The #redalert feature by Dennis Okari which has been trending raises a lot of questions on the validity of the messages put across by the feature which is quite misleading to the public. Some of the concerns and false assertions to be debunked include:
1. It is important to point out that sodium metabisulfite is not carcinogenic, contrary to the way it has been incorrectly portrayed in the feature. Sodium metabisulfite is a widely used biocide and preservative in the agriculture, food and beverage industries. It poses no direct danger to humans and there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it causes cancer.
2. The laboratory where the meat samples are said to have been tested is not accredited to undertake the analysis, and it certainly does not have the technical capacity and the expertise to analyze meat samples for sodium metabisulfite - being a human pathology diagnostic laboratory rather than a food industry or chemical analysis laboratory. It, therefore, raises queries where the tests were actually conducted and if the results are valid.
3. Furthermore, a simple observation of the clip of the way the samples were handled by the lab technologist who took a piece of meat and put on a test tube against a human biochemistry analyzer and then claims to have used the Monier-Williams method raises serious questions about whether the test was actually done.
4. Likewise, the anatomical pathologist who interpreted the result is not an expert on food science testing and meat analysis.
5. Besides, the closeness of the 3 results from 3 different samples coming from 3 different ‘leading supermarkets’ at 545, 547 and 550 mg/Kg sounds quite odd if not dubious.
6. Whereas it may be true that meat sellers/retailers may indeed be using sodium metabisulfite, the way the feature has been done by Dennis Okari and the results provided are questionable and may be unscientific thus alarmist and misleading, which in turn would be counterproductive for public confidence in science and cause unwarranted and unjustified damage to an industry without scrutiny.
7. It would be appropriate to have the samples tested in a proper and well-established laboratory that is accredited to analyze food samples; and to ensure proper handling of the samples to the correct results are obtained for interpretation which must then be interpreted by the right experts including chemical analysts, food science and vet specialists
1. It is important to point out that sodium metabisulfite is not carcinogenic, contrary to the way it has been incorrectly portrayed in the feature. Sodium metabisulfite is a widely used biocide and preservative in the agriculture, food and beverage industries. It poses no direct danger to humans and there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it causes cancer.
2. The laboratory where the meat samples are said to have been tested is not accredited to undertake the analysis, and it certainly does not have the technical capacity and the expertise to analyze meat samples for sodium metabisulfite - being a human pathology diagnostic laboratory rather than a food industry or chemical analysis laboratory. It, therefore, raises queries where the tests were actually conducted and if the results are valid.
3. Furthermore, a simple observation of the clip of the way the samples were handled by the lab technologist who took a piece of meat and put on a test tube against a human biochemistry analyzer and then claims to have used the Monier-Williams method raises serious questions about whether the test was actually done.
4. Likewise, the anatomical pathologist who interpreted the result is not an expert on food science testing and meat analysis.
5. Besides, the closeness of the 3 results from 3 different samples coming from 3 different ‘leading supermarkets’ at 545, 547 and 550 mg/Kg sounds quite odd if not dubious.
6. Whereas it may be true that meat sellers/retailers may indeed be using sodium metabisulfite, the way the feature has been done by Dennis Okari and the results provided are questionable and may be unscientific thus alarmist and misleading, which in turn would be counterproductive for public confidence in science and cause unwarranted and unjustified damage to an industry without scrutiny.
7. It would be appropriate to have the samples tested in a proper and well-established laboratory that is accredited to analyze food samples; and to ensure proper handling of the samples to the correct results are obtained for interpretation which must then be interpreted by the right experts including chemical analysts, food science and vet specialists