Comments on: Sensation sans substance

By: soma

soma — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:22:14 +0000

Hi! Nice site. Check site about soma – http://buy-soma.dive.to

By: rooibos

rooibos — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:44:38 +0000

The reporter who broke the original story is doing a follow up this weekend. Lots of what i have mentioned will be brought up (not the fashion of reporting – obviously!). The papers should not be the parties who try rectify the issues, I agree, but rather than state “these products will cause cancer” they should not put the fear of god into the general public and cause mass hysteria. Secondly, papers like the Citizen, followed suite without even doing their own investigations. Why is that after the whole Nando’s scare last year (or have we forgotten the scandal?) the follow up reports were like on page 15 and not bold type face ? If the papers really cared and were THAT concerned surely when all was resolved they should splash that on the front cover…? hmmm “The Sunday Crimes”

By: Me2

Me2 — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:17:11 +0000

If this is the case, you should pass the information on to a newspaper or news agency so that people can get the other side of the story.
In other words, the “human cost” of the action taken to deal with a known health hazard. You’ve already posted it to a weblog, so take the next step and make it public knowledge.
But I still don’t understand why the Sunday Times should get the blame. Their story WASN’T exagerrated, and nor was it in any way irresponsible.
It was the simple truth – Sudan Red, a known carcinogen, WAS contained in those foods. And it IS dangerous to human health. Why should these things be swept under the carpet, or shrugged off as if they don’t really matter?
We live in a society where, thank goodness, the Press are free to investigate and report on matters of public concern.
It is the food companies who really are to blame here – they should have known better. Please stop trying to blame the newspaper for doing its job, and doing it well.
Or otherwise, kindly point out exactly where in the original report they were “over-exaggerating” or being irresponsible.
It is all too easy to accuse newspapers of being “sensational” or “hysterical”, when, in fact, as in this case, they are performing a worthwhile and very necessary public service.

By: rooibos

rooibos — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:38:19 +0000

AND lastly, not all companies are as big and as cash flush as Robertsons. Some of the smaller companies affected like “osmans” & “alifa’s” depend heavely on the likes of shoprite and pick n pay to stay afloat. If these companies loose their listings, they will retrench staff and possibly fold – Regardless of their innocence or guilt.

By: rooibos

rooibos — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:33:33 +0000

one of the original companies implicated in the “food scandal” is DJ Foods. There has been no production in the factory since friday last week. All the independent distributors contracted here are sitting without pay, as well as all the sales representitives and merchandisers whose job it is to keep shleves tidy. This will be released in an update this weekend. Please be aware that the issue is not the loss of jobs in the short term or cost to companies in the short term , BUT irresponsible, over-exaggerated, “buy me buy me” journalism.
Its just sad to see how such a reputable newspaper can be heading towards the european tabloids fashion of print and sales.

By: eMerging <brand blogs>

eMerging <brand blogs> — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 06:08:09 +0000

Thought Crime

Have you ever been told “you think too much”? Could it be that the people who have adopted this phrase are really saying “do…

By: Me2

Me2 — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 23:30:21 +0000

“Several manufacturing plants as well as distribution companies have come to a complete STOP.”

Do you have a source for this information? It certainly hasn’t reached the major local news outlets yet (news24, m-web, iol, iafrica, etc.) If it is true (and I’m not at all suggesting that it isn’t) then it’s an even bigger scandal than the one that caused all the fuss to begin with.
On the face of it, it’s hard to believe that the withdrawal of a few lines of powders and spices could lead to the complete shutdown of several manufacturing plants and distribution companies.
Provide a link, please – this is something that will definitely prove to be of great interest to the news media and the public if it is true.

By: rooibos

rooibos — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:13:30 +0000

Several manufacturing plants as well as distribution companies have come to a complete STOP. Certian lines will be de-listed from major chains causing a direct loss of sales and affecting all jobs in the industry. The likes of UBR (unifoods bestfoods Robertsons) are sure to be releasing a press report. Lines that have been removed off shelf (aromats, knorrox etc) are not contimated but have been removed.Secondly, most preserved foods contain one of several chemicals which will cause cancer far quicker and in far less doses that the Sudan range of colours. Sudans are STILL used world wide in the manufacture of make ups and especially lip sticks. so kiss your girlfriend good night, enjoy your nik naks and smoke till your lungs are content…

By: Aquila

Aquila — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:37:33 +0000

Ag dankie oom… So how’s about that biltong hamper now hehe

By: Me2

Me2 — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:19:33 +0000

Huh? Where is the “backlash” from Robertsons Foods? If some of their products contain a known carcinogen, then the only likely and possible backlash should be from their consumers.
Also, since when is the Sunday Times putting people out of work? I doubt that a single person has lost or will lose their job as a result of this.
Sudan Red is a global scandal, and the Sunday Times HAS helped to rectify the problem by the simple fact that they have reported accurately on it.
So far, no-one in a position of authority seems to have disputed the validity of their reporting in any significant way. Whether or not it affects their readership is immaterial.
What is far more important is that consumers are now better informed, and hopefully more aware of the fact that not everything that goes into your food is good for you.