Tim Worstall

Salmonella in Chocolate

So there is a (very small) risk of salmonella contamination in some of Cadbury’s chocolate bars:

According to Cadbury’s interpretation of European food safety law, the company had no need to inform the Food Standards Agency.

"The
tests are far more stringent than anyone else’s and they can pick up
minute traces," Miss Dawson-Shepherd said. "You would need to be
looking at in the order of a million cells of salmonella in 100g to
cause a stomach upset."

The company found 0.3
cells per 100g in the crumb – far below the "alert level" of 10 cells,
she said, adding that people who had eaten some of the chocolate
"should not worry".

Naught naughty, of course, and anyone made ill (and can prove it) quite rightly has a claim against the company. But one thing does slightly confuse me:

Although the company says that only 5,000 bars were made from the
contaminated chocolate, the FSA ordered the much bigger recall as a
precaution.

How many more than 5,000 is bigger?

Cadbury was forced to withdraw a million chocolate bars yesterday over fears that they could be contaminated with salmonella.

Err, 995,000 actually. So, a question. If the FSA is actually wrong, and there were in fact only 5,000 bars contaminated, does the FSA then pay Cadbury’s for those 995,000 bars ordered withdrawn? Are the bureaucrats responsible for the consequences of their actions? Or does that only work with the private sector?

 

In

3 responses

  1. Stephen C Avatar
    Stephen C

    I think that the FSA is really growing into the Agency that cried wolf.
    Are these people accountable at all?
    First the Sudan I over-reaction, then sanctimoniusly parading around on junk food advertising (see below), now this.
    On junk food advertising, the FSA’s board minutes record their disappointment with Ofcom’s proposals and that two board members wanted “a more radical approach”. I just do not think that its is the place of a regulator to propose radical approaches to anything – they should be measured, approporiate and proportionate ones.
    Is this how they carry out all their worrk?

    Reply
  2. Andy Avatar
    Andy

    If there are 5,000 (potentially) contaminated bars out there, out of a population of 1 million, but you can’t identify those 5,000 bars, the only option is to withdraw all of them.
    I don’t know the science of salmonella, and have no idea of whether the FSA were right or not to order the recall.
    But, to be honest, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for Cadbury’s. They knew about this back in January, and could have let the FSA know then. They’d have probably still faced a recall, but it would have had a much smaller impact on the company’s bottom line.
    Tim adds: There’ll be lot numbers on the bars: yes, you can identify them.

    Reply
  3. MatGB Avatar
    MatGB

    Meh, if they’re going to get rid of them, can they send the chocolate to me? I’ll take the risk thanks (I’d probably take it even if it was much bigger than “miniscule” as well).
    Stupid nannies.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading