• moodoovoodoo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    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.

    • Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • moodoovoodoo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        14 hours 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.