Quote:
Originally Posted by pstinard  The results are qualitative rather than quantitative because they posted the amount of the different DNA's detected as a percentage of the total DNA detected. It would have been quantitative (and more accurate) if they had posted the number of micrograms of DNA (an actual amount of DNA) that they detected in the samples. The best way to do this study would have been to do control tests on freshly processed samples of raw meat, and then tested cooked samples to see if there was any degradation during food processing, and then compared the two results. I'm not saying that the results of this study were invalid, I'm just saying that they didn't do the proper controls, and they didn't cite any papers that HAVE done the proper controls. But the paper still has some good data where they detected DNA that wasn't supposed to be in the different foods. We just can't be certain of the amounts, and whether they are significant for animals with allergies. |
Thank you for your patient, detailed answer to an amateur out here. Can't help but wonder why they didn't flesh-out their research by doing the comparative testing as you outlined for true controls or if they did do that, why not cite it so people in the know like you could have more confidence in the type of testing they did and methods for arriving at their conclusions? And why not state the amounts of detected foreign DNA so vets and patrons could try to determine if it might be sufficient to trigger an allergic reaction in a very sensitive dog? Anyway, thanks for helping me understand.