Rana Slow-Cooked Braised Beef Lasagne was pulled from shelves over seafood contamination fears

  • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    16 days ago

    Well in their defence cows and fish are often found in close proximity. Given that they’re both aquatic animals. It’s an easy mistake they could have made.

    • MouldyCat@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      16 days ago

      if this is part of an effort to get beef recognised as a type of fish by the Catholic church, keep it up, this’ll probably work.

  • Drewfro66@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    16 days ago

    There seems to be confusion in the comments over facts cleared up in the body text.

    The error was mislabeling, which is the most common error in food production. They made perfectly uncontaminated Prawn and Lobster Lasagna and then put the wrong label on it. It should have been caught by quality control at the factory but mistakes happen.

    Just earlier this week we had to pull a couple cases of Italian Sausage at work because they were accidentally labeled with a sell by of “Mar 15” instead of “May 15”.

  • Tomtits@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 days ago

    Can it still be called contamination if a seafood lasagne was mispackaged as a beef lasagna, or vice versa?

      • Tomtits@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 days ago

        Did you read the article?

        I read it as the seafood lasagna was put into a beef lasagna box, rather than the beef lasagna having prawns in it.

    • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      16 days ago

      Can only guess.

      But it seems logical that the rules would define contamination, as including any ingredients not listed on the packaging.

      That said. Issuing an "Urgent ‘do not eat’ warning ". Seems like an over reaction. Rather than warning folks of the error. Returns will be refunded and listing the real ingredients.

      • tal
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Issuing an "Urgent ‘do not eat’ warning ". Seems like an over reaction. Rather than warning folks of the error.

        There are some people who have serious food allergies, though I agree that for the great majority of people, eating one dish rather than the other is probably not a big deal.

        • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Hence why I said. Warn folks about the error…

          If someone sees a don’t eat warning. They will also see a potential allergy warning or contains fish warning. In. The same place.

          So informing people of the error and refunding any returns. Is no more risk then the initial sale was. And also produces a little less food and packaging waste then this.

          So save n humans. Or save the same number if humans plus kill the earth less.