Shock! Horror! The "meat" in curry ain't necessarily wot you ordered.

[zeitghost]

BBC News - Wrong meat in curries in Scotland is 'widespread practice'

Well I never did.

I always thought it was named "Rover" or "Tiddles".

Always puts me off when I find the collar though.

Hill Street Blues - Season 5, Episode 5: Bangladesh Slowly - TV.com

[MyUserName]

A five quid curry is not going to be made of the purest cuts of fine meat, it is going to contain meat that was pressure hosed off the front of their neighbours car and then pounded with so much value chilli powder that you cannot taste it (or anything else for several hours).

What were they expecting?

[MyUserName]

Scotland.

Deep fried curried mars bar.

HTH.

Oh yeah, fair enough.

[Qdos Contractor]

A friend of a friend, who happens to be a vet, apparently found a microchip in his curry at a place in Leicester. He took it with him and discovered that it belonged to a dog that had been put down by a different vet a few weeks previously. Make of that what you will.

[vetran]

A five quid curry is not going to be made of the purest cuts of fine meat, it is going to contain meat that was pressure hosed off the front of their neighbours car and then pounded with so much value chilli powder that you cannot taste it (or anything else for several hours).

What were they expecting?

I'm expecting what I ordered, the seller sets the price, if they can't supply what they are advertising at that price then they need to find a cheaper reputable supplier, put the price up or not sell it. Those are the only legal choices available to them.

Swapping out with incorrectly specified meat or meat of dubious quality should earn them a jail term.

Iceland - Chinese & Indian

and :

And if you won't cook ... the supermarket curry test | Life and style | The Observer

note a Lamb Rogan Josh is £2 at Iceland so it is possible to make a profit at that.
other costs
Waitrose £3.29
Marks & Spencer £3.99

So as a buyer your argument is BS

Its not buyer beware the sales of goods act took care of that years ago. As can be seen large multinationals with huge advertising budgets and all their workers on the books can make a profit at these prices why can't a 'family run' restaurant with all the second cousins being paid in cash?

[Sysman]

A friend of a friend, who happens to be a vet, apparently found a microchip in his curry at a place in Leicester. He took it with him and discovered that it belonged to a dog that had been put down by a different vet a few weeks previously. Make of that what you will.

No surprise. My favourite curry house back in the 70s was closed down when the health inspectors found Alsation in the fridge.

It didn't stop us going there because the curries were consistently top notch.

And at the time that beef in the shops went up in price, the "beef vindaloo" didn't go up in price so we knew it probably wasn't beef.

At a time when other restaurants were either ludicrously overpriced or greasy spoon caffs offering spam and everything-with-chips, we didn't particularly care.

[MyUserName]

I'm expecting what I ordered, the seller sets the price, if they can't supply what they are advertising at that price then they need to find a cheaper reputable supplier, put the price up or not sell it. Those are the only legal choices available to them.

Swapping out with incorrectly specified meat or meat of dubious quality should earn them a jail term.

Iceland - Chinese & Indian

and :

And if you won't cook ... the supermarket curry test | Life and style | The Observer

note a Lamb Rogan Josh is £2 at Iceland so it is possible to make a profit at that.
other costs
Waitrose £3.29
Marks & Spencer £3.99

So as a buyer your argument is BS

Its not buyer beware the sales of goods act took care of that years ago. As can be seen large multinationals with huge advertising budgets and all their workers on the books can make a profit at these prices why can't a 'family run' restaurant with all the second cousins being paid in cash?

Your examples are from supermarkets, I thought that the problem was with restaurants and take aways? If so then your examples are irrelevant.

However this just seems like common sense to me - dirt cheap curries will have dirt in them. Various acts and laws come and go and sellers will ignore them to make a profit as the sauce makes it hard to tell. You could put dog food in vindalloos for lager louts and they will be unable to tell the difference. I fell pray to this at university when I ate a dodgy vindallo and was quite ill for a couple of days.

The fact that this is happening would tend to prove that my argument, rather than being BS, is bang on.

I agree that it is illegal and wrong etc. However, that does not stop it happening. I vote with my feet and either make my own curries (which I am actually quite good at imho) or good to restaurants where my alarm bells do not go off (not an exact science but is better than nothing).

[vetran]

I understood your argument was that it was not possible to produce a curry containing lamb in it for £5. The sheer cost of the meat was prohibitive.

I proved that reputable vendors create a curry for £2 and make a profit. They do this with significant fixed overheads and sell 24*6.5.

They were the closest business I could think of that had higher and better measured standards of food safety.

Therefore its very relevant.

Your argument to me consisted of : "What were they expecting?"

I suggested that they get what they pay for. Not that they would get the best meat just what they asked for.

possibly 'BS' was over the top, I just get annoyed when people suggest its ok to treat customers with contempt just because 'they should know better' especially in small decisions. Its a curry not a pension or house purchase so far less consideration will be involved.

[Sysman]

I understood your argument was that it was not possible to produce a curry containing lamb in it for £5. The sheer cost of the meat was prohibitive.

I proved that reputable vendors create a curry for £2 and make a profit. They do this with significant fixed overheads and sell 24*6.5.

They were the closest business I could think of that had higher and better measured standards of food safety.

Therefore its very relevant.

Some Plan B research I did revealed that if I were to supply a local pub with curries at £2, they would want to put it on the table for £6 to cover those significant overheads and make a profit themselves. A ratio of 1:3 seems common, and with some places it might be 1:4.

So you are both correct, though I am thinking of eat in places rather than takeaways.

[MyUserName]

I understood your argument was that it was not possible to produce a curry containing lamb in it for £5. The sheer cost of the meat was prohibitive.

That was not really my argument. Maybe I did not phrase it very well. Rather than it not being possible, I think that curries, especially, which are that cheap in a restaurant should ring alarm bells concerning quality.

I proved that reputable vendors create a curry for £2 and make a profit. They do this with significant fixed overheads and sell 24*6.5.

They were the closest business I could think of that had higher and better measured standards of food safety.

Therefore its very relevant.

These are not comparing like with like. They are large supermarket chains and not solo restaurants, hence I think the examples are irrelevant and have ignore them.

Your argument to me consisted of : "What were they expecting?"

I suggested that they get what they pay for.

Indeed they should but this is the real world and companies cut corners where they can. A small solo outlet somewhere is likely to cut more corners than a high level company with a lot of visability. A very very very cheap meat product where you cannot taste the meat is likely to have corners cut wrt the meat contained (well probably with everything but it is the meat we are discussing) - what kind of corners could you cut when serving meat which cannot really be inspected visually or by taste?

I just get annoyed when people suggest its ok to treat customers with contempt just because 'they should know better' especially in small decisions. Its a curry not a pension or house purchase so far less consideration will be involved.

I was not suggesting it was okay, the restaurants and take-aways should face legal action imho (what would happen if they swapped a meat for a different one and somehow the customer had an allergy to the other one etc). However, I think it stands to reason that very cheap curries are going to contain ingredients that you are best of not thinking about if you want to keep the meal down.