Ocado oyster food poisoning - they deleted my review!

binary0110

I was unfortunate enough to suffer food poisoning from oysters supplied by Ocado. They were delivered on 22nd February (and we ate them within 4 hours of being delivered) with a use by date of 24th February. But they had been packed on 16th February which, in my opinion, was far too long to store them in sealed plastic packaging to be safe for consumption. I posted a review on the Ocado website to this effect but it was deleted. I am pretty annoyed that Ocado are censoring their reviews in this way and wondered if anyone else has had any experience of deleted reviews from Ocado? I am pretty annoyed at this and feel it isn't right that customers are being censored in this way.

JReacher1

It wasn't a review of the product so rightly deleted.

Your review was you ate some oysters. Later on you got food poisoning. That is not a review of the food as you can't prove that the oysters were responsible.

Also reviews do not have to be displayed on a website and only an idiotic company would post a review which said one of their food products made customers ill!

binary0110

In what way was it not a review of the product?

foxtrotoscar_2

Shelf life of oysters is two to four weeks. Do you have proof the oysters were the problem?

JReacher1

Because you are not reviewing the product. You are linking an illness to a product when it was very likely nothing to do with the product.

You've also written some ridiculous statement where you say picking oysters 6 days before eating them is dangerous (based on your opinion). Loch fynne are a big fish company and the use by dates will be correct as they are carefully monitored.

The whole thing is just ridiculous and your new review will be deleted as soon as someone turns up to work tomorrow.

binary0110

foxtrotoscar wrote: »

Shelf life of oysters is two to four weeks. Do you have proof the oysters were the problem?

Of course, I don't have proof but it is likely. And the shelf life very much depends on how they were stored.

JReacher1 wrote: »

Because you are not reviewing the product. You are linking an illness to a product when it was very likely nothing to do with the product.

You've also written some ridiculous statement where you say picking oysters 6 days before eating them is dangerous (based on your opinion). Loch fynne are a big fish company and the use by dates will be correct as they are carefully monitored.

The whole thing is just ridiculous and your new review will be deleted as soon as someone turns up to work tomorrow.

I disagree that it is very likely to be nothing to do with the product. The point is that there is no way to know exactly how they are stored between being picked and reaching the customer. I think this is a valid point and represents a review of the product. Furthermore, I have since learned around 75% of oysters are contaminated with norovirus at the point of being picked. So to say that it is very likely to be nothing to do with the product simply isn't true on the balance of probability! Of course in the right conditions they would be perfectly safe (assuming they were not contaminated when first harvested).

I would also like to think that a retailer would like their customers to be informed about risks of consuming their products. Wouldn't you?

JReacher1

binary0110 wrote: »

Of course, I don't have proof but it is likely. And the shelf life very much depends on how they were stored.



I disagree that it is very likely to be nothing to do with the product. The point is that there is no way to know exactly how they are stored between being picked and reaching the customer. I think this is a valid point and represents a review of the product. Furthermore, I have since learned around 75% of oysters are contaminated with norovirus at the point of being picked. So to say that it is very likely to be nothing to do with the product simply isn't true on the balance of probability! Of course in the right conditions they would be perfectly safe (assuming they were not contaminated when first harvested)

I would also like to think that a retailer would like their customers to be informed about risks of consuming their products. Wouldn't you?

So you admit you don't have proof.....

You then go on to say without proof it's perfectly fair to accuse either the food manufactuer or ocado of giving you food poisoning.

So just to clarify are you saying that 75% of oysters make you ill?

It's still not a product review and the review will be deleted so it doesn't matter what you would like be informed......

binary0110

JReacher1 wrote: »

So you admit you don't have proof.....

Yes, I do.

JReacher1 wrote: »

You then go on to say without proof it's perfectly fair to accuse either the food manufactuer or ocado of giving you food poisoning.

No, I didn't say that.

JReacher1 wrote: »

So just to clarify are you saying that 75% of oysters make you ill?

No, I didn't say that.

JReacher1 wrote: »

It's still not a product review and the review will be deleted so it doesn't matter what you would like be informed......

Apparently not according to you. If you own an oyster restaurant, I hope I never eat at it!

mije1983

JReacher1 wrote: »

So you admit you don't have proof.....

binary0110 wrote: »

Yes, I do.

But earlier in the thread you said:

binary0110 wrote: »

Of course, I don't have proof

So which is it? Do you have proof or not?


You may have suspicions but that is different to proof.

Of course, you may well have visited a hospital who ran tests and determined it was the oysters which you haven't mentioned yet. In which case this is the proof you will require.

binary0110

mije1983 wrote: »

But earlier in the thread you said:






So which is it? Do you have proof or not?


You may have suspicions, which is different to proof, but without some medically backed up documentation you will struggle to prove it was oysters that made you ill.

Apologies, that wasn't clear. I meant, "yes I do admit that I don't have proof". But there is no way of having any definitive proof that any food product is the cause of food poisoning. One can say that it is "possible", "likely" or "probable" but nothing can be proved. However, given that there were 12 oysters in the pack, the chances that at least one of them was contaminated with norovirus is close to 100%. On the balance of probability, if you eat raw oysters and get food poisoning, it is likely to have been caused by the oysters! And no amount of "medically backed up documentation" would make it more or less likely.

binary0110

mije1983 wrote: »

Of course, you may well have visited a hospital who ran tests and determined it was the oysters which you haven't mentioned yet. In which case this is the proof you will require.

There are no tests which could prove it was the oysters.