Thanks for the background, Dave. Very illuminating.
As Firth has complained repeatedly that Lidl haven't replied to his allegations, I will be pleased to copy all his "allegations" to the Lidl UK legal department, together with his contact details.
No the report absolutely does not say that- I suggest you try reading it. It says the oil showed evidence of post pressing heat treatment (thus not virgin) and that these results *could* have been obtained by the addition of processed oil (not the other way round).
You followed the food poisoning part of the thread with, and I quote again, an assertion that Lidl "adulterated food".
Well no-one other than you.
I was responding to your comments about where I would buy my food - selective snipping doesn't help your case either.
"Own label" merely means that a supplier of many supermarkets, who produce olive oil, agree to paste a certain label on a bottle. I think we would agree that the Lidl management wouldn't recognise an olive press if they fell over it in the street, nor should they - they run supermarkets. You are the one building up "own label" to be relevant when it simply isn't. The contract with the supplier for the supply of olive oil differs in absolutely no respect, either morally or legally from one where they are purchasing a branded olive oil, other than the fact that the are buying at the lowest price and have asked for a particular label. To assert otherwise is just stupid! They don't own the production company and are not responsible for its behaviour.
I have never suggested otherwise
I suggest you read the article which emphatically did not assert that it consisted of a blend of oils. Their conclusion was that it had been heat treated - a recognised technique for removing some of the harsher qualities of cheaper olive oils. To cover all eventualtities they remarked that the same test results could have been achieved by the addition of processed olive oils.
Yes - it was not the conclusion of the report although it was allowed as a possibility.
You rabbit on about EVOO when there is no argument on that issue - I said in a previous post they were selling Extra Virgin Olive Oil that was not and that this was illegal. I'm not going to agree more just because you add tasting notes!
You asserted that Lidl adulterated food. Lidl is a legal entitiy with employees, who run retail outlets. You have no evidence that Lidl (or any of its employees) have ever adulterated anything and you know you haven't and to say they have makes you a plonker. That incorrect assertion was why I joined this thread.
If you had managed to control your rampant ego and had stated that Lidl had been involved with too many food safety problems with their suppliers for your liking and that they mislabelled food as being of higher quality than it actually was (to the detriment of hard-working quality suppliers, citing the olive oil example), you might have been welcomed rather than regarded as troll-like!
AIUI "virgin" oil has to be below a certain acidity to be called "extra virgin" (according to EU labelling regulations).
Adulterating !=3D causing food poisoning, so, no.
MBQ
So, the fisrt link I checked makes it quite clear that the *producer*, not Lidl, were the suspects. I CBA to check the rest as I suspect there'll be no evidence that lidl caused any of the contamination. No different really to all the Irish pork that has been pulled from supermarket shleves recently.
MBQ
It would only be adulteration if the oil actually started out as extra virgin (did it?) and was adulterated.
I refer to it as passing something off as extra virgin when it clearly isn't.
MBQ
Wake up at the back, I've already posted links to food poisoning.
Yes it does. You aren't doing anythign other than skimming the report.
The supermarket claimed that it was EVOO, and that presuposes that it started as EVOO.
The report made it clear that had been added to the oil.
One hopes that at some time you get a life.
Why does it presuppose anything? All it says is that they are claiming it to be EV00. It could be a simple case of passing off.
MBQ
Then why mention it to us in the first place?
Sheesh.
J^n
That's a fair question
Try reading the analysis given by the Feinschmecker. If you don't understand it, get an adult to explain it to you in words of one syllable.
And try not to snip all context from any reply lest you end up lookign like a sad basket case with an axe to grind.
And now attacking someone for their posting style.
I'll leave others to draw their own conclusions.
MBQ
Tell you what, Steve. just for you I'll try again without snipping anything.
Why does a supermarket making a claim of something being EV00 pre- suppose that the something started out as EV00?
Does it make it clear that the augend was EV00?
MBQ
Not at all, you appear to have a reading disability since you have made statements that cannot be supported if you bother to read the report in question. I am charitably assuming that you have some sort of learning difficulty. The alternative is to assume that you are so blinded by bile and prejudice that your posts are simply a pack of lies.
You're not being "attacked", I am pointing out that there is a natural consequence to how your post will be viewed if you choose to remove all context in order to misrepresent the post you are replying to.
As will I.
If it's "going out next year" surely there's a general public interest? Don't they commission and broadcast things with the intention of getting viewers? Isn't that why they publish listings, so we know what's on and can decide what's of interest?
Not even with a well-oiled woman?
Is that with EXTRA VIRGIN OIL ?? Wavey Dave
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.