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.
Correllation is not causation.
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<show [...] 99%>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]
<i>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.</i>
Correllation is not causation.
<i><Show me where a proven safety procedure did not result in a safe food product 99% of the time.</i>
You've changed the game - I was saying exactly this - there are no guarantees.
<i>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.</i>
I understand bacteria fine, thanks. The problem is less food safety and more safe handling on the consumer end, really, but you seem to think that there's this proven, 100% definite method. There's not. No amount of regulation can change that, either.
<i>I wanna know what's so complicated about all this, because it all looks plain as day to me.</i>
I've been fairly clear about the regulatory processes impact on the marketplace.
<i>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</i>
So provide a couple.
<i> but you don't have to prove your position at all.</i>
The book I have is unfortunately boxed up somewhere. I would refer you to the book I mentioned earlier, however, for some examples within the farming industry.
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 23:48 (UTC)Correllation is not causation.
Correllation is not causation.
<i><Show me where a proven safety procedure did not result in a safe food product 99% of the time.</i>
You've changed the game - I was saying exactly this - there are no guarantees.
<i>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.</i>
I understand bacteria fine, thanks. The problem is less food safety and more safe handling on the consumer end, really, but you seem to think that there's this proven, 100% definite method. There's not. No amount of regulation can change that, either.
<i>I wanna know what's so complicated about all this, because it all looks plain as day to me.</i>
I've been fairly clear about the regulatory processes impact on the marketplace.
<i>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</i>
So provide a couple.
<i> but you don't have to prove your position at all.</i>
The book I have is unfortunately boxed up somewhere. I would refer you to the book I mentioned earlier, however, for some examples within the farming industry.