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.
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.
Can it still be called contamination if a seafood lasagne was mispackaged as a beef lasagna, or vice versa?
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.
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.
Yes, beef in a seafood lasagna (is that a thing) would be a contamination
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.