PropertyValue
?:author
?:datePublished
  • 2015-10-26 (xsd:date)
?:headline
  • Franks and Genes (de)
?:inLanguage
?:itemReviewed
?:mentions
?:reviewBody
  • Example: [Collected via Twitter, October 2015]Talk about mystery meat: A new study found human DNA in hot dogs, meat in veggie dogs https://t.co/PWlRi4Ebpq pic.twitter.com/qNlt08Fsua — WHIOTV (@whiotv) October 26, 2015 A new study found that 2% of hot dogs contain some form of human DNA https://t.co/RJxQPxkrnX — NowThis (@nowthisnews) October 26, 2015 Origins: In late October 2015 multiple news sources reported on a study that purportedly documented the discovery of human DNA in several popular hot dog brands (and traces of meat in versions specifically marketed as vegetarian). The research on which the hot dog claims were based was alternately termed a study, a report, and testing, with a private company called Clear Labs credited for the findings. (Incidentally, Clear Labs described their hot dog research as a report, not a study.) Among the news outlets that covered the claims was Britain's Daily Mail, who reported in a 26 October 2015 article headlines HUMAN DNA found in popular hot dog and sausage brands and 10% of vegetarian varieties contain meat that: Subsequent media coverage (including the Daily Mail's) sourced their information from Clear Foods' undated The Hot Dog Report. In an embedded video, a Clear Foods representative described the company's claims: The sum of Clear Food's findings appeared below the clip: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, and in 2/3rds of the vegetarian samples. 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. Prior to the appearance of the hot dog study, Clear Food was a relative unknown entity on social media. The company's first tweet was dated 22 October 2015; on that day (just a few days before the story went viral), Clear Food tweeted: A Kickstarter fund-raising effort described Clear Food's initiative thusly: Missing from the bevy of articles about human DNA in hot dogs (and meat in veggie dogs) was any explanation about how Clear Food determined those percentages, under which conditions testing occurred, whether any independent entities confirmed or duplicated the claims, and the methodology by which Clear Food arrived at their overall conclusions. Information on the site and Clear Food's Kickstarter provided no information about their testing methods, the credibility of their research, or (most important) what the company's specific objective might be. The flurry of interest bore many similarities to an earlier report claiming California wine was contaminated with arsenic, peddled by a company that tested alcoholic beverages for purity. Clear Food similarly touted its Clear Score, aimed to reward the brands with the highest average scores based on criteria known only by Clear Food. While the firm's claims were carried across major online news sites such CNN, MarketWatch, USA Today,, the Boston Globe and Sky News, it's not uncommon for multiple news sources to jump on a PR-based study with little to no independent verification of its claims. It's certainly not out of the realm of possibility hot dogs contain ingredients or adulterants folks might find unappetizing, but the claim about meat and human DNA adulterants did not originate with a study of any sort. Its findings lay solely with a brand new, private company who didn't disclose any details of their purported testing (or any proof that meaningful research was undertaken at all). Clear Food didn't define the terms that they used to describe their findings, such as genomic analysis technology (unspecified) or proprietary next-generation genomic sequencing workflow. Certain brands were deemed problematic at a rate of 14.4 percent, but again, no evidence was presented to substantiate that claim or establish the methodology as worthy of consideration. In short, while the results could bear out to some degree should testing be conducted in a scientific setting, Clear Food didn't appear to be an established laboratory presenting vetted data. (en)
?:reviewRating
rdf:type
?:url