ltxrtquq

It's important to know that both the FDA and the USDA are in charge of inspecting food, and which food is covered by which agency can be complicated.

FSIS [under the USDA] conducts continuous daily inspections of foods in its domain, whereas FDA inspections have no regular schedule. The FDA is more likely to inspect only after a tip about a possible food safety violation, so random inspections can occur up to 10 years apart or, in rare cases, not at all.

“It’s not that they don’t want to inspect more, they just don’t have the funding,” Raymond says.

This inspection imbalance means that pepperoni pizza, because it contains meat, has ingredients that will be inspected three times before the product hits the grocery store freezer: at the slaughterhouse, the packing plant and the pizza factory. A vegetarian pizza produced at the same facility, however, will probably not undergo any inspection.

And in regard to the FDA being not allowed to regulate:

[The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994] placed the burden of proof concerning dietary supplement safety on FDA, requiring the agency to show that a dietary supplement ingredient is adulterated rather than requiring the manufacturer to prove a supplement is safe prior to marketing. This is in contrast to new food additives, which require submission of safety information in a food additive petition prior to marketing, or drugs, which generally require submission of safety data as part of a new drug application prior to marketing.

At least with dietary supplements, they can't make a new product guarantee it's safe, the FDA needs to already know something is dangerous before it can force a recall.

If you'd prefer to learn more through a comedian, John Oliver covered this topic a while back https://youtu.be/Za45bT41sXg

The agencies are problematic because they generally aren't allowed or don't have the budget to properly regulate things. Eliminating departments isn't going to help anything, and I really don't think the guy that picks up roadkill for a snack will improve the overall quality of food in the country.

Those women probably attacked his tender, tiny digits with their powerful genitals for street cred.

This makes it look like a pretty clear case of sarcasm to me.

And after googling DARVO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO it becomes even clearer.

why do people have this innate ability to underestimate what we might be capable of?

Because we can see what we're currently capable of in terms of climate change, and the outlook is pretty bleak

why do you think its impossible for us to become masters of our own genome?

Because even in the best case scenario, this is dangerously close to eugenics

not getting off this rock means our species is doomed regardless of how ‘perfect’ we keep earth.

If we can't keep earth livable, an entire self-regulating planet that's been livable for hundreds of millions or billions of years, what are our chances of keeping anywhere else livable?

The risk is the whole point, and certainly does not excuse their gouging.

The risk is the point though. High risk activities will cost more to insure because they'll need to be paid out more often. Couple that with the high destruction possible, and you have frequent accidents that can all cause very expensive damage, necessitating a high base price for insurance.

The price gouging is just capitalism, and I doubt anyone here is going to argue that capitalism isn't bad.

They're not, they're complaining about the problems inherent to cars.

Before Oregon became a state, it fashioned itself as a whites-only utopia. When it joined the union in 1859, it was then the only state with laws specifically prohibiting certain races from legally living, working, or owning property within its borders.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/oregon-once-legally-barred-black-people-has-the-state-reconciled-its-racist-past

It was started as a white ethnostate. Some people never really got past that.

All I can really say is, if you don't want your personal image to be commodified, you probably shouldn't commodify it. The fact that Alex Jones has used his company that's deeply tied to his personal image to attack and lie about the families of the victims of Sandy Hook make his case particularly unsympathetic, and so now that he owes an absurd amount of money to those families I think he should be forced to give up his social media accounts if it helps give those families what they're owed.

It also doesn't help that he still thinks there are "unanswered questions" about what happened at Sandy Hook and doesn't feel any remorse for lying and spreading misinformation about the families for years.

Take his real assets and sell them.

This is exactly what the lawyers trying to take the account think they're doing. There's some real value in having access to his social media followers, especially if that access can be tied to the purchase of the larger operation.

But I think they’re not ‘his’ assets, they’re the choices of those subscribers. To ‘buy’ them seems like defrauding the people who chose to listen to him.

And those subscribers can easily unfollow him as soon as they don't like what they're hearing. It's not like once you follow someone on twitter you're forced to see updates from them for the rest of your life. But since they're following TheRealAlexJones probably to get updates about his business at InfoWars, it makes sense that the social media account that he uses to promote the business being sold needs to be considered as part of the business.

But they did own the onions before they were sold to customers, which I think means they deserve at least some fault here.

For something like t-shirt likenesses, I suppose I think the line is the person’s consent

So if he had a warehouse full of tshirts with his name or face on them and decides after filing bankruptcy that he doesn't want to sell them anymore, should he just get to keep it? Should it all be destroyed?

If he took a cattle brand and burned his name into everything on set, does that mean he shouldn't have to sell it any more?

In the extreme case: a person is legally entitled to sell nude images of themselves, but surely a court would never order it, even if that person had been previously selling nude images.

If someone was already selling porn before, do you think if they continued to that they shouldn't have to give any of that money they earned to the people they owe money to? This case isn't anywhere near that extreme because he's not the only person in the world named 'Alex Jones', so how much of his 'likeness' is being sold is debatable to begin with. And also, we aren't talking about future permission to use his likeness, we're talking about a social media account used to promote his business.

If you had a talk show called the [Your Name] show, should it be immune to bankruptcy courts? Should a the company [Your Name] Inc. not be allowed to be bought and sold? Should we forbid people from selling tshirts or pictures with their names and faces on them? Where do you think we should draw the line?

The same precedent applies to ordinary people too. Should a debt collector acquire your Facebook page? Because you used Facebook marketplace it’s now a business asset?

Most people don't own a business. The occasional use of facebook marketplace doesn't make a personal account part of a nonexistant business.

His billion dollar settlement won't be discharged through this bankruptcy, so his wages will probably be garnished for the rest of his life as it is. I really don't have any sympathy for him, and taking the social media account he's been using for his business as part of that business's liquidation really doesn't feel like a big deal.