|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 02/01/2009 : 15:49:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Simon
Coincidence? |
When peanut butter is a major part of your diet, coincidence isn't good enough.
|
But, until further information comes up, the skeptical thing to do is to suppose that the two events are independent and that their proximity is merely a coincidence...
|
Depends on what's at stake, too, doesn't it? If in a two year period there were two instances of separate clown-balloon factories producing balloons that blew up and ruined clowns' careers, I would want to apply my skepticism in the way you suggest.
But a much more "paranoid" attitude is called for when people are dying of food poisoning, especially when years of neglect have weakened the FDA's perceived authority in the eyes of food producers.
Taking a chance of erring on the side of caution when so much is at stake is not bad skepticsm.
And it doesn't really require paranoia to connect the two peanut contamination events -- just the hypothesis that they are connected by a political climate fostered by Bush & Co. that cut regulations and inspection staff, and sent a subtext message to corporations that "anything goes."
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/01/2009 18:22:00 |
 |
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2009 : 17:48:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Simon
Coincidence? |
When peanut butter is a major part of your diet, coincidence isn't good enough.
|
Same here. I eat peanut butter almost daily. Though I'll still take this country when dealing people behind this. I find it interesting how a similar crime results in different punishment from country to country. Such as China and melamin milk. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2009 : 20:20:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by Simon
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Simon
Coincidence? |
When peanut butter is a major part of your diet, coincidence isn't good enough.
|
But, until further information comes up, the skeptical thing to do is to suppose that the two events are independent and that their proximity is merely a coincidence...
|
Depends on what's at stake, too, doesn't it? If in a two year period there were two instances of separate clown-balloon factories producing balloons that blew up and ruined clowns' careers, I would want to apply my skepticism in the way you suggest.
But a much more "paranoid" attitude is called for when people are dying of food poisoning, especially when years of neglect have weakened the FDA's perceived authority in the eyes of food producers.
Taking a chance of erring on the side of caution when so much is at stake is not bad skepticsm.
And it doesn't really require paranoia to connect the two peanut contamination events -- just the hypothesis that they are connected by a political climate fostered by Bush & Co. that cut regulations and inspection staff, and sent a subtext message to corporations that "anything goes."
|
I disagree. I think good skepticism is good skepticism regardless of the circumstance.
Now; I am not saying that you should not err on the side of caution, and that's especially true for the FDA and any other administration in charge of food safety.
But, realize that you are just being cautious and that you are putting your own safety above sound skepticism.
Even if, once again, that's is the smart thing to do. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2009 : 22:19:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
I disagree. I think good skepticism is good skepticism regardless of the circumstance. |
My question wasn't intended to throw skepticism out the window. And it wasn't meant to imply some massive peanut conspiracy, either (of course).
It may very well be just a coincidence, but I wonder (as Mooner does) if there's something about the current sociopolitical climate that makes such things more likely (and thus not simply coincidental).
Is there a set of "warning signs" that, when all present, suggest that we should lay off the peanut butter and wash the veggies very carefully? (Don't forget the recent spinach disaster.) Or, despite decades without such incidences, do we just have to live with the assumption that our food is always a risky prospect? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2009 : 01:30:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
[quote]I disagree. I think good skepticism is good skepticism regardless of the circumstance.
Now; I am not saying that you should not err on the side of caution, and that's especially true for the FDA and any other administration in charge of food safety.
But, realize that you are just being cautious and that you are putting your own safety above sound skepticism.
Even if, once again, that's is the smart thing to do. |
Well, that's certainly a more nuanced position than what I'd thought you were expressing, and much harder to disagree with. Nevertheless, I'll give it a go:
How is a skepticism that is blind to taking reasonable dangers into account a "good skepticism"? What bloody good is a skepticism that might get kids killed?
No, I think that a "good skepticism" must include risk considerations of life and death, else what is "good" about it? Such skeptical conclusions should also state clearly that doubt exists, but frame that doubt within the overriding need for caution.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2009 : 01:49:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Is there a set of "warning signs" that, when all present, suggest that we should lay off the peanut butter and wash the veggies very carefully? (Don't forget the recent spinach disaster.) Or, despite decades without such incidences, do we just have to live with the assumption that our food is always a risky prospect? |
Also, doesn't all this make one pine for the gamma-ray sterilization of food products, which has been blocked by the woos?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/02/2009 01:50:43 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2009 : 08:57:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by Simon
[quote]I disagree. I think good skepticism is good skepticism regardless of the circumstance.
Now; I am not saying that you should not err on the side of caution, and that's especially true for the FDA and any other administration in charge of food safety.
But, realize that you are just being cautious and that you are putting your own safety above sound skepticism.
Even if, once again, that's is the smart thing to do. |
Well, that's certainly a more nuanced position than what I'd thought you were expressing, and much harder to disagree with. Nevertheless, I'll give it a go:
How is a skepticism that is blind to taking reasonable dangers into account a "good skepticism"? What bloody good is a skepticism that might get kids killed?
No, I think that a "good skepticism" must include risk considerations of life and death, else what is "good" about it? Such skeptical conclusions should also state clearly that doubt exists, but frame that doubt within the overriding need for caution.
|
I think that Skepticism, like Science, is about determining what is true or what probably is true.
Life, or death, having no bearing about the truth.
Of course, there are other aspects to take into account that might be more urgent and important than just getting it right, protection of one's loved ones, for example.
But I believe this prudence is independent of skepticism, and merely supersede it. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2009 : 09:22:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
I think that Skepticism, like Science, is about determining what is true or what probably is true.
Life, or death, having no bearing about the truth. |
But the proposition for which we are seeking a truth value is "the recent contaminations are due to some common factor." If they weren't a matter of life-and-death, I don't think I would actually care what the truth value is for that proposition. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hittman
Skeptic Friend
134 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2009 : 09:51:30 [Permalink]
|
| I'm hopeful that at least manslaughter charges will be brought against PCA officials, |
Does criminally negligent homicide carry stiffer penalties than manslaughter? I'd go for whichever puts them in jail the longest.
| Though I'll still take this country when dealing people behind this. I find it interesting how a similar crime results in different punishment from country to country. Such as China and melamin milk. |
China sentenced one of their managers to death for exporting contaminated food. It appeared to have no effect, though, as they continue to do it. I won't buy any food that says "made in China" on it. Of course, with the way things are mixed and matched it's still possible that food from china may not be labeled properly.
| Also, doesn't all this make one pine for the gamma-ray sterilization of food products, which has been blocked by the woos? |
Oh yeah. Quick, simple exposure to radiation would make this a non-issue, yet the idiots spread enough FUD about it that it is, for all practical purposes, unavailable.
|
When a vampire Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door, don't invite him in. Blood Witness: http://bloodwitness.com
Get Smartenized® with the Quick Hitts blog: http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/index.phpBlog |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2009 : 20:10:22 [Permalink]
|
It's looking even worse. Now it turns out that Peanut Corporation of America didn't do "lab shopping" as alleged, after all. The FDA has found that instead, PCA simply shipped products with no further testing after tests showed them to be contaminated with salmonella: (CNN) -- The Georgia company whose peanut products have been blamed for a nationwide salmonella outbreak shipped some products even though they had tested positive for the bacteria and no other tests indicated they were safe, the Food and Drug Administration said Friday.
Previously, Peanut Corporation of America had said it shipped products only after subsequent tests on them came back negative. Items made with its peanut products have been linked to more than 500 cases of illness, including eight deaths.
. . .
"In some situations the firm received a positive salmonella test result, followed by a later negative result, and then shipped the products," said the FDA report, which was included in an e-mail to CNN. "In some other situations, the firm shipped the products [which had already tested positive] before it had received the [second] positive test results."
In some cases, it said, "no additional testing appears to have been done." |
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/06/2009 20:34:29 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2009 : 05:38:32 [Permalink]
|
It gets even worse yet. An elderly woman has died, bringing the death toll in the poison-for-profit salmonella attacks to nine. And the peanut company responsible knew about the salmonella contamination as early as 2006.
Stewart Parell takes the Fifth.
Stewart Parnell, the owner and President of Peanut Corporation of America, appears to be the primary culprit. He was grilled by House of Representatives members on February 11, and plead the Fifth. There's a video.
According to investigators:
PCA was aware of salmonella in its products as early as 2006. Parnell sent an email to his plant manager saying, "Turn them loose."The House panel released e-mails obtained by its investigators showing Parnell ordered products identified with salmonella to be shipped and quoting his complaints that tests discovering the contaminated food were "costing us huge $$$$$."
. . .
In another exchange, Parnell complained to a worker after they notified him that salmonella had been found in more products.
"I go thru this about once a week," he wrote in a June 2008 e-mail. "I will hold my breath .......... again."
. . .
"We need to discuss this," he wrote in an Oct. 6 e-mail to Sammy Lightsey, his plant manager. "The time lapse, beside the cost is costing us huge $$$$$ and causing obviously a huge lapse in time from the time we pick up peanuts until the time we can invoice."
. . .
In mid-January, after the national outbreak was tied to his company, Parnell told Food and Drug Administration officials that he and his company "desperately at least need to turn the raw peanuts on our floor into money." |
How Parnell's (alleged) actions may differ in effect from cold blooded murder for money, I cannot see. True, he's not a terrorist, because he had no intention of drawing attention to his poisonings, and certainly did not intend to force the Federal government to increase its oversight of food producers.
No, Parnell just wanted money. But if Parnell isn't a serial killer, neither is the Unibomber.
I'm curious as to how economic Libertarians here might approach food safety. What, other than greater government regulation and testing, might have prevented these deaths? "Enlightened self-interest" the Libertarian's term for all that is good in their ideology, certainly did not. It turns out that means "greed" in the real world.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/12/2009 05:43:04 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2009 : 07:59:17 [Permalink]
|
I can not fathom how such a decision could have been made. It is not only incredibly unethical, it also is profoundly stupid. Didn't he know if was going to get caught?
In such a situation, I think an accusation of murder would be justified... |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2009 : 08:05:09 [Permalink]
|
| I say you let ME have him first! |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Peanut company ships after contamination found
