One of Australia's biggest tomato brands and two major supermarkets are selling products that exclusive forensic testing shows have misleading labelling.
I would like to see the tests results, and the datasets used to calibrate them before believing them. This entire article shouts “trust us, we did science” without actually sharing any of the results or the methods used to obtain them.
That’s not how science works. Show us your methodology.
Edit: just had a read of the Source Certain website to see if the actual methodology is listed there somewhere, and not only do they have no useful information at all, they claim to use “proprietary science”, aka, not science, because there is no peer review.
Yes, the general concept is explained, but not the raw data, or how they come to their “98% certainty” figure.
There are a number of factors that can effect the trace element and isotopes ratios in a crop, and they have made no effort to share what factors they have controlled for.
It’s a documentary, not a scientific paper. Why would they give you source data?
I’d trust the scientist with years of expertise over the denials of every company.
The parallels are eerily similar with the sunscreen fiasco, where all the companies caught with vastly lower SPF factors than they claimed, all denied it, and claimed the Choice testing was wrong or invalid. Then, one by one, they fessed up, and blamed it on suppliers, their own testing and everyone else except themselves.
Nope, just an engineer who has seen similar methods fail hilariously when the trying to extrapolate from a limited datasets.
When the only data supplied is opaque guarantees from a private company that profits from enticing more interest in their services, they need to state clearly how they came to make those guarantees.
I would like to see the tests results, and the datasets used to calibrate them before believing them. This entire article shouts “trust us, we did science” without actually sharing any of the results or the methods used to obtain them.
That’s not how science works. Show us your methodology.
Edit: just had a read of the Source Certain website to see if the actual methodology is listed there somewhere, and not only do they have no useful information at all, they claim to use “proprietary science”, aka, not science, because there is no peer review.
They covered it (briefly) in the program. They analyze for various metals and elements which provides a ‘fingerprint’ of the source of the goods.
Yes, the general concept is explained, but not the raw data, or how they come to their “98% certainty” figure.
There are a number of factors that can effect the trace element and isotopes ratios in a crop, and they have made no effort to share what factors they have controlled for.
It’s a documentary, not a scientific paper. Why would they give you source data?
I’d trust the scientist with years of expertise over the denials of every company.
The parallels are eerily similar with the sunscreen fiasco, where all the companies caught with vastly lower SPF factors than they claimed, all denied it, and claimed the Choice testing was wrong or invalid. Then, one by one, they fessed up, and blamed it on suppliers, their own testing and everyone else except themselves.
Guy sounds like an anti vaxer/ home scientist…where’s the source data. I want to do my own analysis of it to find the truth they are hiding.
Bloke sounds the opposite to me. This article could have been funded by woolies and SPC for all we know
Probably not Woolies as they were caught passing cage eggs as free range by the article.
Nope, just an engineer who has seen similar methods fail hilariously when the trying to extrapolate from a limited datasets.
When the only data supplied is opaque guarantees from a private company that profits from enticing more interest in their services, they need to state clearly how they came to make those guarantees.
Most articles won’t provide a decent level of sources. Then again most articles (journalism) are shit.
I will say decent journalists will answer emails. Depends on volume of articles written and if its a well worded discussion.
and yet the data actually does reveal facts that have been verified in other ways
strange that
Are you somehow here to shill for companies found lying?