😡

  • Nath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    2 months ago

    Affecting so many brands, many of whom pride themselves on sourcing from Australian growers. I suspect it’s a subset of the growers themselves (or a single supplier) behind this, rather than the brands. It is too much to believe that 30 brands all sourced from some Chinese supplier independently. I would love to find out how far this rabbit hole goes.

    • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 months ago

      Likely some tomato farms purchased overstock or unappealing produce for resale and they mix them into the native grown tomatoes to hide imports (or pump up output numbers for investors).

  • this_jury_is_hung@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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.

    • No1@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      They covered it (briefly) in the program. They analyze for various metals and elements which provides a ‘fingerprint’ of the source of the goods.

      • this_jury_is_hung@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • No1@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          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.

          • Typotyper@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.

            • this_jury_is_hung@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              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.

              • Typotyper@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 months ago

                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.

            • notgold@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              Bloke sounds the opposite to me. This article could have been funded by woolies and SPC for all we know

        • Seagoon_@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          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?

  • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Lying cunts preying on people trying to support local farmers, and with forced-labour sourced goods no less.

    All off my shopping list for good, and hoping to see ACCC action. This is clearly deceptive labeling and false advertising.

    • MisterFrog@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      In my opinion, the maximum fines courts can impose are too low, and even then, judges too often don’t award the maximum fines :(

      If a company has a net worth over a certain amount, I reckon a jury should get final say. The class interests of judges are too different to the common person in our current society

      • budget_biochemist@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        If companies are “persons” they should also face jail time or house arrest (i.e. trading restrictions) as punishment for breaking the law.

        • MisterFrog@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Absolutely. Though I don’t believe that particular legal precedent exists in Australia (I am not a lawyer).

          Completely agree though, that these consequences are too lax, and are just the cost of doing business…

  • Seagoon_@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    A lot of fake Italian tomatoes too.

    and here’s the thing, farms in Italy exploit a lot of refugees and illegal immigrants from Africa as farm workers

    Aussie toms are the way to go 👍I buy ardmona

  • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    My only choices of oranges right now in my Canadian grocery stores are “USA” and “South Africa”. Thanks trump! Thanks musk! Where are my Moroccan clementine’s!

  • butters@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I was surprised by so many brands now being owned by US giant Simplot.

    Birds Eye – Frozen vegetables, frozen fish, frozen meals, hot chips

    Edgell – Canned vegetables, frozen vegetables, beans, corn, hot chips

    Leggo’s – Pasta sauces, tomato paste, pasta, cooking sauces (featured in the doco)

    John West – Canned tuna, salmon, canned seafood, frozen seafood

    Chiko – Chiko Rolls and frozen snack foods

    Harvest – Shelf-stable meals, canned meals, cooking ingredients

    I&J – Frozen seafood

    Captain’s Catch – Frozen seafood

    Chicken Tonight – Cooking sauces

    Raguletto – Pasta sauces and pasta products

    Five Brothers – Pasta sauces

    Seakist – Canned tuna and seafood

    Ally – Canned seafood

    Providore d’Italia – Italian-style sauces

    Top Sail – Seafood products

    And then this guff on the Simplot website: “ Our products have to be Australian sourced. Customers want to see that we are supporting the Australian business.” hmmm