You really don't understand how bad it was back then. It was disgusting, and most people didn't have a choice in the matter. Rat feces in your burgers, dirt and grime all over your produce, I don't think we can get anywhere unless you accept the conditions were horrid and needed to change. The entire point of my topic was that market forces were not going to do this.
Because testing and safety precautions don't cause safe food.
Following known safe procedures doesn't result in something that's safe? It's technically true that you can undercook chicken and it can still be safe, but if you ALWAYS cook chicken to a certain temperature then it will ALWAYS be safe.
If we're truly better off, you haven't justified that, either.
I already linked to something, so you can read that if you still don't believe me. I'm not asking you to take my word for it, just read anything- ANYTHING on the subject.
What I was saying with the analogy you don't like because it kind of torpedoes your position was that we can look at a result and say "hey, it worked" even though the result may very well exist independent of the regulation.
So, regulation enacted to test food for bacteria does not actually reduce the bacteria content of food because the companies that had bacteria in them were put out of business. No, this was just a coincidence, even though there's no other way the bacteria would be found if it wasn't specifically tested for it. You can't possibly be serious. I'm honestly flabbergasted.
no subject
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/Law.Food.and.Drug.Regulation
You really don't understand how bad it was back then. It was disgusting, and most people didn't have a choice in the matter. Rat feces in your burgers, dirt and grime all over your produce, I don't think we can get anywhere unless you accept the conditions were horrid and needed to change. The entire point of my topic was that market forces were not going to do this.
Because testing and safety precautions don't cause safe food.
Following known safe procedures doesn't result in something that's safe? It's technically true that you can undercook chicken and it can still be safe, but if you ALWAYS cook chicken to a certain temperature then it will ALWAYS be safe.
If we're truly better off, you haven't justified that, either.
I already linked to something, so you can read that if you still don't believe me. I'm not asking you to take my word for it, just read anything- ANYTHING on the subject.
What I was saying with the analogy you don't like because it kind of torpedoes your position was that we can look at a result and say "hey, it worked" even though the result may very well exist independent of the regulation.
So, regulation enacted to test food for bacteria does not actually reduce the bacteria content of food because the companies that had bacteria in them were put out of business. No, this was just a coincidence, even though there's no other way the bacteria would be found if it wasn't specifically tested for it. You can't possibly be serious. I'm honestly flabbergasted.