread high levels of campylobacter are concerned we would all want those reduced. What is the way to do that? What has the industry and the FSA failed to do that would accomplish a substantial reduction in a naturally-occurring organism?

These are interesting questions, Malcolm. Here are some thoughts.

1. Since the problem affects all retailers, a logical solution would be to work together to find a solution to benefit all companies. One way of doing this would be to fund research (either research institutes or universities) on the basis that the results and conclusions are shared. There has already been cooperation because retailers mainly use the 2 Sisters Food Group and Faccenda plants for processing chicken and interventions help more than one company.

2. Jointly fund development of promising interventions.

3. Don’t patent anything related to safety because this would put company profit ahead of the safety of consumers.

FSA could have tackled the problem long before the extent of contamination was sufficient to warrant issuing advice not to wash chicken. It could have focused on the percentage of heavily contaminated samples as it does now. These are where the danger lies. They could have compiled all the data from testing and made this readily accessible. (I don’t know where to find the most recent data without searching supermarkets’ sites and it looks like existing data has been removed from the FSA website.) They could have specified a standard format for presentation of contamination data rather than letting each company use its own (Compare Marks & Spencer with Morrisons, for example.) They could have fought for continuation of independent testing for reasons discussed earlier.

Referring to naturally occurring organisms is not very helpful because most bugs that have not been genetically manipulated could come under this category. It seems to be used as an excuse for lack of action.

As far as I know there has already been a good deal of research carried out both here and abroad into campylobacter and its mitigation. Work has been underway with the producers on measures to minimise it in processing. As far as I can see much is being done but it is not a problem with an obvious solution. Just gradual improvements as different interventions are trialled. I was simply asking whether there were a solution that you knew of. Otherwise, we deal with poultry, as it improves, with the precautions we know about, or choose not to eat it.

Can you provide links to some peer reviewed articles because I might have missed them? In science we move forward by publishing and sharing valuable information.

The FSA published details of research and the web shows papers from abroad.

I have not seen much peer reviewed research, Malcolm – hence my request.

The guts of chicken can carry enormous numbers of campylobacter, in the same way that our own bowels carry other bacteria. Campylobacter is harmless to the birds but can make us very sick if it gets into our digestive system. A possible solution is to develop a vaccine that will prevent campylobacter accumulating in the guts of chicken. There has been some research in this area. Vaccination has been used to ensure that lightly cooked egg is safe to eat.

If the companies provided our research councils with funding for research in areas such as this, whatever is achieved could be published and available to all of the companies. That seems a better way than carrying on and hoping that contamination rates will gradually fall.

https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/document/campylobacter-prog-review-nov2016.pdf
I haven’t looked at this in detail, even then only as a layman. This lists research carried out by, presumably, independent people – largely universities – into campylobacter. The resulting scores – based on the science and value for money – are very variable. It is concerning when a study (well, quite a few) is given 1 out of 5 for science.

Maybe there is a later summary of more recent work.

These look like preliminary research reports rather than formal studies. I have looked some of them before.

In a research paper the authors would be expected to have an Introduction in which previous research was described, normally more general at the start and then focusing on what the most relevant studies have found. This would be followed by a methods section to describe the procedures used in the current study, giving enough information for a competent scientist to repeat the work. Then the results would be presented, accompanied by relevant tables and figures. A discussion section would then look at the significance of the results, not only from the present study but in context of previous research. Each section would normally cite relevant references to earlier work. Research papers are normally peer reviewed – looked at independently by other scientists with knowledge of the subject. Peer review is far from perfect but it does add credibility and the public articles can readily be found with various search tools.

I’m not suggesting that these reports are worthless but I stand by what I said about a lack of published research. I suppose what’s obviously missing is pure rather than applied research.

Malcolm – It’s a while since I trawled the FSA site and I can no longer find documents that were easy to find before. Can you please tell me where you found the document on campylobacter research reports.

What worried me was when the quality of the science involved in a number of university studies was scored 1 out of 5. Does that suggest poor or incompetent supervision, even if some were just preliminary studies? An independent (commercial) lab also scored very poorly. I think had those studies been done by retailers they would have been ridiculed, and quite rightly.

However, the point is there seems to be no acceptable “silver bullet” as some call it. Are we prepared to accept frozen, irradiated or chlorinated chicken as an answer? Or do most people destroy the organism by following the preparation and cooking instructions?

I am careful where I buy our chicken and would beware of markets and butchers, as well as restaurants and fast food outlets, because I do not know how they source and handle chicken. Many undoubtedly do it properly but I welcome the FSA investigation into these retailers so we can get a better idea of how they fare. The came out relatively badly in the original FSA tests.

The site has changed and I’ve also lost my way in it. If I remember rightly I searched on “FSA campylobacter research”.

Thanks – It’s not just me then. I expect that this and other material that has gone will be back soon as the site is rebuilt.

I’m not familiar with research reports being scored in this way. Likely reasons for a poor score are failing to carry out the studies agreed and not submitting a final report by the deadline. Some very good scientists are not very good at meeting deadlines.

The various interventions to improve biosecurity and processing will provide cumulative benefits but the silver bullet could be the result of pure rather than applied science. There has been research on producing a vaccine to prevent the guts of chickens accumulating campylobacter but we are not there yet. We may yet have chlorinated chicken on the shelves thanks to the influence of the US, which we follow in so many ways.

There is certainly a problem with food hygiene in many (but certainly not all) fast food establishments but I know little about their supply. Maybe they use the same supplier that Marks & Spencer and Lidl do.

The FSA report did include a lot of well-scored investigations (3/5 and above) but some of the comments on what were completed but lower scorers were:

“The research team appeared to lack some important knowledge about poultry production.

It was observed that not all of the possible contamination factors were taken into consideration, which significantly impacted on the credibility of this work.”

Perhaps the FSA wilol disclose the origins of chicken sampled from the smaller outlets. It does seem to me that the farm and processor are the key players in this. It might pay to have FSA staff do far more unannounced visits, particularly to processors.

We do cop out of these problems when we excuse people “in the know” from “spilling the beans” when they see problems. Clearly they do not want to prejudice their jobs but we should all have a conscience, particularly when health is at risk. I would like to see an independent organisation established to which any of us could pass, in confidence, information on serious misbehaviour, whether in public or private institutions. There must be proper protection and sanctions against any organisation that victimises such people if they are discovered, There have been a number of such instances in the NHS and local authorities I also believe we should ban non-disclosure agreements accompanying a pay-off when someone loses their job for being forthcoming.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

BBSRC is one of our government funded research councils that provides grants for research, often in areas of strategic importance. Obtaining research council funding is competitive and their grants are more prestigious than some other sources of research funding for academic research. It’s amazing how much things have changed and international collaborative research is now supported.

If you believe that it is not possible to carry out independent testing of chicken sold by retailers then I would appreciate if you would provide evidence, Malcolm. Recall that the FSA has done this for several years. I think it would be wise to test more samples and we are agreed that the tests should be extended beyond the major retailers.

Of course it is possible. That is not the issue. The FSA seem confident to leave routine ongoing testing to the major supermarkets while they look at parts of the market they are more concerned about. I assume they have good reason.

And Government departments always act in the very best interests of the people, of course.

I don’t have your confidence, Malcolm, and I would like to see independent testing. The 2 Sisters Food Group has a large new lab: https://www.2sfg.com/news/archive/2013/lab-opening-puts-food-safety-first-for-2-sisters/

I am losing confidence in the FSA and feel that they might be being influenced by the government and industry.

What were the conclusions of the FSA probe? Were the claims of old chickens mixed with fresh ones upheld?

So long as it is fit for human consumption and correctly labelled there is nothing wrong with selling horse meat.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Indeed, it’s thought introducing horse meat into the commercial chains here could improve the lot of horses generally. And why stop at horses?

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Does anyone believe that a company that substitutes horse meat for beef will have ensured that it has gone through the rigorous safety testing process required to ensure meat is safe? I doubt it.

Duncan mentioned the closure of a plant owned by the 2 Sisters Food Group. Prior to the closure, undercover investigation for the Guardian and ITV showed evidence of ‘use by’ dates being changed at another of the company’s West Midland’s plant: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/28/uks-top-supplier-of-supermarket-chicken-fiddles-food-safety-dates The factory had attracted attention several years earlier when there were prosecutions for food fraud.

The closure of the Glasgow plant followed identification of problems by Tesco: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/19/tesco-2-sisters-plant-scotland-asda-sainsburys-m-and-s

It concerns me that none of the supermarkets have, as far as I am aware, stopped using this company.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

I’m glad that you have not identified the factory, Duncan. Without supporting evidence it could be considered libel. When you mentioned the closure of the 2 Sisters Food Group’s plant, that and the examples of poor practice are well documented. It is well established that people are reluctant to report what they witness at work because of the possible consequences.

So far as I am aware its not the job of the FSA to enforce against hygiene and food-handling non-compliances. I believe this is the responsibility of the relevant public health authority – which will no doubt be guided by the FSA. The sufficiency and quality of manufacturing inspections could be a relevant issue here.