You're ignoring my point. The regulations also nuked companies that were making safe food.
Again; If they were already using processes that resulted in safe food then I have no idea why they failed. A regulation that tests a product for bacteria can only nuke a food product if it tests above a certain % threshold for that bacteria.
So your position is that every company was making tainted food? Really?
The fact that Heinz went from underdog to market leader means that the majority of ketchup producers were making rancid ketchup. There's no other way. If the test is positive for bacteria, then it has bacteria. They weren't making safe food.
You keep wanting to blow off this analogy, but it's key to understanding the regulatory process.
Not really. If this issue is so clear-cut then you can easily find an analogy in food regulation.
Except that's not the case. Companies acting in responsible ways DO get forced out because the regulations become too overbearing or expensive. Regulations assume guilt...
If insuring that their products won't kill you upon consumption is too much of a load to bear, I have no sympathy. That should be a standard baseline for any food. No sympathy. None.
...and that's a decidedly unamerican viewpoint.
Uh, okay.
Which, of course, is absurd. If the preparation was the problem, the preparation was the problem, not the process.
Same thing.
Neither - I think you're misinformed as to why regulation occurs and what results from it is all. I do not feel you've thought this one through enough.
Like I said, paranoid worldview. I don't think regulators are out to get me. You can believe what you want, but know that you're toeing the line with conspiracy theorists on this one. Also, dishonestly, once again, requires that they actually don't do what they claim to do, aka they don't do testing, they don't make sure warning labels acceptable, they don't check for expiration dates, they don't take a tainted food product and require the producer to reevaluate its production method, and you would be extremely hard pressed to claim that they aren't doing these things.
That's exactly what I'm doing - arguing based on the merits. I'm surprised you see it otherwise.
Questioning motive is not arguing based on merits.
Which it is - the argument for regulation is safety. The purpose of regulation is not, it's about reducing the competition. That's why you see so much support from industry leaders on the regulatory side - they know it benefits them.
It benefits them because people who use cheaper production methods could undercut them with potentially lethal goods. You would think that people wouldn't buy the cheaper, deadly food but history has proven otherwise.
To say that argument for regulation is NOT safety means that you're saying regulation has not caused businesses to use safer processes in creating food. History clearly proves this notion wrong. Please read up on the sanitary conditions of food in the 1900s.
no subject
Again; If they were already using processes that resulted in safe food then I have no idea why they failed. A regulation that tests a product for bacteria can only nuke a food product if it tests above a certain % threshold for that bacteria.
So your position is that every company was making tainted food? Really?
The fact that Heinz went from underdog to market leader means that the majority of ketchup producers were making rancid ketchup. There's no other way. If the test is positive for bacteria, then it has bacteria. They weren't making safe food.
You keep wanting to blow off this analogy, but it's key to understanding the regulatory process.
Not really. If this issue is so clear-cut then you can easily find an analogy in food regulation.
Except that's not the case. Companies acting in responsible ways DO get forced out because the regulations become too overbearing or expensive. Regulations assume guilt...
If insuring that their products won't kill you upon consumption is too much of a load to bear, I have no sympathy. That should be a standard baseline for any food. No sympathy. None.
...and that's a decidedly unamerican viewpoint.
Uh, okay.
Which, of course, is absurd. If the preparation was the problem, the preparation was the problem, not the process.
Same thing.
Neither - I think you're misinformed as to why regulation occurs and what results from it is all. I do not feel you've thought this one through enough.
Like I said, paranoid worldview. I don't think regulators are out to get me. You can believe what you want, but know that you're toeing the line with conspiracy theorists on this one. Also, dishonestly, once again, requires that they actually don't do what they claim to do, aka they don't do testing, they don't make sure warning labels acceptable, they don't check for expiration dates, they don't take a tainted food product and require the producer to reevaluate its production method, and you would be extremely hard pressed to claim that they aren't doing these things.
That's exactly what I'm doing - arguing based on the merits. I'm surprised you see it otherwise.
Questioning motive is not arguing based on merits.
Which it is - the argument for regulation is safety. The purpose of regulation is not, it's about reducing the competition. That's why you see so much support from industry leaders on the regulatory side - they know it benefits them.
It benefits them because people who use cheaper production methods could undercut them with potentially lethal goods. You would think that people wouldn't buy the cheaper, deadly food but history has proven otherwise.
To say that argument for regulation is NOT safety means that you're saying regulation has not caused businesses to use safer processes in creating food. History clearly proves this notion wrong. Please read up on the sanitary conditions of food in the 1900s.