Food quality as on a trend downwards in the late 19th century to the early 20th century, and it didn't change until regulation. Around the world, countries established food regulation and in every single instance, the quality of food reversed its trend from downward to upward.
Not always, no.
Show me where a proven safety procedure did not result in a safe food product 99% of the time. I'm talking about a regulated, proven safety procedure that has stood the test of time. The entire idea of a 'proven safe procedure' is that it produces a safe product. Your claim is that there's no such thing as a procedure that insures the safety of a food product, and that's completely ridiculous.
Just like following unsafe procedures does not guarantee unsafe results.
Stating something as true does not automatically make the converse true as well. You are replying to a claim I never made.
Uh, wow. No.
As long as you eat it following the term of cooking. Take an untainted chicken, prepare it using a proven safety procedure, if you follow it to the letter then you will never get sick. Maybe there's a one in a trillion chance, so we're not being absolute, since you like being pedantic whenever I use absolutes. The government has set standards that every restaurant must follow by law to prepare its food, and if the food comes to them untainted and these standards are followed then it is ALMOST impossible to get sick. 0.000001% chance.
Bacteria die at a certain temperature. We know this. We recorded this. We have empirically studied which temperature bacteria is completely eliminated at. If you eat it within a reasonable amount you have a one in a trillion times chance of getting sick. Fact. Read up on the facts of bacteria.
You believe I have not. The reality is much more complicated than you're willing to admit.
How is it more complicated? What's more complicated? I wanna know what's so complicated about all this, because it all looks plain as day to me.
I'm saying specifically that, even if bacteria levels dropped, the intent was not so much to drop bacteria levels but to accomplish something else.
So, are you planning to prove somehow that these policies were put in to reduce competition instead of improving food safety? Without any proof it sounds like conspiracy theory tinfoil-hattery. I don't understand why it's on me to prove that food safety regulation increase food safety (I know I know, ridiculous on its face) for which there are thousands upon thousands of sources, but you don't have to prove your position at all.
Also, you're admitting that this process actually improved food safety? Just getting that on record here.
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 23:37 (UTC)Food quality as on a trend downwards in the late 19th century to the early 20th century, and it didn't change until regulation. Around the world, countries established food regulation and in every single instance, the quality of food reversed its trend from downward to upward.
Not always, no.
Show me where a proven safety procedure did not result in a safe food product 99% of the time. I'm talking about a regulated, proven safety procedure that has stood the test of time. The entire idea of a 'proven safe procedure' is that it produces a safe product. Your claim is that there's no such thing as a procedure that insures the safety of a food product, and that's completely ridiculous.
Just like following unsafe procedures does not guarantee unsafe results.
Stating something as true does not automatically make the converse true as well. You are replying to a claim I never made.
Uh, wow. No.
As long as you eat it following the term of cooking. Take an untainted chicken, prepare it using a proven safety procedure, if you follow it to the letter then you will never get sick. Maybe there's a one in a trillion chance, so we're not being absolute, since you like being pedantic whenever I use absolutes. The government has set standards that every restaurant must follow by law to prepare its food, and if the food comes to them untainted and these standards are followed then it is ALMOST impossible to get sick. 0.000001% chance.
Bacteria die at a certain temperature. We know this. We recorded this. We have empirically studied which temperature bacteria is completely eliminated at. If you eat it within a reasonable amount you have a one in a trillion times chance of getting sick. Fact. Read up on the facts of bacteria.
You believe I have not. The reality is much more complicated than you're willing to admit.
How is it more complicated? What's more complicated? I wanna know what's so complicated about all this, because it all looks plain as day to me.
I'm saying specifically that, even if bacteria levels dropped, the intent was not so much to drop bacteria levels but to accomplish something else.
So, are you planning to prove somehow that these policies were put in to reduce competition instead of improving food safety? Without any proof it sounds like conspiracy theory tinfoil-hattery. I don't understand why it's on me to prove that food safety regulation increase food safety (I know I know, ridiculous on its face) for which there are thousands upon thousands of sources, but you don't have to prove your position at all.
Also, you're admitting that this process actually improved food safety? Just getting that on record here.