this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2026
84 points (94.7% liked)

Australian News

994 readers
4 users here now

A place to share and discuss news relating to Australia and Australians.

Rules
  1. Follow the aussie.zone rules
  2. Keep discussions civil and respectful
  3. Exclude profanity from post titles
  4. Exclude excessive profanity from comments
  5. Satire is allowed, however post titles must be prefixed with [satire]
Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Banner: ABC

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
lodion@aussie.zone
Tristaniopsis@aussie.zone
DemSpud@lemmy.dbzer0.com
84
Leggo's, Coles and Aldi selling Chinese tomatoes as 'Australian' and 'Italian' in products, forensic testing finds (www.abc.net.au)
submitted 2 weeks ago by Eyekaytee@aussie.zone to c/news@aussie.zone
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

๐Ÿ˜ก

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] No1@aussie.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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

[โ€“] this_jury_is_hung@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

[โ€“] No1@aussie.zone 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] Typotyper@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

[โ€“] notgold@aussie.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[โ€“] budget_biochemist@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 weeks ago

Probably not Woolies as they were caught passing cage eggs as free range by the article.

[โ€“] this_jury_is_hung@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] Typotyper@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks 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.

[โ€“] Seagoon_@aussie.zone 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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?