Talk:Quorn

Health Info

Would be nice to have some info on the relative healthiness/unhealthiness of quorn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.40.233 (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Which supermarkets

Would it be okay to post in which supermarkets one can buy this? I know some Dutch ones, but I'm living in Paris. And I'd be very happy if it were possible to buy this in France. But I wonder if it's okay to add the Dutch ones here... Guaka 16:46, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, I dunno. I think some people will have a problem with that. And given that it's very likely to change (and thus any such information that you might add would become outdated) very quickly. Google still has its uses :) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:39, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Country-wise information will probably be stable for a while though. So I started something like that. Please add more... Guaka 23:28, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, which countries in which it is and isn't sold is very worthy of inclusion. I've changed the sentence to use the "as of" link format, which (supposedly) can be used to check and update ephemeral data (see Template:R for as of). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:48, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Which fusarium?

Most of the articles I found on the web say the species of fungus is fusarium graminearum, but wired and CSPI say it's fusarium venenatum strain PTA-2684. I don't know if these are different names for the same organism, or if they sell different quorn in the european and US markets (that seems very unlikely). I've left it as graminearum for now, as the majoritarian opinion lies there, but if anyone knows for sure, please amend the article accordingly. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:39, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ah, our own mycoprotein article says it's venenatum. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:51, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Was confused about this as well - abstract from article in Fungal Genetics and Biology (Volume 23, Issue 1, February 1998, Pages 57-67) suggests it's F. venatum -- 81.99.181.41 10:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The fungus Fusarium gramincarum A3/5 is the same as Fusarium venenatum A3/5. The latter name is the correct one now, it was simply renamed during the development of Quorn. This happens frustratingly frequently and often new names take years fto 'stick'. For more information visit the Taxonomy section of the NCBI website.

About CSPI quotes

I've added a couple of quotes from CSPI, hopefully enough to balance the health claims of the manufacturers, without taking things too far. One has to give them some credit - they sure know how to write melodramatic sounding soundbites. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:56, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

They have serious ties to Gardenburger.

The above is a falsehood, as near as I can make out. Gardenburger used their releases, as would any company in a similar position. Also, Quorn is not built out of mushrooms. CSPI is absolutely right. Whether the public should insist on mushrooms vs. other fungi is not the issue. I studied mycology for a little while at UW Madison and in Alaska I was a mushroom and other fungus-hunter. I have no irrational fear of mycoproteins, and a case could be made for countering CSPI by saying other fungi are not bad for you inherently (and of course, some of the most deadly fungi are in fact proper mushrooms). But the Quorn people shouldn't have said it was made from mushrooms, because it is not. I actually eat Quorn, by the way.

I request, formally, that the phrase "with ties to Gardenburger" be removed from this article, period. The only source for that, extent, is Steve Milloy. Milloy was hired by tobacco companies to challenge medical science implicating tobacco in health problems, and to generally discredit science where it impacted on the possiblity of regulation. He's not a scientist of any sort, but a public relations professional, a lobbyist, and an organizer of science-denying pseudo-research whose stated product for his employers is "doubt." Either specify - and SOURCE - the "with ties to Gardenburger" or REMOVE It. Citing someone's press release does not give you ties to that organization. It's the purpose of public interest groups to BE cited. The use of that phrase makes this whole article a vehicle for Steve Milloy, who's started innumerable disinformation campaigns and astroturf groups to discredit science and public policy makers. MarionADelgado (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Name

Anybody know the source/meaning of the name? —wwoods 02:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It's reportedly named after the village of Quorn, Leicestershire. I don't know why (that's miles from Marlow) - maybe just to get the quaint rural image that name (supposedly) carries in the UK. I guess it sounds more like a character from Star Trek elsewhere. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk July 5, 2005 16:49 (UTC)

But it sounds like Star Trek here in England too! Kid Apathy 19:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the name has no particular meaning. It was taken from a 'bank' of trademarked names owned by Marlow Foods. A list of names was put out to market research and Quorn won due to the public response associating words such as "Healthy", "Sunshine", etc.

I live in Quorn village and I have been told that the name 'Quorn' was given by Marlow Foods' owner at that time, AstraZeneca, who are based in Loughborough; a town three miles North-West of Quorn village - Tombon 13:33, 6 April 2006

The village of Quorn is famous for its fox-hunt (unsurprisingly called the Quorn Hunt). A somewhat ironic name since most Quorn eaters (i.e. vegetarians) are almost certainly opposed to fox-hunts. Bazonka 22:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It could also lead people to think it's made with familiar corn, rather than less appetizing-sounding fungus. 72.244.204.134 (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Vegan?

Are all varieties made with egg albumin? If so, the article should probably note that it is not a vegan product. The production section says it is made with chicken egg albumin, so I was going to note that Quorn is not vegan, but I suppose it is possible they have some varieties that are not made with egg albumin, so I thought I would ask. - Taxman ^Talk July 5, 2005 14:24 (UTC)

Everything in their US range contains albumen, and quite a lot also contains dairy. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk July 5, 2005 16:31 (UTC)

According to an email I received from the manufacturer, none of Quorns products are vegan and they have no plans to produce any vegan products at this time. December 16, 2005 00:33

Banned in Germany?

I've removed the part which said Quorn is available in Germany. I'm pretty sure it's not, and as far as I know, it's actually banned there. However, I can't find a source for that, though I know I've read about it somewhere online a few months ago. Quorn.com doesn't include a section for Germany, but does for the countries in which it is available. Angela. 16:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The line saying its available in Germany was added by Guaka in this 2004 edit. Guaka is still an active Wikipedian, so I'll ask him for a source. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that must have been a mistake! I didn't know it was banned there. I must have been a bit too bold... :)
However, if quorn is banned in Germany, then this fact should definitely be in the article! I would really like to know why now, since I really like this stuff... Guaka 18:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a quote from a (2001) book by German author Max Goldt. (I did the translation, sorry for awkward language...):

Germans seldomly eat Quorn. There is Quorn in England and in Switzerland, but not in Germany, because our departments of nutrition didn't allow it. It's a protein-rich vegetarian food like tofu, only not made of soy, but based on a fungus, and afer tinkering with it for a while, the gentlemen of Food Engineering manage to invest it with a fibrousness that reminds people with bad sensory memory of chicken meat. Other than tofu, it is contested by vegans, because egg protein is needed to solidify it. Together with tofu it is rejected by the organic food cuisine, because it has been industrially processed. A great food - disputed by the in-crowd and watched jelously by the state. I will buy Quorn hot dogs at the [Swiss] supermarket and spend my journey back [to Germany] with the awareness of a Quorn smuggler. Quorn does't taste very excitingly, rather well-behavedly, but how often do you find vegetarian food with an aura of the forbidden? Once there was absinth and laudanum, now there is Quorn.

-- megA 17:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Dispute: Toxicity of DNA/RNA

Previous attempts at producing such fermented protein foodstuffs were thwarted by excessive levels of DNA or RNA, which can be toxic in high concentrations.

I'm not aware that DNA or RNA can be any more deadly than water: you can probably drown in it. --Fasten 15:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The production page on their website explains, saying "Since the purine bases in nucleic acids are metabolized to uric acid, an excess of which in the blood can give rise to gout, the RNA content of mycoprotein is reduced". "Toxic" is, I believe, an entirely appropriate description for that, as The American Heritage Dictionary defines toxic to mean "A poisonous substance, especially a protein, that is produced by living cells or organisms and is capable of causing disease". I've clarified the sentence involved, and provided the direct link to that page. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Is that pilinugal? Genetic material gives rise to gout and is therefore toxic?

"Pilinugal" isn't a word in my dictionary, I'm afraid. Can you rephrase? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Gout is a disease that one is predisposed to. Foods containing high levels of purine can trigger it, but cannot cause it unless one is born susceptible to the disease. Purine is not toxic, unless your definition of toxic includes allergens or anything that acts on a small part of the population with effects of toxicity at otherwise normal levels. Mushrooms and asparagus have the same effect on those predisposed to gout as Quorn is likely to have.

If that line of reasoning should hold, flour should be considered toxic since there are people with the coeliac disease who are sensitive to gluten, and one could be quoted saying "gluten gives rise to coeliac disease" (Compare diabetes etc.) Wouldn't quite make sense. Nixdorf 12:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If human food contains too much nucleic acid (i.e. DNA/RNA), uric values in the blood rise and the excess accumulates as crystalline deposits in joints and tissues (see Riviere, 1975 & Sinskey and Tannenbaum, 1975). These deposits lead to gout-like manifestations (swollen big toe) and stones in the urinary tract. The World Health Organisation recommends no more than 2g of RNA per day should be ingested - as consumption of F.venatum would result in approximately 20g per day, this must somehow be reduced. This is achieved by raising the temperature of the biomass to 68*C for 20-30min which stops growth and activates the organisms RNAases (RNA digesting enzymes) to break down the RNA to nucleotides which diffuse out into the growth medium which is later removed.

Wouldn't the RNA simply denature at those temperatures for that amount of time? 3:00, 28 April 2006 (GMT)

Isn't the {{dispute}} settled now? If not, I think that the template could be moved to the concerned section. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 18:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. The issue is so minor that it does not validate tagging the entire article as disputed. Nixdorf 21:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Cites

I've removed the link to anti-battery-farming group eggscam.com. The linked page (the root of that website) didn't say anything about quorn, and indeed a google of their whole site doesn't seem to have anything about Quorn. Googling in general does find some folks who have this objection, but it mostly seems to be message board and blog posts - surely there's an organised group somewhere that has/had a "don't eat cruel quorn" release or pamphlet? We need to find that to cite here. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I also added a {{fact}} to the thing about fears of a worldwide protein shortage. I'm sure this is true (I remember reading about it in the 1980s) but we still need to reference this properly. I know people tried all kinds of weird things (growing bacteria on unwanted heavy mineral oil fractions) and ran into the same DNA-uric toxicity problems that Quorn overcame. I'd be surprised if there isn't an existing wikipedia article about it, somewhere. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I asked about this on the science reference desk, so maybe someone will find something interesting. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to Quorn US saying the same thing, but left the {{fact}} in place - I'd be much happier with a more independent source to corroborate this. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

In general the business of when Quorn did (and whether it doesn't now) contain battery eggs is poorly sourced (it's mentioned in the intro, in the present tense, sans a decent reference). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I found a good reference, a speech by the CEO of the UK-veg-soc, who explains the timeline better, so I think this part is referenced okay now. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be a very good idea to keep citations using Steven Milloy at arm's length. A reference to his prostituting for both the tobacco industry and ExxonMobil would be beneficial. Personally, I would doubt anything he says since I doubt he respects objective fact in any form.b_calder (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I also found sources for those who disagree with CSPI, including a source for the "they're in league with TVP" line (although I do hope anyone reading this does also ready the Molloy article). So I think all that's left incited is the protein shortage thing. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

What is or are cites? The heading implies that cites is a noun but it isn't.

Photos

We really need some photos of Quorn. If someone has some around, I think we should have a) a photo of the raw mince or chunk quorn, in all its uncanny grey goodness, and b) a photo of one of Marlow's readymeal quorn products (not, I think, some dish you cooked up yourself from a quorn product. Additionally, I'll be in Stokesley next week, so I'll take a photo of the factory (weather willing) - it's not very interesting (just a big box) but it's better than nothing. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I did take a photo of the factory, but where it is one really can't get a decent shot of it, except through a chainlink fence. The whole effect, which made it look rather more sinister than it really does, really wasn't worth having. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Quron or a producer or distributor would provide a photo of their product for this article? SamDavidson 20:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Battery eggs

Would anyone care to explain what "battery eggs" are? It's wikilinked to factory farming, which redirects to industrial agriculture -- an article where the word "battery" only appears once, in the external links section, in regard to "battery cages." It would be nice to know what all the ire is about in this context. --Birdhombre 20:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Better late than never, I guess. It has to do with the battery cages you found. Tiny cages that chickens sit in without being able to move much if at all. They're fed by conveyor belts and de-pooped the same way (with different belts, of course) and do nothing but squeeze out egg after egg. Google has more than you'll probably ever want to know about it. --StarChaser Tyger 02:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"Colorful Quotes"

Because no other article on foods that people are allergic to have "colorful quotes", graphically illustrating their adverse symptoms, I don't think it's appropriate to include graphic descriptions about someone being incontinent of stool in public on this article. It's 12 year old bathroom humor, sure, but the article discusses the allergy issues and controversy at length, so I see no justification for further specific quotes. This product is still on the market with no further "outrage" from consumer groups, and these articles that talk about the allergies are already a few years old. Sounds to me like the controvery is a dead issue. It's fair to discuss both sides, but un-necessary to have the allergy issue take over the article. To clarify:

• No other food (eg strawberry, peanut, wheat flour, to name a few) that causes people to have food allergies (or the article on food allergies) quotes an individual describing their specific symptoms.
• The article is an encyclopedic one that already covers the allergy issue and controversies adequately. Anecdotes from individuals should not be highlighted. A list of symptoms, percentages of people affected, etc. are appropriate. An encyclopedia article talks about the topic, not individual experience.
• Positive user testimonials are not used on other commercial food products (eg boca burger, Amy's Kitchen, etc.) nor should they be. Yet, if a negative comment from a user of a product is allowed, shouldn't the positive testimonials also be allowed, even encouraged to balance the negative quotes? Clearly, these types of testimonials are discouraged since they can turn an article into an ad.

Nightngle 16:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you don't agree that an organization like CSPI should not be allowed to slander a food product, and perhaps you even support their aims. I would say that your insistence on that quote not being included demonstrate your inability to follow NPOV policy, but the RfC I am starting should clarify this once and for all. 23:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding personal anecdotes and quotes is the issue. I don't believe that the effect of the quote is to make people feel that CSPI is the problem, but rather to think "gosh, I don't think I want to eat this product - it makes people incontinent in public!". And if your intent is to discredit CSPI, then that is a NPOV issue. Additionally, if articles like this allow negative personal quotes, then we should allow positive personal quotes too (commonly called a testimonial) and I don't think that's a good idea. What happens to NPOV when articles are littered with quotes from individuals proclaiming their views of the subject of the article? Nightngle 14:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like the article goes well beyond reasonable expectations of describing the controversy. Would something along these lines be agreeable?:

“ Controversy

---

Quorn's 2002 debut in the United States was contested by The American Mushroom Institute, Gardenburger and the Center for Science in the Public Interest who alleged deceptive advertising for labelling Quorn as "mushroom based". They also expressed concern that the unusual production might produce unexpected allergic reactions. The manufacturer disputes specifics of the complaints.

”

This is intended to capture the flavor of the dispute, summarize it, and provide links to find out more. More references to additional points of view would be in line with this suggestion. —EncMstr 04:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent summary. The amount of coverage of the issue was overwhelming the information about the product itself and not consistent with other similar articles. Thank you very much for taking the time to review and write this summary. This is also an excellent example of the benefit of asking for comments/third opinions - the article will be a better one because of your input. Nightngle 14:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

for the record, i started eating quorn a month ago, and it's the best fake meat i've ever eaten. not one issue. it's fearmongering bullshit and should stay out of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.151.115 (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Appropriate use of verifiable quotation

I have added a quotation from the CSPI website, which I have cited, in the "Controversy" section, that user Nightngle insists on deleting. This quotation is germane to the section in demonstrating how CSPI has solicited the most graphic examples of reactions to Quorn, even though they haven't verified the reactions themselves. There is no reason that I can think of other than prudity or defense of CSPI for this quotation to not be considered encyclopedic to the article in the place I have added it. Jfiling 23:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have explained my opinion regarding the scatalogical quote in the "Controversy" section of this article in detail to Jfiling. Please see the section above "Colorful Quotes". My reasons are, clearly, neither to support or discredit the CSPI (ie. NPOV) nor prudery. Nightngle 14:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My look at this situation leads me to this initial response. The incontinence claim is notable, verifiable and published by a reputable source. It is also nonremarkable in statistical terms, distasteful, and sensationalist. It is POV but this is to some extent balanced by statistical and competitive statements in the section. The question I will take away to seek answers on; "Is this complaint log - no matter how reputable the publisher in general - a reputable source? Has anyone checked on the factual contents of the complaint log or is this complaint log no different, in terms of reliability for factualness, than a blog? SmithBlue 00:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a valid question, SmithBlue. My answer is that since CSPI is used throughout the "Controversy" section as a source for complaints, I think it is appropriate to include the most preposterous claim they have published regarding the purported ill effects of Quorn. I cannot speak for the factuality of the complaint I quoted, but I can say that CSPI has readily accepted this claim to further their purposes of discrediting Quorn, and for that reason I believe the quote belongs. Jfiling 23:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Coming into this from outside, I suggest that anecdotes are not medical evidence. DGG 01:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Responding to RFC: If the quote was enlightening of anything, it would be a different matter. But every poll or survey gets its share of flakes or extremes or offbeat comments. By itself, it doesn't 'prove' much. That CSPI have used that quote is probably amusing, but the quote doesn't have a context for its quoting, which leaves it just as a quote, bare.

What I think would be a better compromise all around, and keep the article in better shape whilst also respecting the evidence it provides of extreme quoting, would be to use footnotes. Explain that extreme quotes have been used and objected to (which is factual), then cite this quote as a reasonable example of this extreme strategy. I've posted an edit, which I think might be a compromise of this kind. Hopefully this meets the main needs of both viewpoints - that the article is encyclopedic in tone, but that evidence of the extreme nature of cites is not lost. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the footnote is excellent, and will use that technique in the future if a similar situation ever comes up. Sorry for the delay in commenting, but I had forgotten about this until today. Thank you very much for coming up with a very good solution Jfiling 19:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

A few issues

Just browsing I came across this page. A few suggestions if I may? Well, actually you can't stop me suggesting I was being over-polite 8)

• "and a leading brand elsewhere." Needs a ref.
• "Quorn is sold (largely in Europe but also in other countries)". Europe isn't a country. The phrase includes "other" and is therefore badly worded. Also, state the countries. It is very vague.
• I swapped a sentence around in the intro. The commenta about vegetarians and vegans sounds better when they follow each other.
• Changed the history a bit to reduce words. A ref to Lord Rank & Hovis is needed.
• Rm second link from the mold as per usual in Wiki articles it is only linked on first mention and not subsequent.
• "as are various vitamins and minerals (to improve the food value of the resulting product)" I think this is misleading as I am sure they do improve the food value but in fact they are added to supplement the growth of the fungi. No doubt some of the mineralas are coenzymes.
• "Quorn is not genetically modified: the fungus used is still genetically unmodified from the state in which it was discovered. " I understand whyt you are trying to say but the part after the colon may be untrue. It is most likely the same strain but may have naturally modified itself. Be sure of what you are saying here and ensure it is accurate and verifyable. Have they tested it to show there is no natural genetic modification? Consider cutting the sentence down to a pithy one.

Interesting article though 8=) Rather eat Tofu myself. Candy 21:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for all the comments, Candy. I think that some of your points might be assuptions as well, though - remember, Wikipedia isn't about researching to figure out what the truth is, but reporting credible sources.
  • As a vegetarian myself and as for tofu, I can tell you that the most delicious bolognese sauce I've ever made (even when I ate meat) is made with Quorn crumbles - it's unbelievably good! That said, my interest in the article is encyclopedic, not testimonial. But now that I'm daydreaming about spaghetti, maybe next time I make it, I'll snap a pic for the article. ;-)

Nightngle 16:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Broken Link

The [ 2 ] link points nowhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.129.228.164 (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Rename this article?

In my opinion, Quorn, Leicestershire should be under the article title Quorn, and the food product should be under Quorn (food product). The village came first and the food stuff is named after it. There seems to be commercial pressure at work here, and Wikipedia is not an advertising forum. I have also edited the Quorn disambiguation page to remove the prominence given to the food product Quorn, which was placed as the main topic and also was bolded. 86.136.31.176 (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• This seems to have been reverted since then, but just to explain WP policy - the first article that appears should be that which is most commonly searched for, and so to which users would most expect to arrive. I would imagine that the large majority of those who search on Wikipedia for Quorn will be interested in the article on the foodstuff, rather than the small town. A disambiguation page is returned as the first result where the expected results of the user are split between one or more applicable results. The Quorn (and all product pages) should be neutrally written such that it could not be taken as an advertisement and so commercial influence will not have any purpose. 81.86.72.99 (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Deliciousness

Is there a NPOV way of stating that Quorn is delicious? I have yet to read a bad review of its taste or texture (as opposed to tofu or seitan, which are often compared to whale snot and cardboard, respectively). Would linking to various reviews suffice, or some compilation thereof, or is there simple no way to neutrally state that Quorn's is well received? One need only Google it to find volume of praise from meat-hungry vegetarians.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.202.70.154 (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This has no scientific value of course, but my opinion, which I have heard other people express, is that it has an absolutely awful taste. I'm sure some reviews can be found.

People buy this because of what it's not (meat), not because it tastes great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.65.60.95 (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I buy it because it's easy to cook with...anyway, the only NPOV was to say it would be to cite a review which makes this claim, as far as I know. 90.195.179.150 (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Does it taste of anything or is flavour added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Production news

http://www.nebusiness.co.uk/business-news/latest-business-news/2009/01/20/quorn-firm-puts-35m-investment-on-the-menu-51140-22728872/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.17.102.137 (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Quorn in Cyprus

Is Quorn selled in Cyprus? There isn't Cypriot flag on Quorn official site, but I have found the following cypriot site: http://www.chillysfrozenfoods.com/index.php/quorn-products/c_7.html Should we add Cyprus on the article? What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.36.15 (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Logo

The article currently carries the old Quorn logo, which is about a year out of date. The current one can be found on Quorn's website here:[1]. 72.244.204.134 (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)