[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Pouring thousands of kilograms into the landfill isn't going to help either. There was an opportunity to do SOME good here; not as much good as we'd prefer, I'll grant you, but some good nonetheless.

A band aid sometimes makes things worse than better. Kinda like using a handbrake instead of fixing the brakes.

[Lemmy]

A band aid, like say, minimum wage laws?

[andyt]

[2Cdo]

Lemmy Lemmy:

A band aid, like say, minimum wage laws?

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

A band aid, like say, minimum wage laws?

No that's more like a brace - ongoing support. What are you going to do, keep producing tainted beef so you can keep feeding the homeless? Or maybe have tainted food du jour. "Hey, they shit themselves, who cares, they stink anyway."

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

Lemmy Lemmy:

A band aid, like say, minimum wage laws?

No that's more like a brace - ongoing support. What are you going to do, keep producing tainted beef so you can keep feeding the homeless? Or maybe have tainted food du jour. "Hey, they shit themselves, who cares, they stink anyway."

That's pretty black and white thinking, Andy.

[2Cdo]

Gunnair Gunnair:

andyt andyt:

Lemmy Lemmy:

A band aid, like say, minimum wage laws?

No that's more like a brace - ongoing support. What are you going to do, keep producing tainted beef so you can keep feeding the homeless? Or maybe have tainted food du jour. "Hey, they shit themselves, who cares, they stink anyway."

That's pretty black and white thinking, Andy.

[andyt]

More like getting creative, if this is what it takes to feed the homeless. If you just feed them this load of meat, their stomachs will expand, they'll get used to having a full stomach, which will make their hunger when this meat runs out even harder to bear.

[DrCaleb]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Lemmy Lemmy:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I understand that e.coli tainted meat can be eaten safely if it's cooked properly. Just like flammable children's clothing can be used safely if you keep your kids away from open flame or a car with no brakes can be stopped safely using the emergency brake.

No, those are not good analogies. "A car with no brakes can be stopped safely if you put new brakes on it" would be more accurate.

Perhaps. But my point still stands.

No, it doesn't. Logical fallicy: appeal to emotion. Bringing burning children into a debate is simple use of emotion, it's not an argument.

You say you like Tartare and Carpaccio? They you accept responsibility for "giving the children flammable clothing" as you put it. You know pork and chicken must be well cooked; why not beef?

I like Tartare and Carpaccio too, but I don't buy the tenderloin at the Supermarket, I buy it from a butcher whom I know practices safe food handling.

[andyt]

What are you arguing here, Caleb - that this is no big deal? We seem to be able to produce non e coli tainted meat most of the time. We supposedly have inspectors that assure us of this. I don't think we need to walk down the road of being casual about e coli here.

You say feeding corn is part of the problem. Well, the govt could certainly fix that. And make sure there are sufficient inspectors on hand to make things reasonably safe. Any time you slaughter meat there's probably some risk, even with your butcher. But we can have best practices to reduce it.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

I don't think we need to walk down the road of being casual about e coli here.

Why not? Almost all farm produced poultry contains Samonella. We expect this, so we cook eggs and meat thouroughly. That's the great part of e-coli; it's not very reslient to heat.

andyt andyt:

You say feeding corn is part of the problem. Well, the govt could certainly fix that. And make sure there are sufficient inspectors on hand to make things reasonably safe. Any time you slaughter meat there's probably some risk, even with your butcher. But we can have best practices to reduce it.

On that, we agree. But there is nothing really 'wrong' with feeding corn to grass eaters. It's no different that feeding it to us; we get fat. Cows though don't live long enough to develop diabetes.

[BeaverFever]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No, it doesn't. Logical fallicy: appeal to emotion. Bringing burning children into a debate is simple use of emotion, it's not an argument.

You say you like Tartare and Carpaccio? They you accept responsibility for "giving the children flammable clothing" as you put it. You know pork and chicken must be well cooked; why not beef?

I like Tartare and Carpaccio too, but I don't buy the tenderloin at the Supermarket, I buy it from a butcher whom I know practices safe food handling.

No, it's not an appeal to emotion fallacy as that requires the emotional element to sway the reader in absence of a rational element. But my argument is rational. Consumers and regulators expect -and have always expected- that products will meet the production safety standards. Flame-resistant clothing and e.coli-free food are existing standards. It is NOT acceptable to blame the victim because they failed to use a defective product in a manner that would have prevented/minimized harm from the defect. To use yet another analogy, if it was found that a particular make of car blows up into a deadly fireball after a 5 kph fender-bender, would you blame the car maker, or would you blame the drivers who got into 5kph fender-benders?

YOUR incorrect application of the analogy that is flawed. Eating Tartare and Carpaccio are not -and should not- be high-risk activities. I doubt you will find even anyone in the beef industry who says that. And eating tartare is not analogous to knowingly putting kids in flammable clothing. It is not 'high risk' behaviour that requires trained specialists. It is analogous to having a marshmallow roast with your kids under the assumption that their clothing is flame-resistant as the law requires.

$1:

You know pork and chicken must be well cooked; why not beef?

Because beef is neither pork nor chicken. I thought you worked in the meat industry.

[fifeboy]

I'm just glad I don't live downwind of the Brooks dump!

[DrCaleb]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

But my argument is rational. Consumers and regulators expect -and have always expected- that products will meet the production safety standards. Flame-resistant clothing and e.coli-free food are existing standards.

Your (food) expectations do not meet with reality.

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/consum ... 1152055552

Here's how to prevent illness from food borne pathogens. (hint: cook it).

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/consum ... 6995100600

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/retail ... 1668480561

I have yet to see any standards that say meat should be free from naturally ocurring bacteria. If you can find some, I would be most grateful.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

It is NOT acceptable to blame the victim because they failed to use a defective product in a manner that would have prevented/minimized harm from the defect. To use yet another analogy, if it was found that a particular make of car blows up into a deadly fireball after a 5 kph fender-bender, would you blame the car maker, or would you blame the drivers who got into 5kph fender-benders?

It's not? Why then do we blame people who are driving well above the speed limit, or beyond safe driving conditions for their accident? If the car is not designed for crashes over 5kph, then it shouldn't be doing that speed.

If you don't cook your meat, and you get sick from it, it must be Harpers' fault.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

YOUR incorrect application of the analogy that is flawed. Eating Tartare and Carpaccio are not -and should not- be high-risk activities. I doubt you will find even anyone in the beef industry who says that. And eating tartare is not analogous to knowingly putting kids in flammable clothing. It is not 'high risk' behaviour that requires trained specialists. It is analogous to having a marshmallow roast with your kids under the assumption that their clothing is flame-resistant as the law requires.

Ok, let's go with your analogy just for the sake of discussion. If you know the clothes are flammable, is a marshmallow roast the best activity? That would definitely be high risk. You rightly said 'flame resistant', so if they are up to standards they will not burn for a prescribed length of time; but they will burn. When they burn, is it the standard that's wrong, or the use of the product?

If you know the egg has a high chance of samonella, is eating it raw the best course of action? Since I cannot and have never found any standard for naturally ocurring bacteria - is eating raw poultry an incorrect use of the product, or a failure of standards?

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

You know pork and chicken must be well cooked; why not beef?

Because beef is neither pork nor chicken. I thought you worked in the meat industry.

Your Honour, let the record show the defendant wishes to use the 'Because I said so' defense.

[andyt]

I'm not really sure what your point is, Caleb. Sounds like you're saying e-coli found in this meat is no big deal and we shouldn't worry about it.

I like my meat well done, including beef and would never consider eating it raw. That doesn't mean I don't want the system to produce the cleanest meat it can.

You're not just making excuses because these are Alberta meat plants, are you?