4 ms·
While it might be true, there's a potential for bias in that it's based on reports by inspectors, most of whom would expect to lose their jobs if this program i
by Potando 12y ago
While it might be true, there's a potential for bias in that it's based on reports by inspectors, most of whom would expect to lose their jobs if this program is expanded.
- anigbrowl 12y agoI doubt that their potential for bias outweighs the food producers' incentive to hire people who are content to just approve everything that whizzes past them on the line, without any sort of whistleblowing protections against employer retaliation. The inspection program should of course be subject to double-blind testing to determine its effectiveness compared to a control...but that sort of testing takes money, which has to be approved by Congress. I would imagine that the meat producers are a stronger lobby on Capital Hill than food safety advocates.
- refurb 12y agoThere are FDA-employeed folks at meat producers doing inspections. It's not entirely left up to the companies.
- brightsize 12y agoThe affidavits[1] referred to in TFA describe just how useless this relationship has become. The inspectors receive little support from the USDA and are now tasked with, essentially, the management of poorly-trained company "inspectors" who are themselves under pressure from company management, on pain of termination, to keep the line moving (at a higher than ever rate). The authority of the USDA inspectors, under this "let them eat salmonella" program, seems to be in terminal decline. [1] http://www.foodwhistleblower.org/campaign/hormel-hogs/#affidavits http://www.foodwhistleblower.org/campaign/hormel-hogs/#affid...