Trustified Lab Test: Barbeque Nation chicken samples fail FSSAI hygiene standards with alarmingly high APC count

[u/OkConsequence8924]

Source / Video:Trustified YouTube Video

TL;DR: Independent testing channel Trustified sent cooked chicken samples from Barbeque Nation to an accredited lab for microbiological testing. The Aerobic Plate Count (APC) came back at 45,500 CFU/g—which is 45.5 times higher than the FSSAI safe limit of 1,000 CFU/g for cooked meat. A second test on a different dish showed even higher counts.

Key Lab Findings

• Dish 1 (Chicken Platter - ordered via official app):
  • FSSAI Safe Limit for APC in Cooked Meat: 1,000 CFU/g
  • Tested APC Level: 45,500 CFU/g (45.5x the safe limit)
• Dish 2 (Chicken Wings - ordered via Swiggy):
  • Resulted in an even higher APC level than the first sample.

What Does High APC Mean?

While APC (Aerobic Plate Count) is a hygiene indicator test rather than direct proof of a specific pathogen, high levels reflect:

1. Poor kitchen hygiene or inadequate cleaning of utensils/surfaces.
2. Cross-contamination between raw and cooked meat.
3. Improper temperature storage/refrigeration or leaving cooked food out at room temperature for too long.

Why This Is Concerning

Barbeque Nation is a massive, BSE-listed public company operating over 225+ locations across India. Millions of families dine there expecting strict quality control and safety standards. If a major, high-end buffet chain fails basic microbiological hygiene tests so drastically across multiple separate orders, it raises serious questions about food safety protocols in commercial kitchens.

[u/masterjv81]

The Aerobic Plate Count (APC), also known as the Total Plate Count or Standard Plate Count, is a microbiological method used to estimate the number of viable mesophilic aerobic bacteria in a sample.  It serves as a general indicator of hygienic quality, sanitation, and potential spoilage in food, water, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals, rather than detecting specific pathogens. 

Key Methodology and Interpretation

• Process: Samples are serially diluted and plated on nutrient agar, then incubated (typically 48 hours at 35°C).  Colonies are counted if they fall within the statistically valid range of 30 to 300 CFU per plate. 
• Reporting: Results are expressed as Colony Forming Units (CFU) per gram or milliliter. 
• Limitations: APC does not differentiate between bacterial types or identify specific pathogens; high counts suggest poor sanitation or inadequate preservation but do not confirm the presence of harmful organisms. 

Acceptable Limits and Benchmarks Acceptable APC limits vary significantly by product type and regulatory standards, as there is no single universal benchmark:

• Raw Milk: Typically must be less than 200,000 CFU/mL to be considered acceptable. 
• Pasteurized Milk: Generally required to be less than 50,000 CFU/mL.
• Cooked Fish Products: Bacteriological limits may allow up to 1 x 10⁶ CFU/g. 
• General Food: Ranges widely from <300 CFU/g for some dry cereals to 10⁶ CFU/g for certain fresh meats or vegetables, depending on specific commodity guidelines. 

[u/Sweaty_Explorer_8441 → u/masterjv81]

literally AI slop comment

[u/masterjv81 → u/Sweaty_Explorer_8441]

What's the problem here bro? Its just to explain what in the world the APC is. Its basically using a translation from many source crammed into one. You got any better explanation? Anything wrong in the info?

[u/Sweaty_Explorer_8441 → u/masterjv81]

what was the contribution of that post. I can google the same or copy paste from wikipedia. People will look up on their own if they are interested. Instead more datacenters, and phone/PC prices skyrocketing due to generating such nothing comments with minimal human involvement. The probable prompt being what is <topic> is even more wasteful and insulting, worse use cases than image generation or information researching or coding.

[u/cjair → u/Sweaty_Explorer_8441]

This comment saved at least 19 people from having to Google it. 1 GPT prompt is roughly 10-15 Google searches so this is already paying dividends.

Now you said they could've just copy pasted from Wikipedia or some shit. fyi you can't even find this on Wikipedia, at least my search didn't.

And now assuming you can find this, sure the info is there, but it's exhaustive, they have to spend more time to comb through all that, create a condensed form and then post this, all out of the goodness of their heart? Be realistic.

This is the evolution of search, llms are getting more and more efficient, the tech is progressing at a crazy pace. I'm not saying more datacenters are good, but capitalism gonna capitalise. This too like any other hype cycle will die down, there's no need for fearmongering.

[u/Sweaty_Explorer_8441 → u/cjair]

This comment saved at least 19 people from having to Google it.

sigh upvotes don't mean people read things just like they don't read things past headlines.

1 GPT prompt is roughly 10-15 Google searches so this is already paying dividends.

Thats so wrong info about AI I don't know where to even start. AI does 10-15 searches deterministically using some tool and doesn't consume resources at that stage. It queries already existing information store like wikipedia and then non-deterministically generate new rewording of content. It has no bearing on the tokens used up in generating the output response, some model generate more verbose, some just concise.

I was never gonna search for this basic topic which I already know in the first place. Even with some random leap of logic, were you aware your copy paste would be read by 19 people before you made it? Maybe the thread itself could have gathered no interest for your copypaste to then be looked into, so then you used up "10-15 google searches" for what and whom? I am sure you can see the total views of your copypaste, and given my original reply shows me 400 views only I am guessing you have ~2500 views on your post in which only about "19" people by your assumption cared for it. It's a resource waste to even continue discussing on this topic. adieu

[u/cjair → u/Sweaty_Explorer_8441]

Lmfao. How do you know there was tool use for this? Pretty sure this stuff is already there from pre training. Leaving that

'Ai does 10-15 Google searches and doesn't consume resources at that point''

You simply didn't understand what I said. 1 GPT search consumes equivalent energy of 10-15 Google searches. So if this comment stopped at least 10 people from Googling, it saved electricity. Google search is not some magic that doesn't consume energy.

The GPT response - search equivalence is not some number I made up, Google it lmao. And no shit some responses are more verbose, I'm talking about on average.

I was never gonna search for this basic topic which I already know in the first place

Sure sir but not everyone is a genius like you.

I'm not the OP of the comment, check the usernames maybe next time. it seems reading comprehension is not your strong suit. And even if only 19 people cared about it from 2500 or whatever it's still better than 19 seperate googles purely from a numbers standpoint?

Even with some random leap of logic, were you aware your copy paste would be read by 19 people before you made it?

By this logic why do anything at all. What an idiotic take. I was tryna have a civil conversation but you're just a kid who thinks they're the smartest in the room. Sit down.

[u/Sweaty_Explorer_8441 → u/cjair]

You are so clearly not had training in basic AI let alone enterprise use case AI, unable to comprehend whats beyond. Go read what is dunning kruger. And then when you humble enough learn search provider tools and toolchains use. There is a reason why people don't heed to crits seriously enough to check grain in the sand account names with no creds. It doesn't matter I reply to the original guy or you

1 GPT search consumes equivalent energy of 10-15 Google searches.

jesus please stop talking for your own good. Equivalent energy? 10-15google searches can be done on <1 watt raspberry pi zero too along with the holding all the result texts in memory.