4 ms·
How can you take such decisions while considering only the purported benefits and not the costs as well? Let's take antimicrobial sprays for example. They presu
by zeteo 13y ago
How can you take such decisions while considering only the purported benefits and not the costs as well? Let's take antimicrobial sprays for example. They presumably protect some consumers from food-borne illnesses. Shouldn't this be balanced against the risk of rashes and such? If say we estimate antimicrobial sprays save a hundred thousand salmonella etc. cases a year at the cost of ten eye irritations, maybe they're not such a bad deal after all.
- Xylakant 13y agoThere are more costs attached to it: Using antimicrobial sprays or antibiotics in abundance tends to create resistant strains and the products enrich in the food chain. The same effect could be created by just using proper hygienic conditions in the slaughterhouse - but that would cost more and require some spoilt food to be trashed - such as the trimmings from beef. Instead it's treated with ammonia and sold as ground beef.[1] Enjoy. [1] http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_19947.cfm http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_19947.cfm
- zeteo 13y ago>The same effect could be created by just using proper hygienic conditions in the slaughterhouse That's a pretty strong assertion. How did you find out that equivalent hygienic conditions could be created in slaughterhouses at a moderate cost? Aren't antibiotic sprays just getting the germs that got through, despite reasonable precautions being taken?
- Xylakant 13y agoThe article asserts that the increased usage is to compensate for speeding up the kill lines - so less precaution. Bacteria-related food poisonings due to spoiled meat are pretty rare in germany and since the practice is forbidden here I assume it must be perfectly viable, albeit properly more expensive to create proper conditions.
- zeteo 13y ago>The article asserts that the increased usage is to compensate for speeding up the kill lines Yes, but we're not talking about restricting usage, this is about banning them altogether. It would be interesting to know how German producers dealt with the ban. Hopefully it didn't lead to an increased use of other chemical products that aren't banned yet but soon will be etc.
- Xylakant 13y agoI'm no expert on this, but given what I know about food safety the practice would need to be explicitly allowed. I'd be very surprised if such a practice has ever been allowed. Same holds for other chemical products.
- claudius 13y ago> How did you find out that equivalent hygienic conditions could be created in slaughterhouses at a moderate cost? Simple: Meat is not terribly more expensive in the EU than in the US, people don’t regularly die from food poisoning here[0] and such measurements are prohibited in the EU, hence it must be possible to ensure hygiene with different means at similar, possibly slightly higher, costs. [0] At least not more often than the US, I would assume.
- mmcnickle 13y agoThe US has roughly 42,000 reported cases of salmonellosis each year. The "asthma and other severe respiratory problems, burns, rashes, irritated eyes, and sinus ulcers and other sinus problems" are occupational hazards associated with the practice, not hazards to consumers of the product. The author is saying that some committee in the EU has banned the practice, and are unlikely to have done so without weighing costs and benefits.
- specialist 13y agoExternalities, unintended consequences. Regulating for public safety must consider the global view.