PRODUCT RECALL NOTICE
1. Product Recall Notice
Full press release on Cauldron
This product does not meet Cauldron's normal high standards of quality. A small number of packs are affected, and the product is being recalled as a pecautionary measure. The quality cannot be guaranteed for the full duration of the shelf life displayed on the packaging, and Cauldron caution customers not to use the product. It should be destroyed.
Customers can obtain a refund, including postage costs. Return the outer packaging to:
Cauldron Foods Ltd
or phone Cauldron Customer Services helpline on 0800 085 3959.
No other date codes of this product are affected
No other Cauldron Foods products are affected
2. Cauldron Foods now come in packets with no statement from the manufacturer that they are “suitable for vegetarians“, but the warning is clear that they are “not suitable for people with a nut allergy” (even on products such as carrot, peanut, and onion burgers, in which roasted peanuts comprise 15% of the mix; a information nonetheless that the recipe contains peanuts, soya, wheat gluten). We interpret the manufacturer’s intention to “brand” his product out of the confused vegetarian rut and even further marginalized vegan niche into the wider market of meat reducers (and dairy-frees), for whom the vegetarian word might seem as otiose as prefixing every description of pasta as Italian or a curry as indian. Further, this allows some loosening of principles, especially with the cheesy acquiescence to the subsidized efforts of the flagging dairy-industry to unload co-products and by-products such as animal fat, whey, casein, lactose etc. Some consumers have estimable aversions and allergies to animal-derived mammalian secretions as they have for mince-meat in any form.
3. Cauldron foods do bear the veggie emblem, trapped in an oval constraint alien to the intent of the free-living seedling – or bird-in-flight design – wrapped in the words approved and Vegetarian Society. The organic versions carry a Soil Association registration, and the manufacturer offers the further information that their products are made with non-GM ingredients.
4. What is the customer to make of all this, especially when an “approved” food product suffers the indignity of a recall? And the Food Standards Agency is hot the trail with nutrient-profiling using a multicolour traffic light system? Possible clashes of colour loom for goods try to emphasize their green credentials.
5. And on the red for the products of the live/deadstock industry? And if for nutrients, why not for welfare? Already British and Danish producers of pig-meat are a t loggerheads dragging in the Advertising Standards Authority on tit-for-tat arguments on welfare claims. And while the Soil Association appears to refuse its accreditation to meat killed in the Jewish or Muslim manner, what will be the attitude of the Little Red Tractor and EBLEX endorsements in this matter; or what are we to expect of the RSPCA's continuing entertainment of the hunts on lands yielding Freedom (monitored) Foods or the Soil Association’s similar equivocations and connivance at serious shortcomings in the use of non-GM feedstuffs in “organic” rations and their unrequited discontent over Euro-definitions of non-GM? And, in general, just how rigorous and well monitored are the assurances and approvals implied by marks and symbols sold or leased by “independent” NGOs themselves needing surveillance. As Private Eye once said of the Vegetarian Society’s sales of symbol and leasing of logo, they were “bestowing their approbations with all the discretion of an incontinent dog let loose in a wood of saplings.”
6. The FSA declares its mission as serving the consumers’ interest and being prepared to name and shame. It’s our mission to recruit its resources into much enhanced innovation and enterprise in which the standards of cruelty-free and environmentally friendly imperatives fruitfully link the push of production with the pull of canny consumers in a forthrightly informed market.