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.
You understand that regulatory compliance carries a cost, right? That even if a company is already producing a safe product, a new regulation may carry a compliance cost that is too much to take on?
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.
I refer you to the Simpsons video below. This is terrible logic.
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.
Well, that's your call, then. Vicious and shortsighted as it is.
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.
Uh, wow. That's a bit much. Again, check out that book I mentioned, and then come back and say that.
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.
More faulty logic. The argument for the Patriot Act was to combat terrorism, but was really just to give the government more police power. By your logic, since we've seen fewer terrorist attacks on American soil, "history clearly proves" the power argument wrong.
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 20:34 (UTC)You understand that regulatory compliance carries a cost, right? That even if a company is already producing a safe product, a new regulation may carry a compliance cost that is too much to take on?
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.
I refer you to the Simpsons video below. This is terrible logic.
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.
Well, that's your call, then. Vicious and shortsighted as it is.
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.
Uh, wow. That's a bit much. Again, check out that book I mentioned, and then come back and say that.
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.
More faulty logic. The argument for the Patriot Act was to combat terrorism, but was really just to give the government more police power. By your logic, since we've seen fewer terrorist attacks on American soil, "history clearly proves" the power argument wrong.