you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

If we had proper regulation, there would not have been 167000lbs of this shit to recall.

This is not 'oh, the regulation works or it doesn't', humans like to do that a lot for some reason, this whole 'it's either one thing or the other'. Nuance and gradients are a real thing. This would not have happened in a robust regulatory environment. The one we have operates on shoe strings.

Edit: 167000lbs at minimum. As another poster pointed out, this is just what was found. Which is like finding a roach in your house.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    You bold it like that’s some significant number….

    The US consumes 76 billion pounds of red meat and poultry per year.

    Thsi is more like finding a mosquito in your house.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 3 days ago

    Holy red herring. The point isn't the percentage, the point is that fraud this size got past the system at all. They falsified labels - that's egregious, planned, and indicates a systemic issue with the company.

    And sprinkling in a bit of cherry picking? You're dividing what 1 single inspection incident caught against the entire country's consumption of all meat for an entire year. This is apples and oranges, and entirely beside the point - you don't conflate detection with prevalence. Detection indicates a thing is happening, but doesn't indicate the entire scope. If you'd like to look at it in a real-world sort of way - this single inspection incident showed that enough beef to feed nearly 3000 people for an entire year had falsified labels. You can always make something seem small if you appeal to a relative scale to suit your argument.

  • source
  • parent