>>On Monday, however, the FDA said that the "false-positive lab sample DOES NOT change the basis for [the] FDA's ongoing outbreak investigation or the overwhelming epidemiological data supporting the current voluntary recall by Taylor Farms." The agency added that its "traceback investigation and outbreak data continue to converge on shredded iceberg lettuce from Taylor Farms locations in central Mexico."
The false positive "doesn't call into question the conclusion of the outbreak investigation," McEntire said. Had the positive test been confirmed, "it could've resulted in a substantially expanded recall."
<<
I like the part where they say “No Taylor Farms branded products are involved in this recall.” As in there are other brands they do not mention which were but do not list them which they could own and distribute under.
Only slightly unrelated, but I've been thinking a lot lately about prion disease and whether or not you can still trust the meat you eat. Easily a food safety concern that is ten times worse than getting a little diarrhea from your salad, and the same institutional rot can contribute to it. And it would take 5-10 years to really see the damage done from it.
A guy gets a worm in his brain, somehow becomes secretary of health, loosens all the rules so the rest of us have a higher chance of getting a brain worm. This is comic book villain kind of stuff. Can we start a serious discussion about whether we might be living in a simulation with a troll teenager at the controls?
Filter for dates around his presidential run: "he's not really anti Vax", "he's the only candidate talking about health"... With Dorsey and other SV actors boosting him.
The Americans have what’s basically a cultural trait at this point of deflecting ownership of their government’s actions with “not my president so not my failure” abdication of responsibility.
I wish we could open trade talks with these people instead. But, alas, that’s not how it works.
Fine, it’s all my fault. Neither me nor my state voted that way, I’ve protested like hell, but nonetheless at your insistence I accept personal responsibility for the policy choices of the federal government.
What do you propose I do?
Or did you just want my permission to be personally angry at me? Not sure you needed it, but you’ve now got it.
You might benefit from looking up the Goomba Fallacy. As a former anti-anti-RFK guy, I absolutely have to take responsibility, I severely misunderstood the wellness movement and didn't realize that inflicting disease on people was their goal. But I don't know why you think the person you're responding to supported RFK.
>I mean, it is not as if RFK was the darling candidate of HN at one time?
Wasn't my darling candidate. Mostly because I can read research papers and understand that drinking raw milk and avoiding vaccines doesn't make me healthier.
There's really nothing we can do about prion diseases, can we? What does the FDA (or any other regulatory or research institution) even have in the way of prion detection?
The US Federal Government has been meaningfully degraded by the brazen corruption of the people in power. Already there was a crisis of faith in authority; this is just going to make it much much worse.
I wonder if its time to rethink some of these institutions. It seems like Food Safety is especially important to the welp being of society; it might make sense to have food testing labs in every major population center/distribution hub. Funded by a tax on the food companies or perhaps even locally. Its just unbelievable that the entire US population is so vulnerable… what if a bad actor did something nasty deliberately?
Seems because of Supreme Court ruling practically every federal agency likely needs to be re-chartered to have the same structure as the Federal Reserve.
Depending how far the Supreme Council takes the unitary executive theory, we might need a straight up Constitutional amendment. And while we're at it, those department heads should be directly elected by the People - imagine being able to split your choices for which parties control the FCC vs the ATF.
(Ideally we'd move towards Ranked Pairs voting too, diminishing the two-party stranglehold as well)
Generally the industry DOES lobby for regulation. In a deregulated industry, there's a rush towards the bottom - which means trust in the industry implodes. They don't want that. I don't believe the current administration is actually in line with the industry as a whole.
The next time you hear people claiming that Canada's dairy tariff's are unjust, unfair, etc.* ... Bear in mind that they only kick in after a quota that's never been reached because Canadians generally perceive U.S. dairy as being of lower quality. This sort of thing probably won't change that.
_______
* Trump does this regularly when justifying his latest tariffs.
"No shit?" jokes aside, it seems like a bad corporate strategy. Rather than owning up and doing what they can to protect their customers, they kept trying to hide, and now Taylor Farms is going to forever be associated in customers minds with explosive diarrhea.
I’m sure they’ll just come up with some other branding, they’ll “go bankrupt” and reorganize, and call it good in the public eye, and everyone will have forgotten about it in a year or two.
From a purely greedy/capitalistic standpoint, this strategy made sense.
If Presdient Camacho can call a sport’s federation and have a penalty canceled and the administration is as rotten and corrupt as its demonstrated every day, it’s worth a shot for that company to try and avoid a recall.
A recall costs money, people they don’t know getting sick costs them nothing.
They tried to hide it before the news got out in the first place; the reason executives in general are so excited about Trump is that they think he's going to let them bribe their way out of anything. I'm a bit surprised to hear no bribe was accepted here, although I suppose an uncontrolled explosive diarrhea outbreak would be hard for regime officials to keep a lid on.
They already told you clearly, so it sounds like you're trying to browbeat them with a fallacy of equivocation over the scope of "it".
These things are not equivalent:
1. A biological test for a parasite in a sample of equipment/material from the factory. (Claimed as false-positive.)
2. The analysis of the supply-chain for the food that sickened people which led to that facility as a common factor. (Presumably still accurate.)
___________
To use a criminal-investigation metaphor: Suppose a dead woman is found covered in knife wounds, and the circumstantial evidence leads to one Knifey McStabberson, since he (A) previously dated the woman and (B) sent a death-threat once via text-message, and (C) has a collection of hundreds of suitably-sized knives. Investigators notice one that looks bloody, and test it... It's her blood! Wait, oops, no, false-positive, it was something else.
What is your takeaway from the story so far? Is it that Knifey McStabberson himself is "a false-positive" and obviously totally innocent... or is it that it would be a good idea to check more of the knives scattered around his house and in his car?
This is the most upsetting thing about everything that is happening. Like, sure I have plenty of criticisms about the FDA, but by and large, I thought the body was slowly working in the direction of the public good.
Once you destroy that trust, every single announcement becomes suspect. You no longer have anything you can believe.
This admin has lied repeatedly. Why would any of us believe a statement solely because the admin said it? Do we need to give them the benefit of the doubt despite how many times they lie?
The false positive "doesn't call into question the conclusion of the outbreak investigation," McEntire said. Had the positive test been confirmed, "it could've resulted in a substantially expanded recall." <<
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/taylor-farms-cyclospora-outbrea...
I like the part where they say “No Taylor Farms branded products are involved in this recall.” As in there are other brands they do not mention which were but do not list them which they could own and distribute under.
https://www.taylorfarms.com/newsroom/taylor-fresh-foods-stat...
I mean, it is not as if RFK was the darling candidate of HN at one time?
https://archive.is/kce6f
I wish we could open trade talks with these people instead. But, alas, that’s not how it works.
What do you propose I do?
Or did you just want my permission to be personally angry at me? Not sure you needed it, but you’ve now got it.
Wasn't my darling candidate. Mostly because I can read research papers and understand that drinking raw milk and avoiding vaccines doesn't make me healthier.
Banning offal consumption. Banning blood donations from people who could have been exposed. Detecting the disease in postmortem examinations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_BSE_outbreak
I wonder if its time to rethink some of these institutions. It seems like Food Safety is especially important to the welp being of society; it might make sense to have food testing labs in every major population center/distribution hub. Funded by a tax on the food companies or perhaps even locally. Its just unbelievable that the entire US population is so vulnerable… what if a bad actor did something nasty deliberately?
(Ideally we'd move towards Ranked Pairs voting too, diminishing the two-party stranglehold as well)
_______
* Trump does this regularly when justifying his latest tariffs.
If Presdient Camacho can call a sport’s federation and have a penalty canceled and the administration is as rotten and corrupt as its demonstrated every day, it’s worth a shot for that company to try and avoid a recall.
A recall costs money, people they don’t know getting sick costs them nothing.
You don't always get a positive test, but this doesn't necessarily prevent you from concluding the cause of food contamination.
Software getting flagged by anti-malware as a false positive is a great way to get an evil corpo tale of woe to the top of HN with 800 points.
So it’s a false positive?
They already told you clearly, so it sounds like you're trying to browbeat them with a fallacy of equivocation over the scope of "it".
These things are not equivalent:
1. A biological test for a parasite in a sample of equipment/material from the factory. (Claimed as false-positive.)
2. The analysis of the supply-chain for the food that sickened people which led to that facility as a common factor. (Presumably still accurate.)
___________
To use a criminal-investigation metaphor: Suppose a dead woman is found covered in knife wounds, and the circumstantial evidence leads to one Knifey McStabberson, since he (A) previously dated the woman and (B) sent a death-threat once via text-message, and (C) has a collection of hundreds of suitably-sized knives. Investigators notice one that looks bloody, and test it... It's her blood! Wait, oops, no, false-positive, it was something else.
What is your takeaway from the story so far? Is it that Knifey McStabberson himself is "a false-positive" and obviously totally innocent... or is it that it would be a good idea to check more of the knives scattered around his house and in his car?
Once you destroy that trust, every single announcement becomes suspect. You no longer have anything you can believe.
This admin has lied repeatedly. Why would any of us believe a statement solely because the admin said it? Do we need to give them the benefit of the doubt despite how many times they lie?