Ocado oyster food poisoning - they deleted my review!

mije1983

binary0110 wrote: »

And no amount of "medically backed up documentation" would make it more or less likely.

No, but it would prove it was the oysters, which was the point I was making that you seem to have missed.

The incubation period for food poisoning can be anywhere up to 3 days. So it is also "possible", "likely" or "probable" that something else you ate in that time frame was responsible.

So back to your original question. Yes they are perfectly entitled to remove a review as you and they have no confirmation that it was the oysters that made you ill. Why should they allow what could be a false review on their site?


Edit:

binary0110 wrote: »

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

That's not strictly true though. They could have tested the oysters for contamination and also examined a stool sample, for example, to see if the same contaminent was present in both.

Keep_pedalling

If oysters are not stored correctly they die, which is easily detected as they become very easy to open. However there is always a risk when eating raw products and the only way to prevent that is to ban the sale of them, which I hope never happens.

As has already been stated recent research has found traces of Niro viruses in a large percentage of oysters but there are many forms of this virus and not all are dangerous and the test used could not distinguish the Niro virus types found.

Unfortunately you can't test oysters without first killing them, so whoever you buy them from you are always taking a risk and that risk has been there from the moment the delicious little beasties were harvested, so you cannot blame the supplier for poor storage.

binary0110

mije1983 wrote: »

No, but it would prove it was the oysters, which was the point I was making that you seem to have missed.

No it wouldn't.

mije1983 wrote: »

The incubation period for food poisoning can be anywhere up to 3 days. So it is also "possible", "likely" or "probable" that something else you ate in that time frame was responsible.

Again, no it isn't. You are far more likely to get food poisoning from eating raw oysters than you are from eating cooked food (which is what I had when I wasn't eating raw oysters). So on the balance of probability, the oysters are the likely source. But this could never be proved.

mije1983 wrote: »

So back to your original question. Yes they are perfectly entitled to remove a review as you and they have no confirmation that it was the oysters that made you ill. Why should they allow what could be a false review on their site?

In 2009 the Fat Duck was temporarily closed after hundreds of diners developed food poisoning after eating there. There is no way to confirm that they developed food poisoning from the restaurant, but it is likely. In the same way, there is no way to confirm that I experienced food poisoning from oysters...but it is likely. It would have been good to be aware of the risk before purchasing the product. There is nothing false about this and is merely a statment of fact, unpalatable though it may be. It might also help the retailer/supplier to see if there could have been any weaknesses in the supply chain (e.g. temperature of storage/transport) and if these could be improved. How is that detrimental to either the retailer or the consumer?

binary0110

mije1983 wrote: »

That's not strictly true though. They could have tested the oysters for contamination and also examined a stool sample, for example, to see if the same contaminent was present in both.

Even if that were possible, it still wouldn't be proof.

mije1983

binary0110 wrote: »

Again, no it isn't.

What isn't? The incubation period?

binary0110 wrote: »

In 2009 the Fat Duck was temporarily closed after hundreds of diners <snip>

But that's a big difference from 1 person though. I imagine if Ocado had hundreds of complaints they would have withdrawn them from sale.

binary0110

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

If oysters are not stored correctly they die, which is easily detected as they become very easy to open. However there is always a risk when eating raw products and the only way to prevent that is to ban the sale of them, which I hope never happens.

I completely agree - I am not advocating banning them! Just making consumers more aware of the risks, that's all. And there is nothing harmful in reviewing the way they are stored/transported - perhaps it could be improved, then again, perhaps not - no way of knowing without responding to customer feedback.

binary0110

mije1983 wrote: »

What isn't? The incubation period?

Apologies - it isn't more likely to be something other than oysters.

mije1983 wrote: »

But that's a big difference from 1 person though. I imagine if Ocado had hundreds of complaints they would have withdrawn them from sale.

How do we know if they delete reviews about food poisoning?

mije1983

binary0110 wrote: »

How do we know if they delete reviews about food poisoning?

Then you should be reporting it to your local EHO. If they have had numerous similar complaints then they are in a position to look into it.

However, 1 isolated issue isn't likely to bother them, especially without proof. Reporting it to the relevant people and Ocado would be much more effective than leaving a review that wil be deleted.

wealdroam

I have never really understood why aggrieved shoppers expect shopkeepers to publish their complaints.

shaun_from_Africa

binary0110 wrote: »

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.

In one post you state no less than 5 times that it isn't certain that the oysters caused your sickness:
"I admit that I don't have proof",
"There is no way of having any definitive proof",
"It is possible, likely or probable but nothing can be proved",
"On the balance of probability",
"It is likely to have been caused by the oysters"

Yet in your review on the Ocado website and despite the many admissions shown above, you clearly state that the oysters were to blame. No doubt or lack of proof mentioned anywhere.

"These oysters gave both me and my partner food poisoning"

One other point.
On this thread you only mentioned you getting sick and even went so far as to state that the chances of one oyster in the pack of 12 being bad yet in your Ocado review, it became both you and your partner who got food poisoning.
Not embellishing the truth were you?