Boom!

[YoUDeeMan]

But I digress. In response to Gannon, most of what he said was correct. That doesn't change my original charge or the cartoon's notion that a strong deregulatory/government-is-bad meme persists...and it has consequences. For instance, a garment factory collapsed in Bangladesh last week killing a 100 or so and injuring a 1000. I wonder how their regulatory codes, enforcement, and zoning stack up? I wonder about the risk assessment value of cheaply produced garment dyed skinny jeans from United Colors of Bennetton.

Death toal is over 500 now, with hundreds still missing.

Walmart, et al had rejected safety regulations for factories that make the clothes they sell.

Enjoy your $3 tshirt next time you buy it - hundreds of women died to make it so you could save 50 cents.

Let me know when you but everything under the union label and bought with a lioving wage. And let me know when you only eat a restaurants that pay living wages.

Otherwise, STFU you hypocrite.

[YoUDeeMan]

I think you lost your own point when you compared and equated regulations and oversight in Texas with the same in Bangladesh. One hyperbole too far.

Sorry I lost you. Lower regulations have consequences is the big picture point. That's true whether you're comparing Texas to other states or Texas to Bangladesh. Step, chew, step chew...with practice you can learn to do both simultaneously!

You're getting your azz kicked in...better stop while you are behind.

[kalm]

Sorry I lost you. Lower regulations have consequences is the big picture point. That's true whether you're comparing Texas to other states or Texas to Bangladesh. Step, chew, step chew...with practice you can learn to do both simultaneously!

You're getting your azz kicked in...better stop while you are behind.

Sure...the amount of regulation has no consequences...and does not transcend borders.

[YoUDeeMan]

You're getting your azz kicked in...better stop while you are behind.

Sure...the amount of regulation has no consequences...and does not transcend borders.

We need air to breath.

[JohnStOnge]

I don't think anybody argues that there should be NO regulation at all. It's just that there is a point at which the risk has been sufficiently reduced and there is no need to go further. It's counter productive in the grand scheme of things.

Here's an extreme illustration I think we can all agree about. You could reduce the annual number of deaths from traffic accidents by thousands per year...maybe even in the five figures per year...by passing a law that all civilian motor vehicles be equipped with a governor that prevents the vehicle from going any faster than 25 miles per hour. It would "save" a lot more lives than making stricter regulations pertaining to fertilizer plants would. A LOT more.

But nobody would support doing that. It's too much. Too much inconvenience. It would probably hurt the economy a lot. To a certain extent it would even cause some deaths from other things. Probably not enough to equal what would be "saved" in terms of traffic fatalities. But some.

So would we be "evil" if we say that we're not willing to make sure nobody goes over 25 mph even though we know doing that would "save lives?" Of course not. We think that doing that would be going beyond what's reasonable in order to further reduce the risk of traffic fatality.

And I think we long ago passed the "reasonable" break point in this country. You start off with a risk. You reduce it by 99.99% or 99.999% or more. But then our regulatory culture is such that it's never enough. As long as there's any risk at all you've got regulatory zealots who want to reduce it a little more. You have agencies, like the NHTSA for instance, who owe their existence to continuing to do that no matter how small the risk gets. It never stops. And right now there's no indication that it ever will.

Also, as time goes on, the People become more and more accepting of it. When I was a kid in the 1960s, for instance, I don't think there's anyway the People would've accepted the idea of a law that takes away your choice as to whether to put a seat belt on or not. Now we've got this safety first mentality so that I've actually heard people describe riding a bicycle without one of those stupid looking pointy helmets as "dangerous."

[kalm]

I don't think anybody argues that there should be NO regulation at all. It's just that there is a point at which the risk has been sufficiently reduced and there is no need to go further. It's counter productive in the grand scheme of things.

Here's an extreme illustration I think we can all agree about. You could reduce the annual number of deaths from traffic accidents by thousands per year...maybe even in the five figures per year...by passing a law that all civilian motor vehicles be equipped with a governor that prevents the vehicle from going any faster than 25 miles per hour. It would "save" a lot more lives than making stricter regulations pertaining to fertilizer plants would. A LOT more.

But nobody would support doing that. It's too much. Too much inconvenience. It would probably hurt the economy a lot. To a certain extent it would even cause some deaths from other things. Probably not enough to equal what would be "saved" in terms of traffic fatalities. But some.

So would we be "evil" if we say that we're not willing to make sure nobody goes over 25 mph even though we know doing that would "save lives?" Of course not. We think that doing that would be going beyond what's reasonable in order to further reduce the risk of traffic fatality.

And I think we long ago past the "reasonable" break point in this country. You start off with a risk. You reduce it by 99.99% or 99.999% or more. But then our regulatory culture is such that it's never enough. As long as there's any risk at all you've got regulatory zealots who want to reduce it a little more. You have agencies, like the NHTSA for instance, who owe their existence to continuing to do that no matter how small the risk gets. It never stops. And right now there's no indication that it ever will.

Also, as time goes on, the People become more and more accepting of it. When I was a kid in the 1960s, for instance, I don't think there's anyway the People would've accepted the idea of a law that takes away your choice as to whether to put a seat belt on or not. Now we've got this safety first mentality so that I've actually heard people describe riding a bicycle without one of those stupid looking pointy helmets as "dangerous."

And no one is arguing for excessive regulation either. I deal with government regulations constantly at my business and there's more than a few that are stupid and a pain in the ass. Especially if I don't look beyond my own narrow world. But that tends to be what people do.

It's all about finding the sweet spot, and in many ways we've done that as a country. But merely the question of how regulations or the lack there of affect things like what happened Texas, and you conks bristle...bristle I tell ya!

[JohnStOnge]

It's all about finding the sweet spot, and in many ways we've done that as a country. But merely the question of how regulations or the lack there of affect things like what happened Texas, and you conks bristle...bristle I tell ya

As I wrote in my previous post I don't think we're anywhere near it as a country. I think we're into the "ridiculous spot" area right now.

What makes me bristle is the idea the phenomenon by which people call for more regulation because some dramatic adverse event makes the news. Like with foodborne disease outbreaks. Foodborne disease outbreaks make the news and there's a rush to impose more regulation on the food industry to address whatever scenario was involved. The end result is that there's very little difference in how safe a serving of food was 30 years ago and how safe it is now. Very low risk per serving 30 years ago. Very low risk per serving now. But the food industry is absolutely buried in complicated regulation. And it'll get worse because there will still be foodborne disease outbreaks that make the news. The risk will never be zero and if there's any risk at all and you've got on the order of a billion servings of food being consumed per day there are going to be foodborne illnesses and outbreaks. Regulatory agencies will respond by smothering the food industry with even more pointless regulation.

[BlueHen86]

It's all about finding the sweet spot, and in many ways we've done that as a country. But merely the question of how regulations or the lack there of affect things like what happened Texas, and you conks bristle...bristle I tell ya

As I wrote in my previous post I don't think we're anywhere near it as a country. I think we're into the "ridiculous spot" area right now.

What makes me bristle is the idea the phenomenon by which people call for more regulation because some dramatic adverse event makes the news. Like with foodborne disease outbreaks. Foodborne disease outbreaks make the news and there's a rush to impose more regulation on the food industry to address whatever scenario was involved. The end result is that there's very little difference in how safe a serving of food was 30 years ago and how safe it is now. Very low risk per serving 30 years ago. Very low risk per serving now. But the food industry is absolutely buried in complicated regulation. And it'll get worse because there will still be foodborne disease outbreaks that make the news. The risk will never be zero and if there's any risk at all and you've got on the order of a billion servings of food being consumed per day there are going to be foodborne illnesses and outbreaks. Regulatory agencies will respond by smothering the food industry with even more pointless regulation.

It's called learning from your mistakes. Sometimes we get carried away, other times we can make changes that improve the quality of life.

[JohnStOnge]

Got to tell a story of personal experience. I had an e mail discussion with colleagues a few years back about the need (or lack thereof) for more food safety legislation. I looked up some numbers on botulism. I'm not going to look up the specifics again but many years ago Low Acid Canned Food regulations were imposed in response to some botulism cases. Death. So very complicated regulations were imposed upon those who produced low acid canned foods. Never mind that the toxin is heat labile so you can eliminate the botulism hazard yourself by heating your food.

Anyway I did some research and found that the numbers of reported botulism cases during years recent to the one in which we were having discussion was actually higher than they were before the Low Acid Canned Food regulations were promulgated. So were the rates. In other words, there was no indication at all in the reported case data that the number of botulism cases per 100,000 population was lower a few years ago than it was many decades ago before Low Acid Canned Food regulations were implemented.

Don't get me wrong. The regulations do reduce the risk that botulism will occur as a result of certain scenarios. Also foodborne disease reporting is better now. That might not have as much of an effect with botulism as it does with milder diseases because people are going to seek medical attention if they've got botulism if they don't die first. But the bottom line is that they imposed some very burdensome regulations on the food industry yet the chance that a randomly selected US resident will end up as a reported botulism case this year is greater than it was before they implemented the regulation.

It was like my colleagues didn't want to believe it. But that's what the numbers said.

[houndawg]

Got to tell a story of personal experience. I had an e mail discussion with colleagues a few years back about the need (or lack thereof) for more food safety legislation. I looked up some numbers on botulism. I'm not going to look up the specifics again but many years ago Low Acid Canned Food regulations were imposed in response to some botulism cases. Death. So very complicated regulations were imposed upon those who produced low acid canned foods. Never mind that the toxin is heat labile so you can eliminate the botulism hazard yourself by heating your food.

Anyway I did some research and found that the numbers of reported botulism cases during years recent to the one in which we were having discussion was actually higher than they were before the Low Acid Canned Food regulations were promulgated. So were the rates. In other words, there was no indication at all in the reported case data that the number of botulism cases per 100,000 population was lower a few years ago than it was many decades ago before Low Acid Canned Food regulations were implemented.

Don't get me wrong. The regulations do reduce the risk that botulism will occur as a result of certain scenarios. Also foodborne disease reporting is better now. That might not have as much of an effect with botulism as it does with milder diseases because people are going to seek medical attention if they've got botulism if they don't die first. But the bottom line is that they imposed some very burdensome regulations on the food industry yet the chance that a randomly selected US resident will end up as a reported botulism case this year is greater than it was before they implemented the regulation.

It was like my colleagues didn't want to believe it. But that's what the numbers said.

If people didn't die from using their product they wouldn't have been regulated to the extent they are now.

The real bottom line is that business wants less government for the same reason bank robbers want fewer cops.

[DSUrocks07]

Got to tell a story of personal experience. I had an e mail discussion with colleagues a few years back about the need (or lack thereof) for more food safety legislation. I looked up some numbers on botulism. I'm not going to look up the specifics again but many years ago Low Acid Canned Food regulations were imposed in response to some botulism cases. Death. So very complicated regulations were imposed upon those who produced low acid canned foods. Never mind that the toxin is heat labile so you can eliminate the botulism hazard yourself by heating your food.

Anyway I did some research and found that the numbers of reported botulism cases during years recent to the one in which we were having discussion was actually higher than they were before the Low Acid Canned Food regulations were promulgated. So were the rates. In other words, there was no indication at all in the reported case data that the number of botulism cases per 100,000 population was lower a few years ago than it was many decades ago before Low Acid Canned Food regulations were implemented.

Don't get me wrong. The regulations do reduce the risk that botulism will occur as a result of certain scenarios. Also foodborne disease reporting is better now. That might not have as much of an effect with botulism as it does with milder diseases because people are going to seek medical attention if they've got botulism if they don't die first. But the bottom line is that they imposed some very burdensome regulations on the food industry yet the chance that a randomly selected US resident will end up as a reported botulism case this year is greater than it was before they implemented the regulation.

It was like my colleagues didn't want to believe it. But that's what the numbers said.

If people didn't die from using their product they wouldn't have been regulated to the extent they are now.

The real bottom line is that business wants less government for the same reason bank robbers want fewer cops.

And the same reason why government wants its citizens to have fewer guns.

[BlueHen86]

If people didn't die from using their product they wouldn't have been regulated to the extent they are now.

The real bottom line is that business wants less government for the same reason bank robbers want fewer cops.

And the same reason why government wants its citizens to have fewer guns.

Really? How come the last time the government took a vote; it went against tighter gun regulation.

[houndawg]

And the same reason why government wants its citizens to have fewer guns.

Really? How come the last time the government took a vote; it went against tighter gun regulation.

Because the government works for special interests.

[AZGrizFan]

And the same reason why government wants its citizens to have fewer guns.

Really? How come the last time the government took a vote; it went against tighter gun regulation.

Because getting reelected is more important to them than gun control.

[JohnStOnge]

If people didn't die from using their product they wouldn't have been regulated to the extent they are now.

The point is that people still die from such products. There has been, in the great scheme of things, very little change in the risk.

And it's like what I was trying to say with the thing about putting governors on vehicles so nobody can go faster than 25 mph. There is a point at which the risk is low enough so that you say that regulation to reduce it further is not justified.

As I said earlier: Food in the United States was "safe" by any reasonable standard 30 years ago. 40 years ago. 50 years ago. There was no real need to do any of the stuff that's been done since then. It's just been knee jerk reactions to specific incident scenarios resulting in an explosion of regulation.

[kalm]

If people didn't die from using their product they wouldn't have been regulated to the extent they are now.

The point is that people still die from such products. There has been, in the great scheme of things, very little change in the risk.

And it's like what I was trying to say with the thing about putting governors on vehicles so nobody can go faster than 25 mph. There is a point at which the risk is low enough so that you say that regulation to reduce it further is not justified.

As I said earlier: Food in the United States was "safe" by any reasonable standard 30 years ago. 40 years ago. 50 years ago. There was no real need to do any of the stuff that's been done since then. It's just been knee jerk reactions to specific incident scenarios resulting in an explosion of regulation.

1). How do hospitalizations and death rates related to food borne illness compare between now and then?

2). Assuming people rely more upon food sources outside they're area or even international and on mass produced food, have the incidences or threat of food borne illnesses increased?