Food Poisoning From Fake Chocolate....

unholyangel

!!!!!! wrote: »

Pointless unless it was proved to be a bacterial strain.

My point with the last paragraph was that sometimes doctors say "it sounds like food poisoning" and do not actually diagnose it as such.
If they've done blood tests or provided antibiotics etc, it may help narrow down the source or help confirm it to be the chocolate.

If a doctor hasnt actually diagnosed it, it could just be a bug that resembles food poisoning or it may indicate that the OP is intolerable of certain ingredients/food types.

There are certain foods I cant eat because if I do, I will present all the symptoms of food poisoning.

LittleMax

I am sorry that the chocolate made you so ill, and agree that if their is a health issue then the bars should be withdrawn and the people responsible prosecuted.

However, I do not see what makes these bars fake. They are not claiming to be Nestle Wonka bars and look nothing like Nestle's bars, which are not even sold in this country. They have sold them for ages on e-bay and they are the perfect accessory for anyone dressing up as a character from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory ... hence why each bar needs to contain a golden ticket as all the children in the book won a ticket! The chocolate is very cheap, but fortunately the bar I had did not make me ill. I would expect the chocolate to be fit for human consumption, but as far rules about competitions and expecting to have won a trip to a real chocolate factory - how utterly ridiculous.

LittleMax

So what exactly counts as authentic Wonka Bars then? The ones by Nestle or the Wonka Bars used in the film.
The only reason Nestle are interested is a licensing issue over who can use the name. Nothing to do with theirs being 'real'.

shaun_from_Africa

LittleMax wrote: »

However, I do not see what makes these bars fake. They are not claiming to be Nestle Wonka bars and look nothing like Nestle's bars

If "Wonka" is a trademark owned by Nestle or permission has been granted to them to use the name on some of their chocolate bars, then another maker using the trademark without permission is what makes them fake.

Just because they look nothing like Nestle bars doesn't matter in the least.
If you don't believe this then just try selling watches marked as Rolex. Even if they look nothing like a genuine Rolex, you will still be breaking the Trademark act and will probably be contacted by Rolex or Trading standards about it.

LittleMax

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

If "Wonka" is a trademark owned by Nestle or permission has been granted to them to use the name on some of their chocolate bars, then another maker using the trademark without permission is what makes them fake.

Just because they look nothing like Nestle bars doesn't matter in the least.
If you don't believe this then just try selling watches marked as Rolex. Even if they look nothing like a genuine Rolex, you will still be breaking the Trademark act and will probably be contacted by Rolex or Trading standards about it.

Yes I understand it's a licensing issue over the name. Fake generally is used when items are forged or counterfeit - these are neither. I would class them as unlicensed rather than fake.

terra_ferma

Whatever you want to call them, a bar without a contact address, but just a hotmail email, an owner who seems to pretend he is not.. doesn't sound right and when food is involved it's alarming. The OP is right to want to have them tested.

mo786uk

Food is legally required to have a contact address for the manufacturer or importer. If it doesn't then its a trading standards issue

if the product contains some sort of bacteria that made you ill its an environmental health issue

if its a case of wrongly declared ingredients its a trading standards issue

the problem with sending it to the manufacturer is that they will probably test it and chuck it - i.e it might not be good enough to allow a prosecution or somesort of action against the seller. for that it would need to be tested by trading standards or EH - so sometimes its better to send the product to them. to counteract all this, it costs a lot of money to test food so they may not necessarily stump up on the off chance it was what made you sick - whereas a manufacturer will have plenty of cash for testing.

Fire_Fox

Definitely send the chocolate to Environmental Health, but agree you can pick up a bad dose of gastroenteritis from places other than food - toilets/ bathrooms for example - and you could certainly have reinfected yourself it's far from unusual.

Ask your doctor or a pharmacist about taking a course of freeze dried probiotic capsules (friendly bacteria/ acidophilus) to repopulate your gut flora. These form a key part of your immune system so help protect you from such infections.

john_boy_walton

Environmental health would be the first to contact to investigate.

Like all things keep a diary of events, get doctors notes, and especially important is where you bought it from so it can be traced to source.

It would seem to fall short of labelling standards - did it have a best before/use by date on it?

If it proves to contain harmful ingredients or bacteria, you may be able to make a personal injury type claim - contact a lawyer.

musicmaker29

food labelling law is stringent and enforced by your local trading standards - they also handle counterfeit goods/intellectual property cases. I would suggest you contact both enviro health and trading standards and ask them to handle this together.