Supermarket juice for kids - 4 months out of date!

ThumbRemote

peachyprice wrote: »

We're talking more like a year or two before UHT tetrapak juice become unfit for consumption, not months, and when it does it is plainly obvious because it ferments and the packaging expands.

If it were only a matter if months before it became unfit for consumption it wouldn't be labelled best before it would be labelled use by.

And so we return to the fact that you have already decided 'it can't have been the juice' despite your complete lack of knowledge about it. You don't know what type of juice it was, how time affects it or how it's been stored. You've simply decided that as it's not exactly what you expect, it can't have happened. What a bizarrely narrow view.

The only sensible approach is for the OP to get more expert advice, which is exactly what I suggested in the first reply.

pawsies

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Utterly irrelevant. The fact 'it could be worse' is no defence, and applies to every post on these boards.

Why advocate speaking to a professional on the matter then? It's quite disgusting that you take the view that a child in a developed country should be able to sue a supermarket (for no definitive link between juice that is not at it's best and child being sick) but a child in a third world country dying from contaminated water is 'irrelevant'?

Shocking.

MamaMoo_2

It seems to me that if this story is true, the OP would need to prove 2 main things...
1. That the child was ill due to food poisoning and not the vomiting bug that swept the country at that time
2. If the child *did* have food poisoning, that the food poisoning was caused by the juice.

I think that so long after the fact OP will have trouble proving this. To prove the child had food poisoning, the doctor would have had to take a stool sample and have it analysed. A lack of other symptoms does not mean that it was food poisoning at all.

As has been said, the OP also doesn't have an unopened sample of juice, so the sample/packaging they do have would be contaminated and therefore not possible to use for testing.

Johnnytwostep

Where there is blame there is a claim. Sue the pants off the company, bankrupt them, take them to the cleaners.
Mummy and Daddy deserve a holiday paid for due to all the distress this has caused.

dibuzz

When my kids were small I used to check anything I gave them was in date before I gave it to them not after.
Even if the juice was to blame (which I very much doubt) surely the parents are just as much to blame for not checking it was in date.

peachyprice

ThumbRemote wrote: »

And so we return to the fact that you have already decided 'it can't have been the juice' despite your complete lack of knowledge about it. You don't know what type of juice it was, how time affects it or how it's been stored. You've simply decided that as it's not exactly what you expect, it can't have happened. What a bizarrely narrow view.

The only sensible approach is for the OP to get more expert advice, which is exactly what I suggested in the first reply.

No, I didn't say it can't be the juice, I said it's unlikley to be the juice.

You have decided that it is the juice, based on the same 'evidence', how do you reach that conclusion?

It's not too difficult to work out what type of juice it is, if it were anything other that UHT tetrapak it would not have a BB date. If it had been incorrectly stored it would have ballooned, and yes, I do know that 4 months past BB date isn't long enough to make juice go off. And yes, clearly unlike you, I do have experience in the food industry.

ThumbRemote

pawsies wrote: »

Why advocate speaking to a professional on the matter then? It's quite disgusting that you take the view that a child in a developed country should be able to sue a supermarket (for no definitive link between juice that is not at it's best and child being sick) but a child in a third world country dying from contaminated water is 'irrelevant'?

Shocking.

It's irrelevant to this thread. It doesn't mean lack of clean water in the third world isn't an issue in itself, but it's of no relevance to this particular thread.

It's like me posting on your 'best places to live in Flintshire' thread "there's homeless people in the world, it's disgusting that you want to buy a house, how can you even think of houses when homeless children die every day".

ThumbRemote

peachyprice wrote: »

You have decided that it is the juice, based on the same 'evidence', how do you reach that conclusion?

At no point have I said that it definately was the juice. I'm just not ruling out that it could have been. You're the one whose made their mind up, not me. I've repeatedly advised the OP to consult a solicitor for the expert advice required as that's the only way the OP has any possibily of proving it one way or the other.

peachyprice

ThumbRemote wrote: »

At no point have I said that it definately was the juice.

Annoying isn't it, when someone says you've said something you haven't.

VitaK

peachyprice wrote: »

It's unlikely the juice made the child ill because it was just 4 months past it's BEST BEFORE date, not USE BY date, which is why it's not illegal to sell it.

It's unlikely that if the juice were so off OP wouldn't have noticed the ballooned carton, and if it was ballooned OP surely wouldn't have given it to their child.

To say that it is unlikely, and to say the juice didn't contribute to the child being ill are two very different things.