A recent DNA testing of meat by Dr. Donna Cawthorn, a food scientist with the University of Stellenbosch has shockingly revealed that some meat products are not what they claim to be and that labelling of the products are deceiving.

In an article titled, 'Is there goat in my wors' published in The Star (10 December 2012) Wendy Knowler from Consumer Watch asks, “Can you trust the labels on processed meats – mince, sausages, delicatessen meats and burgers?"

Knowler said Cawthorn’s DNA testing of meat products from butcheries in Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Eastern Cape and Western Cape revealed that of 139 samples, 95 – or 68 percent – contained meat species which were not declared on the label. And in the case of samples from KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape, it was a staggering 90 percent.

She indicates that sausages were most likely to contain meat species not declared on the label. Pork and chicken were the most undeclared species in the survey and that’s not the only unconventional butchery meat she found. Four samples tested positive for goat, and another four for water buffalo.

The results revealed widespread contraventions of the Consumer Protection Act in terms of misleading consumers and the Regulations Relating to the labelling and advertising of foodstuffs, which came into effect in March.

Speaking to Radio Islam’s Mufti Moosagie, Knowler said it was a pack of sausages she'd bought from butchery in a predominantly Muslim area that left her shocked. “First of all I need to say something that was a concern to start with. It was the only one in the sample that had no…it didn’t contain any species at all. All it said was ‘On Promotion’ and the price. I had to ask the assistant what kind of sausages they were. I was told twice it was beef. There was no ingredients list, it was a completely shockingly a non-compliant label to be honest. The finding was it contained beef as well as pork. This is clearly a major problem, given that the Muslim community does not eat pork,” said Knowler.

She said the butcher was distraught by the result, saying he’d made the sausages on site with beef bought from a reputable, halaal organisation-accredited supplier, with non-hog casings bought from another supplier.

“The butcher contacted the National Independent Halaal Trust (NIHT), and Moulana AW Wookay duly contacted Consumer Watch, stating that the butcher ought not to be named until further tests were conducted, as the DNA testing method used by the lab in question could pick up a single strand of DNA, hence the sample could have been contaminated in transit,” said Knowler.

Speaking to Mufti Moosagie, Moulana AW Wookay said he was aware of the incident and knew the butchery concerned but has not disclosed the name of the butchery. “In terms of the media statements that were made, there is an admission by the person that has actually done the tests, that the results are not conclusive. And obviously if results are not conclusive, it would be irresponsible to basically go out and make statements. The person who actually wrote the article has actually misquoted me, because that is not my opinion, but the opinion of the person that’s done the test,” added Moulana Wookay.

Knowler said that none of the other results were contested, most saying that failure to clean mincing machines between meat batches was to blame, and undertaking to deal with the problem. Knowler reiterated that she has no doubts about the test. “Clearly, whoever wants to do the test, retesting, it’s perfectly within their rights to do so. I understand what’s at stake here and they must go for it. I am perfectly okay with that,” said Knowler.

“I am going to be repeating the excersise, doing it in a slightly different way. Maybe focusing on particular butchers. Obviously I have had a lot of feedback since the story has appeared. A lot of people have told me a lot of things and I will be sorting my samples accordingly next time in the New Year,” added Knowles.  

She concludes saying, clearly consumers have the right to expect that a pack of sausages described as chicken, in the absence of any other meat species declared on the label, does not contain any other meat species.

“The label would certainly contravene the Consumer Protection Act’s section on product labelling, which states: “A person must not knowingly apply to any goods a trade description that is likely to mislead the consumer as to any matter implied or expressed in that description. “And given that Hindus do not eat beef for religious reasons, and similarly, the Muslim and Jewish communities do not eat pork, such mislabelling – intentional or accidental – has massive implications,” added Knowler.