You have to remember, this was every store in the 1900s. You didn't really have the luxury of going to whole foods or whatever. Hell, it wouldn't even exist because there would be no market for it.
Really? That's a little presumptuous. The "Safer" option is not always the most logical one when the risk is so significantly low.
I don't believe the risk was significantly low. It was like 1 in 1000. That's enormous in statistics. That's gambling with your life.
I think the decrease in competition is proof of the system's corruption, personally.
It's not Heinz' fault that their competitors couldn't adapt to the new regulation. It's not an unreasonable request to make sure you're not bottling murder.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 19/7/11 02:28 (UTC)You have to remember, this was every store in the 1900s. You didn't really have the luxury of going to whole foods or whatever. Hell, it wouldn't even exist because there would be no market for it.
Really? That's a little presumptuous. The "Safer" option is not always the most logical one when the risk is so significantly low.
I don't believe the risk was significantly low. It was like 1 in 1000. That's enormous in statistics. That's gambling with your life.
I think the decrease in competition is proof of the system's corruption, personally.
It's not Heinz' fault that their competitors couldn't adapt to the new regulation. It's not an unreasonable request to make sure you're not bottling murder.