Jump to content

Talk:2008 Irish pork crisis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LOL

[edit]

This must have been the tenth "2008 _ _ _ _ crisis" I've seen this year.--BLaafg (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I suppose you could blame Wikipedia's naming policy. The use of the word "crisis" is valid though; I heard it described as such in a news bulletin in the immediate aftermath. Whether it remains so is another question, although the BBC article I've just added isn't comforting at all. --➨Candlewicke  :) Sign/Talk 01:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally I wonder how many of those have been mine... this must be about the fifth "2008 Irish _ _ _ _" I've begun since August... --➨Candlewicke  :) Sign/Talk 09:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The form "XXXX crisis of 2008" would be better in my opinion, but "2008 XXXX crisis" seems to be the decided upon standard of the hive mind. zoney ♣ talk 10:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may be good for alpha-numerical sorting. --PFHLai (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't it just be the "Irish pork crisis?" Honestly, how many of them have there been? What other Irish pork crisis are we distinguishing it from? 58.161.194.134 (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC) Crisis, in the correct word to use. Grabing headling on wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.143.244 (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC) I don't where you're from but it's not every day a country recalls food from twenty-five other countries, thousands of jobs are lost as a country's most well-known and main industry comes under threat and speculation leads to indecision leads to mass confusion leads to an uncertain future... we could of course go the Jonathan Ross/Russell Brand way and call it "Irish pork row"... --➨Candlewicke  :) Sign/Talk 06:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actual PCB Levels

[edit]

I would like someone to check my maths. The EU's maximum limit for Dioxin and PCB like chemicals in pork is 1.5 pg/g (1.5 parts per trillion? on page 17: [1]). The contaminated Irish pork contains between 80 to 200 times the EU's safe limit, this would be 0.12 to 0.3 parts per billion of PCBs. However, in 1986 the breast milk of nursing mothers in the US contained between 1020 to 1770 ppb of PCBs fat basis (milk is 4% fat, Table 1 on page 3: [2]) and the PCB contaminated rice-bran oil that caused mass poisoning (Yu-Cheng) in Taiwan in 1979 contained between 53,000 to 99,000 ppb of PCBs (in the abstract: [3]). --Diamonddavej (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As accurate as that may be we have to go on what the situation is - a mass international recall. --➨Candlewicke  :) Sign/Talk 20:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the second sentence of the Background section, PCB was described as "...an organic pollutant...", which maybe misleading, given the numerous meanings for the term "organic", especially as it relates to food? PBC is more precisely an organic chemical; i.e., composed of carbon, hydrogen and chlorine, as opposed to being inorganic, like table salt (sodium and chlorine). I suggest to replace "pollutant" with "chemical". I will this change.Jace1 (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the initial comment in this section, yes, 1.5 pg/g is 1 ppt (parts per trillion). However, the situation is less straight forward. The EU limits are stated as 4 pg/g for the sum of all dioxins present and detected and 8 pg/g for the sum of dioxins plus other chemicals that are similar to dioxins, with the inference that these other contaminants are not as dangerous. However, without knowing which limit is applied, which depends on what chemicals are present and presumably detected, it is not possible to make further calculations for this article.Jace1 (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to follow up on this. The Helsingin Sanomat (main newspaper in Helsinki, Finland) reports that "The measured amounts have been up to 200 times greater than the highest permissible limit." This would be 200 times 8 pg/g (or 8 ppt) = 1600 pg/g (1600 ppt or 1.6 ppb). These numbers seem to about an order of magnitude larger than the numbers reported in the "Comparison with past contamination incidents" section. The lower EU limit is 4 pg/g. Either way, the limits quoted in this section are not 4 or 8 (units aside for the moment), so there seems to be a mistake in the information presented.Jace1 (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC) Here is the link to the Helsingin Sanomat article; http://www.hs.fi/english/article/No+Irish+pork+containing+dioxins+was+imported+into+Finland/1135241813748[reply]

Thanks for the article and information. Yes its difficult to work out the actual levels of PCBs/Dioxins involved, sources only say 80 to 200 times the EU limit and fail to tell us what that limit is. It took quit a while to find the current EU limits, which are extremely stringent, "1 pg/g for sum of dioxins" and "1.5 pg/g for sum of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs" in pig meat and fat (see page 17 & 18 in COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006). Also, is the contamination PCBs, PCBs & Dioxins or just Dioxins? Again, the press does not understand the distinction between PCBs and Dioxins. The higher limits of 8 pg/g & 4 pg/g that you found, perhaps these are from an earlier EU directive? Could you provide a link? --Diamonddavej (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your maths are fine, but you are comparing apples and oranges. Dioxins are a subset of PCBs that are toxic because they bind to the Aryl hydrocarbon receptor. Our capacity to measure them has improved a great deal since 1986. Probably the numbers in that paper refer to total PCB's by their detection method (if you notice, they even include a "% above detection limit" column in the table). I'm guessing that the 1986 study reported total PCBs instead of AhR binding (toxic dioxins). More recent studies report breast milk dioxins in pg/g fat (with rates in low numbers like 4) e.g. [4]. Also, I've read that human levels have decreased as a result of regulation on release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.190.137.34 (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was comparing apples with oranges. The 1986 study only looked at raw PCB abundance. Today the toxicity of dioxin like PCBs and dioxins are expressed in Total Toxicity Equivalent (TEQ), they measure the levels of specific toxic PCBs & dioxins and weight the levels found, its expressed as e.g. pg/g WHO TEQ fat. Then apples are compared with apples. --Diamonddavej (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beef is positive

[edit]

This has just gotten massively worse. The article is going to need a name change.[5] --➨Candlewicke  :) Sign/Talk 14:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PCB vs dioxin

[edit]

Polychlorinated biphenyls (commonly called PCBs) and polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (commonly called dioxins) are two separate classes of chemicals. Though they are similar classes, no chemical can be both a PCB and a dioxin as is suggested by this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.211 (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The European commission news statement titled "Contamination incident by dioxins and PCBs in pork meat from Ireland" makes it clear that the contaminant is "dioxins and dioxin like PCBs", the levels are about 100 times 1 pg/g for dioxins and 100 times 1.5 pg/g for dioxins & dioxin like PCBs (dioxin like PCBs are 12 related PCBs out of 209 possible congeners that are nearly as toxic the worst dioxin, 2,3,7,8-TCDD). I recommend using the term "dioxins & dioxin like PCBs" in the article when referring to the contamination involved. --Diamonddavej (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Total Toxicity Equivalent (TEQ)

[edit]

There are 7 toxic Dioxins out of 75 and 12 Dioxin like PCBs out of 209 congeners, the proportions of these toxins vary considerably between industrial oils and various contamination incidents. Accordingly, health authorities uses Total Toxicity Equivalent (TEQ), they take the total Dioxin & PCB levels and factor it according to the abundance of the highly toxic Dioxin and Dioxin like PCBs congeners. The result is a normalized abundance expressed in ppt, ppb, pg/g etc. Therefore, when comparing with past contamination incidents its important to use the TEQ value. --Diamonddavej (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey could someone change the link to yusho? it goes to the yusho wrestling, not to the yusho disease which i think it is suppposed to link to —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.47.89 (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ups, that was embarrassing. Its fixed now. --Diamonddavej (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bord Bia

[edit]

The opening paragraph says "The Food Safety Authority of Ireland moved on 6 December to recall from the market all Irish pork products dating from 1 September 2008 to that date, and the Bord Bia." What's the Bord Bia, and what is that reference supposed to be about ? -- Beardo (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bord Bia is Irish for Food Board... So the Irish council of food. 86.45.104.241 (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Local reaction

[edit]

Both items referenced are the same Press Association article. Aren't there any genuine local reactions ? -- Beardo (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. Local reactions have become somewhat amalgamated into one national outcry. It's the best we've got for now as they came before the story broke internationally. Also local newspapers ought to be being distributed around now, that is those that are available on a weekly basis. So perhaps we can get some feedback from them... --➨Candlewicke  :) Sign/Talk 20:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of Farms affected

[edit]

According to the BBC here [6] and here [7], Thirty-seven beef farms in the Republic of Ireland and Nine beef farms in Northern Ireland used the contaminated feed, contamination of beef is only marginally above the EU limit. Nine pig farms, from a total of 400 pig farms in the Republic of Ireland, used the contaminated feed. --Diamonddavej (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have used this number 37 beef and 9 pig farms as the definitive number of famrs affected throughout the article, as there are a number of discrepancies. User6344 (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caption of Picture of swimming pool.

[edit]

I find the statement 1 parts per trillion is equivalent to dispersing one-twentieth of a drop of water throughout a 50 metre Olympic sized swimming pool to be flawed. What volume is a drop of water?KMcD (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The volume of a drop of water is 0.05 ml. I took the picture and caption from the Parts-per notation page. A standard Olympic swimming pool is 2.5 million liters (2.5 x 109 ml).
(0.05 ml / 20) / 2.5 x 109 ml = 1 x 10-12 (1 ppt).
The calculations are correct. --Diamonddavej (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just consulted the literature to see what the actual volume of one drop of water really is, Genty & Deflandre (1998) measured the volume of drops of water falling from stalactites, they found that a drop of water is 0.14 ml, irrespective of drip rate etc. So 1 ppt is 56th of a drop of water dispersed throughout an Olympic sized swimming pool. --Diamonddavej (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: The rule of thumb in laboratory titration work using a standard pipette is 20 drops pr ml, according to my memory. Precisely your initial value. That approximate value is all over Google but I cant find it in any books at hand. I find it quite reasonable to use a standard pipette drop size in your Olympic sized swimming pool example, and not a drop from a cave stalactite somewhere. (titration web sources: HINT: Assume 20 drops per milliliter when transferring liquid samples. and If you are using the stored calibration (20 drops per mL)) --- Power.corrupts (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure found a reference on this trivial subject. NFPA 1964, Standard for Spray Nozzles (2003ed) Section 4.6.2 The maximum leakage allowed through the discharge orifice shall be 12 drops per minute (½ ml/min), i.e. 24 drops per ml. Power.corrupts (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

Isn't "pig meat" a bit engrishy when "pork" is the term actually used? Crisis is rather vague, too. Am I the only person that thinks "2008 Irish pork recalls" is a more appropriate title? Duke toaster (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm afraid so, at least from my point of view. I've heard "crisis" the most often to describe this across a vast range of sources including TV, radio and the print media. "Crisis" seems most appropriate and it isn't exactly an exaggeration in this case. Why "pig meat" though, I'm not sure... surely pig meat is pork? The link on the Main Page is also to "pork"... --➨Candlewicke  :) Sign/Talk 20:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would go with pork, but maybe the current title is chosen because many people don't consider gammon / bacon / pate / ham etc to be pork? they know they come from pigs, but think pork only applies to chops and sausages. Strange but true! Even our article on Bacon calls it "meat from a pig" in the lead, and not pork.Yobmod (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we take a look at the sources that use "crisis" and the way that they use it? I too would favour Toaster's title. 86.44.22.30 (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with the "recall" sentiment rather than crisis. In relation to pig meat or pork, how about pork products? Would that cover the variety of products without saying pig meat?User6344 (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millstream Recycling is in Co. Wexford

[edit]

Millstream Recycling is located at Clohamon Mills, Bunclody, Co. Wexford. The confusion is because Bunclody village is on the boarder of Co. Carlow and Co. Wexford. --Diamonddavej (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oil source

[edit]

I'm a bit concerned about the tarring of the possible source of the contaminated oil. The only reference cited for this proposition reports that the source is "suspected" and nothing more. While the text uses the same terminology, the map caption does not, and seems to overstate the current knowledge. I'd suggest that that map be deleted, or its caption toned down at the least for fairness' sake. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Levels of Dioxin/PCBs compared

[edit]

Kanabrocki (1968) analysed the trace element abundance of fingernails of 19 people (6 f, 13 m), they found fingernails contain 0.5 parts per million of Gold (500 ppb), the average crustal rock abundance is 4 ppb (somewhat morbidly you could almost mine fingernails for gold). Therefore, its likely that the human body (and perhaps pigs) contains >1000 times more Gold than Dioxins/PCBs in the worst contaminated pork (<0.2 ppb). --Diamonddavej (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Shelves

[edit]

Shouldn't this section be expanded? Reading the article you'd think the pork was still recalled. Everything was being put back on shelves nationwide on the 11th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.181.126 (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe Tesco has put anything back up yet.--Occono (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I witnessed a supermarket selling Dutch pork only late on the 11th. Then there's the photo which I took on the 12th of another supermarket (in a different location in a different county in a different province actually) selling Danish pork only. --➨Candlewicke  :) Sign/Talk 20:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
China has now seized some leftover Irish pork. --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 16:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

In the first paragraph, states "between 80 and 200 times the EU's recommended limit for dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs", I believe that the limit being referred to is the EU Legal Limit, so why did the author(s) put "recommended limit" instead? Is this an effort to downplay the incident? 91.84.158.171 (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well an article called "crisis" cannot really downplay itself... I don't know who it was... if it was me, nothing was intentional... after all, if I were downplaying it, it wouldn't be ITN... --➨Candlewicke  :) Sign/Talk 20:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The is a recommended limit and its a bit flexable. The risk of eating in food that has dioxin & PCBs (all food has some) is calculated using "Body Burden", they take an average 70kg person and calculate their maximum safe daily dioxin & PCB intake. The actual dioxin & PCBs levels are not the no.1 concern. The reasoning is simple, take e.g. beluga caviar, its recommended dioxin & PCB levels could be set at 10 ng/g, but peoples Body Burdens will not be exceeded as beluga caviar is rarely eaten and when it is people only eat it in small amounts. But in the case of chicken or beef, which are eaten in lager quantities and more often, far stricter limits are needed in order to prevent people exceeding their Body Burden. So in effect, the EU (and the US EPA) have limits in food that are a bit flexible and depend on how often and how much is eaten. --Diamonddavej (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2008 Irish pork crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on 2008 Irish pork crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2008 Irish pork crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2008 Irish pork crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Irish_pork_crisis&oldid=1212528550"