Human DNA found in hot dogs

[Anonymous No.7015204]

http://www.clearfood.com/food_reports/2015/the_hotdog_report

Of the 345 hot dogs and sausages Clear Food analyzed for this report, 14.4% were problematic in some way. Problems included substitutions and hygienic issues. Substitution occurs when ingredients are added that do not show up on the label. Hygienic issues occur when some sort of non-harmful contaminant is introduced to the hot dog, in most cases, human DNA. Here's what we found:
•Substitution: We encountered a surprising number of substitutions or unexpected ingredients. We found evidence of meats not found on labels, an absence of ingredients advertised on labels, and meat in some vegetarian products.
•Hygienic issues: Clear Food found human DNA in 2% of the samples. 2/3rds of the samples with human DNA were vegetarian products.

We found evidence of chicken (in 10 samples), beef (in 4 samples), turkey (in 3 samples), and lamb (in 2 samples) in products that were not supposed to contain those ingredients.

Pork is a particularly unwelcome substitution in any food when you consider that significant numbers of people do not eat pork for religious reasons. Clear Food found pork substitution in 3% of the samples we tested. In most cases, pork found its way into chicken and turkey sausages. Pork substitution was an issue in products across the price spectrum being sold at a wide variety of retailers.

[Anonymous No.7015219]

cum and boogers

[Anonymous No.7015229]

test

[Anonymous No.7015275]

>2/3rds of the samples with human DNA were vegetarian products
But how many hot dogs of the 345 were vegetarian? I didn't see that.

[Anonymous No.7015767]

>>7015275
>4 of the 21 vegetarian samples we tested had hygienic issues.

[Anonymous No.7016202]

>>7015204
I'm more concerned that the DNA percentage isn't higher since most animals share more than 50% of their DNA with humans.
This whole study reeks of bullshit

[Anonymous No.7016249]

Who gives a shit. I'd eat human.

[Anonymous No.7016267]

>>7016202
>HOTDOGS ARE 50% HUMAN

[Anonymous No.7016325]

>>7016202
That...is not how you test for human DNA. It's either human or it's not.

[Anonymous No.7016981]

>>7015204

Who gives a shit?

[Anonymous No.7017065]

>>7015204
Humans are tasty then , who gives a flying fuck?

[Anonymous No.7017090]

>>7015767
Thank you.

So assuming the amount of DNA samples found correlate with actual amount of DNA in all of the products...

meat number of samples with human DNA = 6.9 - (vegetarian number of samples with human DNA = (number of samples with human DNA = (number of products = 345) * (rate of products with human DNA = .02) = 6.9) * (vegetarian rate of samples with human DNA = 2/3) = 4.6) = 2.3

rate of meat products with human DNA = 2.3 / (number of meat products = 324) = about 0.71%

rate of vegetarian products with human DNA = 4.6 / (number of vegetarian products = 21) = about 21.9%

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Anonymous No.7017095]

>>7016202
That is not how you test for DNA.

[Anonymous No.7017109]

>>7016202

[Anonymous No.7017111]

>problematic
Who the fuck cares? we share like 90% of our dna with pigs anyway. If you discover they are taking bums off the streets and feeding them to the meat grinder, now that's a story.

[Anonymous No.7017120]

>>7017111
THIS IS NOT HOW YOU TEST FOR DNA

HOW FUCKING DUMB ARE YOU

DO YOU KNOW WHAT A DNA TEST IS?

[Anonymous No.7017129]

I'm a pretty strict vegetarian, but don't remotely give a fuck about stray molecules or smaller-than-dust-size contaminants. The fact that they're finding human DNA makes it clear that that's all this is. There's human and other animal DNA on lettuce and carrots too; shit happens. They're not grinding human cadavers into the soy patties, and since they're not quantifying how much they're finding, I'm guessing the non-human animal DNA is similar. Alarming-sounding headline is non-alarming.

[Anonymous No.7017138]

YTMND

[Anonymous No.7017141]

>>7017120
then explain you dumb little bitch

>>7016267
>>7016325


fuck u memer

[Anonymous No.7017172]

>>7017111
>>7016202
You can test DNA to see if someone is related to Genghis Khan.
You can test DNA to see if someone has hereditary cancer genetics.

I think it would be pretty fucking easy to test DNA to see if it's a pig or a human.

[Anonymous No.7017272]

In honour of this thread, I just nuked up four hotdogs and ate them on brioche rolls with mayonnaise and spicy ketchup.

>>7017090
2% of 345 samples = 6.9 samples, so let's round up to 7 because you can't say 0.9 samples has X

⅔ of 7 samples = 4⅔ samples, so let's round up to 5 samples.

>>7015767
>4 of the 21 vegetarian samples we tested had hygienic issues.

This means that either
• the person/people who made the report has/ve abysmal maths skills
• the person/people who made the report don't care all that much about accuracy
>57.1428571%? pshaw! it's ⅔ now!
• parts of the report are falsified and/or exaggerated

Whatever the case, I'm not that concerned. Shit happens, as literal as it may turn out to be in this case.

[Anonymous No.7017308]

>>7015204
>factory workers arm hair
this triggers people. but 4000 rats shitting on what is essentially processed frog dicks dont matter.
kek

[Anonymous No.7017339]

>>7017272
Hygienic issues != contains human DNA

[Anonymous No.7017459]

>>7017339
You're both halves of a whole idiot, aren'tcha, kiddo?

The article states it plain as fucking day that this is /exactly/ what "hygienic issues" means, you blithering 'tard.

> •Hygienic issues: Clear Food found human DNA in 2% of the samples. 2/3rds of the samples with human DNA were vegetarian products.
See that little colon there? The one right after the words "Hygienic issues?"
Yes? Good!
Now, all the other words after that colon are meant to clarify the words /before/ the colon! Imagine that! That means that the
>Clear Food found human DNA in 2% of the samples. 2/3rds of the samples with human DNA were vegetarian products.
part of the statement
> •Hygienic issues: Clear Food found human DNA in 2% of the samples. 2/3rds of the samples with human DNA were vegetarian products.
refers specifically to the
> •Hygienic issues
part of /that same statement/! Learning is fun!

So yeah: (oh look! Another cheeky colon!!) contains human DNA, for the purposes of the fucking article OP is talking about, = hygienic issues.
No need to thank me! I just like belittling people, so making you look even more like the mong you so obviously are is all the thanks I need!

[Anonymous No.7017628]

>>7017459
>The article states it plain as fucking day that this is /exactly/ what "hygienic issues" means

>Hygienic issues occur when some sort of non-harmful contaminant is introduced to the hot dog, in most cases, human DNA.

4 /21 = about 19%
versus about 21.9% mention before

You can just as well guess that they omitted some information but kept the numbers fairly accurate.

[Anonymous No.7017953]

>>7015204
m. Another thread on /ck/ with people who don't know about science. Currently, DNA is detected by a tech called Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). Please wikipedia this. Now, the problem with PCR is that it is too sensitive. In theory, one strand of DNA is enough to give a positive result since the process amplifies the original DNA exponentially into millions of copies. As you can imagine, unavoidable contamination by factory workers, shared utensils and surfaces, airborne, and even by the sample takers could not be ruled out. There is a way to measure the relative amount of DNA using something called quantitative PCR. In conclusion, there is no need to panic

[Anonymous No.7019110]

bump for carnists

[Anonymous No.7019113]

>>7015204
People who dont eat pork because their imaginary overlord told them not to can cram their problems up their pubic hair-ringed asses, as can people who bitch act like a 2% imperfection rate in a product that borders on costing nothing is the end of the world.

[Anonymous No.7019115]

>>7015204
Like I give a fuck

[Anonymous No.7019363]

>>7015204
Why do you think they call it long pig, ya dip?

[Anonymous No.7019369]

tbqh I'm probably gonna buy some hotdogs later today