But he missed a much bigger scoop! The same is true of McDonald's burgers in every country! In fact, burgers from every chain aren't fit for human consumption without processing (at a minimum, cooking).
Ho ho ho.
Only he made a valid point, that they use the scrummiest parts they find, that would not be acceptable to pass hygiene tests or be served without chemical treatment, and you just made a not very good joke by taking the "unprocessed" thing out of very specific "processing" context he mentions.
So the issue isn't "you can't eat it until it's been processed"; that's a given. The question is "what processing is okay", and in particular, "is using ammonium hydroxide safe". And according to the FDA, the UN, the WHO, and most EU countries, it is
OK then, that settles it. Because state agencies are not known to have approved tons of carcinogenic and harmful chemicals for everyday food use because powerful interests lobby for their use in order to lower their costs...
I mean, it's not like cigarettes aren't also approved and allowed to be sold (without any warning and with "studies" proving them safe, 3-4 decades back).
Or like the FDA approves Coke and Pepsi, products that are known to contribute to obesity, diabetes and several other adverse effects, just because there is a multi-billion industry to be made out of them.
If I'm allowed to be cynical, that the FDA approves something, only tells us that it's not a poison with immmediate effects, nothing much more...
You have a kind of valid point. Scientific studies and the relevant regulatory agencies are not always correct. We can't always trust the scientific consensus (unless it's about global warming...but I digress).
...but you don't mention anything better. There's no "and therefore we should trust..." clause in your argument. Here's some obvious options:
* Everything is legal (from arsenic onwards)
* Everything is illegal (from dihydrogen monoxide onwards)
* National regulators make the rules.
* Privatized regulators compete to certify food safe.
* ....?
You've criticized the third option for being too permissive, so I'm sure you wouldn't like the first option. The second option would lead to us all starving. So...what is it? Do we try the libertarian wet dream of private testing labs competing in the market to certify food safety? What? I assume you don't think we just appoint Jamie Oliver as a hereditary food safety czar or something.
The only system we have claims that ammonium hydroxide is safe. You say you don't trust that system, and I'm certainly not saying you're wrong not to. But what claims can you point to that it is not safe that don't fall by the same logic?
Comments
Ho ho ho.
Only he made a valid point, that they use the scrummiest parts they find, that would not be acceptable to pass hygiene tests or be served without chemical treatment, and you just made a not very good joke by taking the "unprocessed" thing out of very specific "processing" context he mentions.
OK then, that settles it. Because state agencies are not known to have approved tons of carcinogenic and harmful chemicals for everyday food use because powerful interests lobby for their use in order to lower their costs...
I mean, it's not like cigarettes aren't also approved and allowed to be sold (without any warning and with "studies" proving them safe, 3-4 decades back).
Or like the FDA approves Coke and Pepsi, products that are known to contribute to obesity, diabetes and several other adverse effects, just because there is a multi-billion industry to be made out of them.
If I'm allowed to be cynical, that the FDA approves something, only tells us that it's not a poison with immmediate effects, nothing much more...
You have a kind of valid point. Scientific studies and the relevant regulatory agencies are not always correct. We can't always trust the scientific consensus (unless it's about global warming...but I digress).
...but you don't mention anything better. There's no "and therefore we should trust..." clause in your argument. Here's some obvious options:
You've criticized the third option for being too permissive, so I'm sure you wouldn't like the first option. The second option would lead to us all starving. So...what is it? Do we try the libertarian wet dream of private testing labs competing in the market to certify food safety? What? I assume you don't think we just appoint Jamie Oliver as a hereditary food safety czar or something.The only system we have claims that ammonium hydroxide is safe. You say you don't trust that system, and I'm certainly not saying you're wrong not to. But what claims can you point to that it is not safe that don't fall by the same logic?