I cannot resist the pun: it's DRM (Dairy Rights Management) !! Now, so that this post is not entirely useless: I was wondering why you couldn't just get some genuine Gruyère / Emmentaller /...
I cannot resist the pun: it's DRM (Dairy Rights Management) !!
Now, so that this post is not entirely useless: I was wondering why you couldn't just get some genuine Gruyère / Emmentaller / Apenzeller / Tête de Moine and just grow the bacteria harboring the same marker. In old school computer parlance: "Just copy the Windows CD-Key !".
Fortunately the paper describing the whole fingerprinting process available here and in open access no less. It's a quite readable paper too ! I think it helps that it's a mostly bio paper published in a chemistry-focused journal. Now, in the paper the last section is dedicated to the risk of duplication of the fingerprint.
TLDR: The authors thinks the risk is very low because:
The DNA sequence of the lactic acid bacteria strain is double-check so that it is unique to that strain.
The particular way to check whether a DNA belong to the bacteria is patented and known only to Agroscope (the research institute that developed this method).
They give a culture of the marker strain only to authorized people and in just minimal (but sufficient) quantities.
It's not only one strain that's used, but several in rotation.
So, as far as I understand the whole thing, it's a rotating (time dependent) public key signature.
Oh and it's not GMO because they selected some particular strains of bacteria that were already present in the cheese-making process.
The original paper is here. It doesn't say exactly what it is in the material & method section: My guess it's hay that has been passed through some sort of grinder. As /u/cfabbro mentioned at that...
The original paper is here. It doesn't say exactly what it is in the material & method section:
To study the effect of microparticles of a size of <100 mm originating from powdered hay on eye formation, a suspension containing 10 mg of powdered hay (Agroscope) in 100 mL tap water was prepared in a flask with a screw cap. The microparticles were kept in suspension by continuous shaking, and different volumes of the suspension were transferred into the individual milks at the beginning of cheese making as listed in Table 1.
My guess it's hay that has been passed through some sort of grinder.
As /u/cfabbro mentioned at that kind of concentration it's bordering on homeopathy from an immunology perspective. Also, hay fever (well: pollen allergy) is a respiratory allergy, not a ingestion allergy. I'm sure you like cheese, but not to the point you'd like to snort it :) .
At 1mg of hay dust per 1000 litres of milk would that really be necessary? I feel like if you went that far, nearly every air particulate (including human skin cells) would need to be on the label.
At 1mg of hay dust per 1000 litres of milk would that really be necessary? I feel like if you went that far, nearly every air particulate (including human skin cells) would need to be on the label.
Fascinating that they're using DNA markers to help determine counterfeit cheese.
I cannot resist the pun: it's DRM (Dairy Rights Management) !!
Now, so that this post is not entirely useless: I was wondering why you couldn't just get some genuine Gruyère / Emmentaller / Apenzeller / Tête de Moine and just grow the bacteria harboring the same marker. In old school computer parlance: "Just copy the Windows CD-Key !".
Fortunately the paper describing the whole fingerprinting process available here and in open access no less. It's a quite readable paper too ! I think it helps that it's a mostly bio paper published in a chemistry-focused journal. Now, in the paper the last section is dedicated to the risk of duplication of the fingerprint.
TLDR: The authors thinks the risk is very low because:
So, as far as I understand the whole thing, it's a rotating (time dependent) public key signature.
Oh and it's not GMO because they selected some particular strains of bacteria that were already present in the cheese-making process.
What I want to know is if they list "powdered hay" in the ingredients list. I assume it's an allergen and would need to be mentioned.
The original paper is here. It doesn't say exactly what it is in the material & method section:
My guess it's hay that has been passed through some sort of grinder.
As /u/cfabbro mentioned at that kind of concentration it's bordering on homeopathy from an immunology perspective. Also, hay fever (well: pollen allergy) is a respiratory allergy, not a ingestion allergy. I'm sure you like cheese, but not to the point you'd like to snort it :) .
At 1mg of hay dust per 1000 litres of milk would that really be necessary? I feel like if you went that far, nearly every air particulate (including human skin cells) would need to be on the label.
It might also be consumed by the bacteria, not sure.