8 ms·
100% right. The challenge is it's not cheap, and someone has to pay for that and it's either government (probably should be, but we're waiting...) or the priva
by ekanes 3y ago
100% right. The challenge is it's not cheap, and someone has to pay for that and it's either government (probably should be, but we're waiting...) or the private sector, and it seems to be a hard revenue model to make work.
- bombcar 3y agoYou first identify "most likely to be contaminated foods" whether that is a type, or sales method, or handling, etc. Then you require that companies test and report some metric associated with the issue, just like they report calories and ingredients. Then you require and fund the government to spot-check the reported amounts. Eventually you could even require minimums.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> You first identify "most likely to be contaminated foods" whether that is a type, or sales method, or handling, etc. You can't fit a model without data. Consumer Reports did some random spot tests and found phtalates where we didn't expect them. That means we need more broad-based data to be able to predict what is and isn't likely to be contaminated.
- bombcar 3y agoThat's the first step - analyze anything you can get your hands on, identify issues and theories, test them, and use that information going forward. An easy first step would be "plastic packaged products" - test and see if there's a correlation there.
- cameldrv 3y agoI wonder what it would take to make this cheap. It would be wonderful if you could just buy some analyzer gadget where you could just throw something in a blender, pull out a sample, put it in the machine, and 5 minutes later it would tell you the phthalate content. Then you could create a crowdsourced database, and everyone would know what not to buy. As word got out, this would also create a nice feedback loop for the food companies to clean up what they were selling.