3 ms·

Should two pizza shops be allowed to buy cheese from the same supplier? It's the same problem, right?

catalogia 7y ago
No, that's not the same problem. That a similar but less severe problem. The way a restaurant handles food is far more likely to make you sick than the ingredients being defective from the supplier. A chef who doesn't wash his hands after wiping his ass is more likely than contaminated cheese. Employees who carelessly handle pizzas and deliver them to you turned upside-down are more likely than contaminated pepperonis. Certainly sometimes ingredients are defective from the supplier. This has famously happened several times with contaminated produce, but there are various examples. In those cases the consumers already lack insight into who the suppliers of a restaurant are, and you could talk me into believing that should be changed. When a single shop is operating multiple brands, "Avoid Alice's Pizza because I saw a rat there" becomes "Avoid Alices's Pizza, and Bob's Pizza, and Sally's Pizza, and Tom's Pizza, and ...., because I saw a rat there." It should be clear how anti-consumer this is. It interferes with the ability of consumers to inform each other by artificially increasing the number of brand names they need to keep straight in their heads. Edit for response: > "This statement needs support." Does it really though? Local restaurant inspection records are generally public. Go read them if you doubt me; violations abound. It's not even a close contest, there are a load of filthy restaurants out there and local inspectors are often incompetent, underfunded, understaffed, corrupt, or otherwise not doing their job well. Word of mouth through the community about which restaurants to avoid serves an important role in keeping consumers safe. Steve Aoki's business model is a direct attack on that. If he were truly proud of these pizza shops, he could put his name on them. He could make "Chubby Pie" be "Steve Aoki's Chubby Pie". Then he could have his name on something that he's proud of and consumers would be informed. But I doubt he's going to do that because duping consumers seems to be the true purpose of this scheme. Here is an example from San Francisco: https://101g-xnet.sfdph.org:8443/ords/eeopn/f?p=132:2:::NO::P2_LOCATIONID:95761 https://101g-xnet.sfdph.org:8443/ords/eeopn/f?p=132:2:::NO::... Every city in the country has hundreds if not thousands of cases like this.
- golemotron 7y ago
  > The way a restaurant handles food is far more likely to make you sick than the ingredients being defective from the supplier This statement needs support.

No, that's not the same problem. That a similar but less severe problem. The way a restaurant handles food is far more likely to make you sick than the ingredients being defective from the supplier. A chef who doesn't wash his hands after wiping his ass is more likely than contaminated cheese. Employees who carelessly handle pizzas and deliver them to you turned upside-down are more likely than contaminated pepperonis. Certainly sometimes ingredients are defective from the supplier. This has famously happened several times with contaminated produce, but there are various examples. In those cases the consumers already lack insight into who the suppliers of a restaurant are, and you could talk me into believing that should be changed. When a single shop is operating multiple brands, "Avoid Alice's Pizza because I saw a rat there" becomes "Avoid Alices's Pizza, and Bob's Pizza, and Sally's Pizza, and Tom's Pizza, and ...., because I saw a rat there." It should be clear how anti-consumer this is. It interferes with the ability of consumers to inform each other by artificially increasing the number of brand names they need to keep straight in their heads. Edit for response: > "This statement needs support." Does it really though? Local restaurant inspection records are generally public. Go read them if you doubt me; violations abound. It's not even a close contest, there are a load of filthy restaurants out there and local inspectors are often incompetent, underfunded, understaffed, corrupt, or otherwise not doing their job well. Word of mouth through the community about which restaurants to avoid serves an important role in keeping consumers safe. Steve Aoki's business model is a direct attack on that. If he were truly proud of these pizza shops, he could put his name on them. He could make "Chubby Pie" be "Steve Aoki's Chubby Pie". Then he could have his name on something that he's proud of and consumers would be informed. But I doubt he's going to do that because duping consumers seems to be the true purpose of this scheme. Here is an example from San Francisco: https://101g-xnet.sfdph.org:8443/ords/eeopn/f?p=132:2:::NO::P2_LOCATIONID:95761 https://101g-xnet.sfdph.org:8443/ords/eeopn/f?p=132:2:::NO::... Every city in the country has hundreds if not thousands of cases like this.

golemotron 7y ago
> The way a restaurant handles food is far more likely to make you sick than the ingredients being defective from the supplier This statement needs support.