Safe practices existed at the time, but very few followed them. There is little evidence to support that they would have started following them on their own, without regulation. They didn't for a long time before that.
This is a flawed question however the answer is obvious, because in it's natural state most food is safe, that is why we call it food.
You misunderstand. I am not talking about a fresh fruit coming into a processing plant of some sort and coming out tainted, I'm saying the fruit GETS there moldy and rotten, and doesn't get separated out. This is what was happening. Salmonella and e.coli love spreading, so if you have one tainted tomato then it has a great chance to ruin the rest of your stock. That stuff needs to be separated out of the main batch immediately, or prevented from getting there in the first place.
The problem with regulation is they are never limited to ensuring the food is safe, they are always written to ensure that a specific process is followed with no deviations, whether that process is the safest one or not.
I'm still waiting for someone to prove this statement true.
In fact, the argument I hear, that 'science and knowledge' would've improved food quality is exactly what goes into these regulations. The safe methods are proven by scientists (they proved exactly at what temperature you kill bacteria, for example), not just commissioned to patients in an insane asylum.
The thing about libertarians is they believe in business to have good intentions but not in government workers or politicians. The thing about anti-corporation people is they believe the that businesses are only out to exploit and government is there to stop them.
The truth is, nobody gets into these things with malicious intentions. Humans are highly susceptible to greed, and more often than not fall victim to it. I don't believe these businesses are TRYING to kill their customers, but it's a relevant side-effect of their greed. Politicians can also fall prey to it, as we can see from the practice of lobbying. They can make regulations that benefit X over Y.
These just aren't the natural state of these things. They're outliers, and we can put in legislation that deals with both of them. Your last statement is just as hyperbolic as people who think all businesses would condone murder for an extra dollar.
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: 22/7/11 20:49 (UTC)Safe practices existed at the time, but very few followed them. There is little evidence to support that they would have started following them on their own, without regulation. They didn't for a long time before that.
This is a flawed question however the answer is obvious, because in it's natural state most food is safe, that is why we call it food.
You misunderstand. I am not talking about a fresh fruit coming into a processing plant of some sort and coming out tainted, I'm saying the fruit GETS there moldy and rotten, and doesn't get separated out. This is what was happening. Salmonella and e.coli love spreading, so if you have one tainted tomato then it has a great chance to ruin the rest of your stock. That stuff needs to be separated out of the main batch immediately, or prevented from getting there in the first place.
The problem with regulation is they are never limited to ensuring the food is safe, they are always written to ensure that a specific process is followed with no deviations, whether that process is the safest one or not.
I'm still waiting for someone to prove this statement true.
In fact, the argument I hear, that 'science and knowledge' would've improved food quality is exactly what goes into these regulations. The safe methods are proven by scientists (they proved exactly at what temperature you kill bacteria, for example), not just commissioned to patients in an insane asylum.
The thing about libertarians is they believe in business to have good intentions but not in government workers or politicians. The thing about anti-corporation people is they believe the that businesses are only out to exploit and government is there to stop them.
The truth is, nobody gets into these things with malicious intentions. Humans are highly susceptible to greed, and more often than not fall victim to it. I don't believe these businesses are TRYING to kill their customers, but it's a relevant side-effect of their greed. Politicians can also fall prey to it, as we can see from the practice of lobbying. They can make regulations that benefit X over Y.
These just aren't the natural state of these things. They're outliers, and we can put in legislation that deals with both of them. Your last statement is just as hyperbolic as people who think all businesses would condone murder for an extra dollar.