Let's say I have a document, a specification for a vitamin mix for addition into animal fodder. This document has a table listing the maximum permitted contents of bacteria in the mix.
The first line reads: "Maximum overall bacterial count, in cells/g: 500 000".
The second, third, and fourth to tenth lines read "E.Coli and coliform bacteria", "Proteus", etc. The column value is "not allowed" for each of these, meaning that it's a no-no to have any such bacteria in the mix.
Is "not allowed" a proper combination of words? I came up with "not permitted" as an alternative, but there could be more idiomatic word combinations.
The Russian original is "не допускаются" ('are not admitted', in a blunt translation; meaning the very existence of such bacteria in a sample of the product is a no-no)
Best Answer
There are many similar examples out there:
The United States EPA sets standards for drinking water contaminants:
I have seen this switched to the numeral
0in city water quality fact sheets.In strict terms, though, we can't say that a concentration is zero - only that it cannot be detected. So some standards will say non-detectable. That invites the question of how hard one has to look before declaring something non-detectable.
The U.S. FDA sets limits for bacteria in animal-sourced fertilizer with that issue specifically adressed:
Not permitted would be well understood by the public, but doesn't really specify how to determine the absence.
The examples above reflect the usage when issuing regulations. If you are looking for a way to provide testing results, it is common to report non-detects as being less than the detect threshold. For instance, if your test can detect 0.1 ppm listeria, you could report a non-detect as: