You have to be trolling me now. You even accepted my premise as fact and still pull this card. It's on you to prove that it was just a coincidence, not on me. Every single historical record disagrees with you.
You've changed the game - I was saying exactly this - there are no guarantees.
99.9% is a guarantee. If I give you 99.9 to 1 odds on winning roulette you would be withdrawing all your money from your bank account before I could finish the sentence. If you claim that 99.9% is not a guarantee then you have no idea what the word means.
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.
Nobody was talking about what consumers do with their regulated food. We're talking about government regulation on producers, not your wife. If your wife was operating a commercial kitchen and selling the food for profit, she would have to follow regulated ways of preparing food as well.
I've been fairly clear about the regulatory processes impact on the marketplace.
I haven't denied that it's reduced competition, my response to that was that I had no sympathy for producers that willingly create tainted food.
So provide a couple.
Alright, this is proof positive that you ignored my link 2 replies ago.
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.
What's wrong, can't find billions of sources through a cursory google search? I can. Just google 'the effects of food regulation' or 'food regulation' or anything like that and just start reading. My searches for 'food regulation is just a way to reduce competition' don't seem to bring up anything related to your claim.
When I have countless sources on my side, and you have a boxed-up book, who looks like the conspiracy theorist? Food regulation is a century old and NOBODY is claiming that the primary purpose was to reduce competition. It is 100% solely on you to back this claim up, because it is going against just about everything I could possibly find.
The thing I don't understand is... why? Why do you scoff at the facts of the matter? What do you gain by denying history? I'll never, for the life of me, understand your stubbornness.
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: 20/7/11 00:17 (UTC)You have to be trolling me now. You even accepted my premise as fact and still pull this card. It's on you to prove that it was just a coincidence, not on me. Every single historical record disagrees with you.
You've changed the game - I was saying exactly this - there are no guarantees.
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/basics_for_handling_food_safely/
99.9% is a guarantee. If I give you 99.9 to 1 odds on winning roulette you would be withdrawing all your money from your bank account before I could finish the sentence. If you claim that 99.9% is not a guarantee then you have no idea what the word means.
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.
Nobody was talking about what consumers do with their regulated food. We're talking about government regulation on producers, not your wife. If your wife was operating a commercial kitchen and selling the food for profit, she would have to follow regulated ways of preparing food as well.
I've been fairly clear about the regulatory processes impact on the marketplace.
I haven't denied that it's reduced competition, my response to that was that I had no sympathy for producers that willingly create tainted food.
So provide a couple.
Alright, this is proof positive that you ignored my link 2 replies ago.
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.
What's wrong, can't find billions of sources through a cursory google search? I can. Just google 'the effects of food regulation' or 'food regulation' or anything like that and just start reading. My searches for 'food regulation is just a way to reduce competition' don't seem to bring up anything related to your claim.
When I have countless sources on my side, and you have a boxed-up book, who looks like the conspiracy theorist? Food regulation is a century old and NOBODY is claiming that the primary purpose was to reduce competition. It is 100% solely on you to back this claim up, because it is going against just about everything I could possibly find.
The thing I don't understand is... why? Why do you scoff at the facts of the matter? What do you gain by denying history? I'll never, for the life of me, understand your stubbornness.