Comment by hermannj314
2 years ago
This is a story about a single private company, the US is very much a 1st world country as we have a working meat inspection program, independent journalist covering the topic, alternate products from competing vendors, and numerous lively and open discussions involving concerned citizens.
How exactly does this story support the conclusion we are becoming corrupt?
>we have a working meat inspection program
????
The topic of discussion is how a meat plant was allowed to operate despite egregiously failing not just safety rules and procedures but just plain common sense.
You consider that working?
Yes? Failures being identified? Consequences for the failure?
If your definition of “first world country” is no company ever cuts corners, well, name one. It’s probably just Singapore.
The failures were identified after many people got sick and there was no choice but to start an "RCA."
I would remind you that these "failures" were not some black swan level of event that we can't foresee, it was plain and direct negligence.
The rotten mean was literally, and I mean quite literally, piling up.
You are being EXTREMELY outright dishonest in your perspectives here. I don't say this lightly, there is no possibility of reconciling your statements and the facts of the case.
2 replies →
Yes, I think this is a failure of the system but not a failed system. I will go to grocery store this weekend and buy meat to serve to my family and I will not for even a split second assume the meat will hurt them or me, because in a country of 350 million people, these types of things are very very rare.
Our food safety systems work and can be trusted and when a failure happens we talk about it, it makes the news, and changes happen. I really believe that.
You're missing the part where people had to die.
> we have a working meat inspection program
Huh. That's an abject lie. If there were a working inspection program, this would never have happened. It wouldn't even have come close.
The best case is that it never happens. The second best case is that it’s caught as soon as it happens and stopped then. The third best case is that it’s caught some time after it happens and stopped before it has any external consequences (people getting sick). The fourth best case is that it’s caught some time after it happens but only stopped after external consequences.
Etcetera etcetera. Throw in another dimension of punishment besides just stopping operations and it gets more complex. With a little imagination, the worst cases are much worse than any of the above. We can be dissatisfied with the actual circumstances but still recognize the nuanced factors which might make up a “working” system.
In your description, nine people dying, 57 hospitalized, is the "fourth best outcome", and added "well, there are much worse scenarios" (and not just around the raw numbers, but the progression of events).
I am struggling to comprehend what these much worse scenarios are, beyond "we just say fuck it and let them continue to sell the stuff"?
It was not caught because of inspections, or because someone at the plant said that maybe it was time to fix this. It was only caught because people got sick, aka died. That's not "working".