It’s a gradient, right? And there probably should be a line somewhere. A line where on one side is considered generally safe and the other side should be considered risky. If this needs regulation, how do we define the line, and what sort of limit should be put on it?
In all the years of super spicy food existing on this planet, there are almost no deaths reported. He had some other undiagnosed health issue for sure. Waiting on the autopsy.
You’re the only person asking my opinion about it - but I would generally be in favor of having a panel of qualified doctors, food scientists with published work in this field, and lawyers with experience in prosecuting food industry malfeasance to undertake a review of the case history and risk factors to propose a generally reasonable legal framework for what is an acceptable health risk for the general public, whom is most vulnerable and how the risk can be mitigated at point of sale, how those metrics can be rigorously upheld by the food industry, and what should be done with companies that fail to comply.
That sounds like what should happen in a world where a corn chip can kill a child.
We know that a child ate a corn chip and the child later died. We don’t know that the child died as a result of eating the corn chip. If we believe that policy should be based on evidence and not on anecdote it seems reasonable to wait for an investigation before we apportion culpability.
It’s a gradient, right? And there probably should be a line somewhere. A line where on one side is considered generally safe and the other side should be considered risky. If this needs regulation, how do we define the line, and what sort of limit should be put on it?
In all the years of super spicy food existing on this planet, there are almost no deaths reported. He had some other undiagnosed health issue for sure. Waiting on the autopsy.
You’re the only person asking my opinion about it - but I would generally be in favor of having a panel of qualified doctors, food scientists with published work in this field, and lawyers with experience in prosecuting food industry malfeasance to undertake a review of the case history and risk factors to propose a generally reasonable legal framework for what is an acceptable health risk for the general public, whom is most vulnerable and how the risk can be mitigated at point of sale, how those metrics can be rigorously upheld by the food industry, and what should be done with companies that fail to comply.
That sounds like what should happen in a world where a corn chip can kill a child.
We know that a child ate a corn chip and the child later died. We don’t know that the child died as a result of eating the corn chip. If we believe that policy should be based on evidence and not on anecdote it seems reasonable to wait for an investigation before we apportion culpability.
Ever heard of the FDA?