It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Welcome Back to the Jungle

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 07:31 AM
link   
In 1906, Upton Sinclair released a novel, titled The Jungle, that depicted the harsh working conditions immigrants faced in industrial cities. It went on to become more famous for its depiction of the unsanitary conditions prevalent in the meat packing industry. The public outcry was so great that it led to the passing of the Meat Inspection Act and the formation of the FDA.

113 years later it looks like we may be heading back to the conditions Sinclair described in his novel. Earlier this week the Trump administration finalized a rule that would see the number of federal inspectors in pork slaughterhouses reduced by 40%, while also removing most line inspectors.

In their place, companies would provide a smaller number of their own "inspectors." These employees would not be required to receive any kind of training. Furthermore, the new rules would also shift the job of microbiological testing of meat to the companies. They will not be required to meet any kind of federal standards on food safey.

The final facet of this new rule is that it will remove line speed limits in these plants. This means that the new, untrained, line inspectors will have less time to do their job.

A pilot test was actually done to gauge the new regulations, or lack thereof. It was found that facilities that were allowed to police themselves were guilty of more regulatory violations than those operating under current guidelines. And yet the administration pushes on.

To quote Teddy Roosevelt, a vocal detractor of Sinclair, upon reading The Jungle, "radical action must be taken to do away with the efforts of arrogant and selfish greed on the part of the capitalist."

Source




posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Everything has "glaring flaws" but none of those were cited.

I'm not saying they don't, but since a big point was lack of transparency, why is the author asking as to take her at face value like the agencies in question are?



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The article literally linked to the analysis of the report. I don't know how it could do a better job citing the flaws.



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 07:53 AM
link   
I believe companies are going to be more careful than you may think. They want to protect their bottom line and having to recall massive amounts of meat for contamination or pay out millions if someone gets sick is bad for business.



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

The government's own pilot program shows that is not the case. We may not see things devolve to the same level as depicted by Sinclair. However history has shown us that corporations will always put their own profits ahead of the public well being.



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
I believe companies are going to be more careful than you may think. They want to protect their bottom line and having to recall massive amounts of meat for contamination or pay out millions if someone gets sick is bad for business.


Ok, it is in relation to food so hopefully you're correct, but if this is anything like the "self regulation" within the video game industry, then that's not a good thing. In my experience, if a company is allowed to self regulate like this, they always find ways to cut corners or do things they really shouldn't be doing. I really hope you're right when it comes to this, I mean, it makes sense that they wouldn't want to lose money, but at the same time, there's good reason why many people don't trust this.



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Sinclair's book was never about the meat packing industry, it was about the slave wage industry that the world was transitioning into. Money over freedom, profit over happiness. The meat packing industry was only an analogy for the corporate takeover of our lives, a takeover that is fully realized today.
edit on 9/19/2019 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 08:14 AM
link   
I know that over regulation from the FDA shut down many independently owned butcher shops after the 1993 Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak. While it may sound outwardly good, “less places that can get you sick or kill you.” It actually made it worse, as meat now came from the larger facilities exclusively and we have had more meat related problems than before 1993.

What’s worse is the vegetable related problems as these super processing plants get older and need major repair and replacement that isn’t coming any time soon. Because vegetables often do not get cooked long enough to kill harmful bacteria and is reintroduced beyond the washing zone.

I don’t like less FDA inspectors, but I like large food processing plants even less. And those are the ones that are going to be left when the smaller ones can’t afford their own inspections or fail periodic FDA checks and shut down.

Something about the old putting all your eggs in one basket should sum it up nicely.



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Let's hope it turns out ok, but just in case, it may be a good time to stock up on Pepto and Immodium.

a reply to: Necrobile



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Hyperbole much?


My God, comparing the immigrant working conditions from 1900 to today's is just plain lying.

But WTF, I realize you have a religion to push so By Any Means Necessary, am I right?

SMFH



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Necrobile

Or just look at the car industry. There could be a fatal defect in a product but they won't recall it until it becomes more profitable to do so.

Why do we think that the meat industry, when left to their own devices, won't do the same thing?

I don't know about you but it prefer my pork chops to not be smothered in s**t.



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Regulations are only good to an extent. Most of them are pushed by big corporations to stifle competition from smaller companies. Ask chicken farmers how often those regulations change.



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

Do people even read threads anymore?



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: willzilla

At the same time, by minimizing the amount the larger corporations need to spend on safey protocols it means they also increase their profits. To a much larger extent than small businesses while also putting a greater percentage of the populace at risk of consuming a faulty product.

It's honestly a Catch-22. Fewer regulations may be better from an economic standpoint, but is that more important that the wellbeing of the general populace?



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
I believe companies are going to be more careful than you may think. They want to protect their bottom line and having to recall massive amounts of meat for contamination or pay out millions if someone gets sick is bad for business.


Really?
I think you are a reasonable intelligent and worldly person not susceptible to fancy and fairytale
See what I did there, acted naive and ignorant like you



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
Let's hope it turns out ok, but just in case, it may be a good time to stock up on Pepto and Immodium.

a reply to: Necrobile



I'm already at the age where I kind of need those anyway.......



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Oh, I believe it, that's why I do not trust any company to properly self regulate themselves. I know many people here may not really play video games, but this is what happens when you let an industry regulate themselves:



Many companies put more and more gambling mechanics in their games to leech money out of people, and many of those games are rated E for everyone. Kids who are not of legal age to gamble are being given gambling in their games, and the companies have even gotten the ratings boards to agree that these mechanics are NOT gambling. The latest NBA game literally has card packs, slot/pachinko machines and other means of actual gambling mechanics you find in actual casinos, yet they are not gambling. It's gotten so bad that people are actually asking for government interference.

Not trying to derail, just pointing out proof that self regulation just feels like a fools gamble nowadays. The companies just aren't trustworthy, or another way to put it, I do trust them to cut corners and do everything they can to save a penny.



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Necrobile

Don't get me wrong, I hate loot box and gatcha mechanics when actual money is involved. At the same time I don't think you can really blame that on deregulation. I think it stems more from the fact it's so new and lawmakers don't really know what to make of it.

Obviously it will need to be regulated down the line. I think what needs to be addressed first though is the way workers are treated in the games industry. Just look at the horror stories that come out of these companies.

At the same time though, your example does bring up a good point. Companies can't be trusted to self-regulate, even after public backlash.

EA has the literal world record for most downvoted comment on the internet after their defense of loot boxes in Battlefront. After such a huge backlash they "fixed" the issue. For that one game. They ate the poor reviews and lower than expected sales, but they have continued to use the same business practices for pretty much every other game they produce.

Why do people think that the same mentality that we see in every other industry shouldnt apply to the meat industry?



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 10:48 AM
link   
I'll just keep growing my own veggies, and having my beef & chickens processed by the local, family owned meat packing co. Been working out well for 20 years....



posted on Sep, 19 2019 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: ketsuko

The article literally linked to the analysis of the report. I don't know how it could do a better job citing the flaws.


By actually listing them instead of simply linking to studies and letting people assume there are grave flaws because ... link. If the author says there are grave flaws in those studies, don't you think the flaws should be enumerated directly in the article instead just saying, "Hey, they are there." with a link that may or may not have actual flaws as the supposed proof.

I know if I was writing a research paper in school and I didn't directly pull the supporting evidence and quote it and then cite it properly, I wasn't passing.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join