From Mick Soar
Duncan Campbell writes in your letters page that as a public analyst one part
of his job is to perform calculations that lead him to claim that “a piece of
traditionally roasted meat may have a meat content of over 120 per cent”
(27 October, p 59).
He appears to think that the phrase “percentage content” is meaningless until
he defines it to mean the result of whatever arbitrary calculation he is told to
perform. This is not the case, although using perfectly normal English to say
something entirely obscure is of course a favourite trick of civil servants.
He explains that the “percentage” is based on the quantity of raw meat used.
This is comparable to giving a half-empty glass to someone and claiming that it
is full, justifying the remark by saying that it was full earlier, but some has
evaporated.
If public analysts really feel that the result of such apparently arbitrary
arithmetic is of any use at all, that’s fine. But to call it “percentage
content” is plain wrong.
Advertisement
Borth, Dyfed
