For the record, social media generally makes the situation look worse than it actually is. This goes for a lot of things posted from the US where you’re given a tiny snippet of context and a story from one side.
With the current administration, every little thing that goes wrong gets amplified and spread across the internet, especially Reddit, even if those same things happened prior. This basically creates a confirmation-bias feedback loop.
Not that I think RFK or the Trump admin shouldn’t be held liable for their fuck ups, they absolutely should (and hopefully will be), but this post in particular is an example of a rare lemon that has always been a thing.
No process is perfectly airtight, and there will be times where insects somehow find their way into a batch of food product. Most of those get caught before they’re shipped, but some make it into stores OR get contaminated at the store if the product has a broken seal.
Food here is still very safe, period. Companies especially don’t want to endure a shitstorm from customers receiving bad product, and so generally have standards that are more rigorous than what the Federal government requires.
There’s no doubt however that a few of those companies (cough Taylor Farms cough) took advantage of a politically convenient situation though, and rested on their laurels before being forced to react to the (literal) public shitstorm over their cyclospora-contaminated lettuce, for example.
Yeah, ever since the news stories broke that the contaminated lettuce was served at Taco Bell, all of the local Taco Bell stores have looked unusually empty. Especially when it comes to food, bad PR directly hurts their business.
Doge literally destroyed all of our regulatory agencies that were skeleton screwed to begin with, we essentially have zero food safety agencies left to regulate these corps beholden to Wallstreet.
So you're saying that the agencies, which are catching more of these problems before they reach consumers than ever before, is evidence that we have zero food safety? Can you explain how you came to that illogical conclusion?
Literally the FDA recall page. It's not like this is hard to find knowledge. The fact that you didn't look it up first indicates that you aren't open to the new information.
A scientific or journalistic source please — not the biased propaganda page. That’s like: Well, this murderer told me it wasn’t him that killed somebody. We need a third party source here.
But here, let me help you:
*Cyclospora reporting was mandatory until July 2025 when the Trump administration made reporting optional for Cyclospora, along with five other pathogens (Campylobacter, Listeria, Shigella, Vibrio, and Yersinia).
“Cuts to food safety make the food system more susceptible to these types of outbreaks,” says Love.*
Ah yes, there it is. You aren't open to the information, you are resisting it because you have no desire to actually engage.
not the biased propaganda page
Ah yes, the Biden administration intentionally didn't list recalls and warnings on the FDA page, they hid them from the public...Give me a break my dude.
It is crazy that people hearing about these things are crying failure when the increased amount of notice and testing is evidence that they are catching these things. You can be as angry at you want about the things RFK says, but the government is catching more things that otherwise would have made it into the supply before.
Wrong. The government defunded the program that in the past prevented the poop from getting spread onto the lettuce. People became ill because of the decreased oversight.
ETA:
*Cyclospora reporting was mandatory until July 2025 when the Trump administration made reporting optional for Cyclospora, along with five other pathogens (Campylobacter, Listeria, Shigella, Vibrio, and Yersinia).
“Cuts to food safety make the food system more susceptible to these types of outbreaks,” says Love.*
Human poop? Untreated? Lol. The program was cut. Food safety programs were cut. This has been reported on extensively.
Your original point was the FDA is finding and stopping food threats “more than ever before.” This is simply not true. Provide a neutral, third party source to back that up. You can’t, so you’re grasping at straws and trying to pivot to other topics. Is this you, Caroline Levitt?
Food safety programs were cut. This has been reported on extensively.
I encourage to read your own article (and it's an article, not a scientific paper like you wanted to pretend) that literally described the program still existing.
Your original point was the FDA is finding and stopping food threats “more than ever before.” This is simply not true.
Then you need to provide evidence that the FDA is reporting these incidents incorrectly.
Provide a neutral, third party source to back that up.
They are the source of truth. And if a government agency isn't a neutral third party then nothing is. So we'll add "third party" and "neutral" to the list of things you don't know the meaning of.
The entire article is about how the programs were cut back and compliance was made optional —allowing farms to self monitor instead of forcing them to comply, and how workers pooping in fields causes the issue. Untreated human poop by people pooping in fields is not pretty basic agriculture. Ludicrous. You’re all over the place.✌️
The entire article is about how the programs were cut back and compliance was made optional
So the program wasn't cut, as you claimed, but turned to self reporting instead of mandatory inspection. Thanks for admitting you were wrong after reading your article.
OR the number of issues has increased, and thus so have the number of recalls. You can’t make a conclusion about this on just the number recalls alone. The rate of contamination could outstrip the rate of detection, even if detection is increasing in terms of raw numbers.
It is not proof, it is evidence, but it’s incomplete. Without statistical analysis, either claim is unsupported. I’m not versed in the topic well enough to know if something like this exists, though I don’t doubt it’s being done. I’d be curious to see it.
Root cause is important as well, are the outbreaks being missed at the source or earlier in the supply chain, due to cuts to personnel or testing? These outbreaks are being caught after making it into the supply chain.
Another metric would be to track the effectiveness of our responses, have they been sluggish compared to previous years?
My point is that there are a lot of confounding variables that make it hard to know, especially at shorter timescales, what the effects of changing policy have been. I have my own suspicions, but this isn’t my area of expertise.
It is not proof, it is evidence, but it’s incomplete.
I provided evidence, you have provided none. Now I am asking for your evidence. To pretend that I need to show you more evidence indicates that you have none.
I’m not versed in the topic well enough to know if something like this exists, though I don’t doubt it’s being done.
You made the assertion, now you refuse to back it up.
My point is that there are a lot of confounding variables that make it hard to know, especially at shorter timescales, what the effects of changing policy have been. I have my own suspicions, but this isn’t my area of expertise.
You have conspiracy theories because you dislike the people in power. However, without any evidence to the contrary, you have dismissed the evidence in front of your face without any thought. You do not have to be well versed in a topic to find a source that validates your conspiracy. The truth of the matter is that there is no source because it doesn't exist. In the most polarizing administration to exist in US history, if your scenario were true, there would be hundreds of people screaming from the rooftops about the evidence they have to prove your conspiracy. But there isn't. So, we have evidence that the FDA is doing more recalls, catching more things, and no evidence to the contrary when the motive to do so is at an all time high.
It seems like you're completely unwilling to be a reasonable human being.
I think you’ve dramatically misinterpreted my tone/intent.
I’m not claiming anything one way or another, I made no assertions. I was just pointing out that these conclusions are based on an incomplete picture and limited evidence in either case and illustrated how the observation you made could be a result of different or additional variables. I never asked you for more evidence, either. I’ve never made any claim as to a conspiracy, nor have I dismissed any evidence.
I’ve seen claims of evidence that support the idea that deregulation could be causing issues with food safety, but I haven’t looked into them. I’m not an expert on food safety or regulations, but I do have a lot of experience with experimental design and stats, so I was chipping in with some areas I think could cause a skewed conclusion.
Generally when people are making sweeping claims based on one variable or piece of evidence, it should send up red flags.
Edit: It’s not so much that I’m unwilling, just haven’t prioritized deep diving into this topic. I’ve got a 2yr old and work way too damn much, so this just hasn’t been up there on my to-do list. This has made me more curious though, so I’ll probably look into it now.
I think you’ve dramatically misinterpreted my tone/intent.
I didn't respond to tone, I responded to your words. It is incredibly misleading to pretend that you didn't say what you said and then apply some kind of intonation as is the words you used don't mean what the words mean.
I’m not claiming anything one way or another, I made no assertions.
OR the number of issues has increased, and thus so have the number of recalls. You can’t make a conclusion about this on just the number recalls alone. The rate of contamination could outstrip the rate of detection, even if detection is increasing in terms of raw numbers.
So that was lie.
I never asked you for more evidence, either. I’ve never made any claim as to a conspiracy, nor have I dismissed any evidence.
See your previous statement. That's the conspiracy. If you were genuinely curious about the subject, you would have investigated it yourself. You wouldn't have replied with the initial conspiracy, then responded pretending that evidence doesn't matter, and now trying to pretend that you didn't write those previous replies.
I’ve seen claims of evidence that support the idea that deregulation could be causing issues with food safety
There hasn't been any regulation. So either you haven't seen that, or you only are looking out people who agree with you. Much like the guy in this thread who thought that we only started using manure to fertilize crops in the last year.
Generally when people are making sweeping claims based on one variable or piece of evidence, it should send up red flags.
As someone who claims the experience you do, you should know that I cannot show you proof of a negative. We can see an increase in caught food problems, the FDA has put decades of them on their website. It provides details. You could look it up and learn something, but instead, you are here trying to tell me that words don't mean words.
Edit: It’s not so much that I’m unwilling
No, it's only that. This information is not something you need advanced knowledge to understand.
Ive got a 2yr old and work way too damn much, so this just hasn’t been up there on my to-do list. This has made me more curious though, so I’ll probably look into it now.
The time it took you to write your reply would have been far more time necessary to learn about the subject.
You clearly did not respond to my words, because I never said what you’re claiming I’ve said and your quotes aren’t examples of those claims.
In your first quote, there is no claim other than pointing out that your premise is an example of the base rate fallacy. Your conclusion could still be correct, I never made an assertion as to whether it is or isn’t, only on the assumption you’ve made to come to that conclusion is shakey as it can be explained by other variables.
Still no idea what you’re talking about in reference to conspiracy theories. I never suggested that anything is being covered up or that there’s some collusion to do illegal shit. Pointing out the existence of confounding variables isn’t a conspiracy.
“There hasn’t been any deregulation” that’s flat out inaccurate. Also, I saw that thread, and he never said that. Please spare me the bad faith nonsense. It’s played out and old.
Never asked you to prove a negative, just pointed out the base rate fallacy. Looking at the number of recalls alone is similar to taking the raw number of murders in a city, noticing it doubled, and ignoring that the city tripled in size. It’s one part of a bigger picture. That was literally all I was saying.
As for time spent here vs reading up on it, I’ve spent less than 15 minutes total on this conversation. So no, that isn’t anywhere near enough time to be well versed on the subject or to understand the context in which the data is being presented. That assertion does however speak to a bigger issue with people overestimating their ability to interpret data and place it within a meaningful framework in order to draw conclusions.
While I'm also not a fan of the current administration, this woman most likely has a pantry moth infestation, which is unrelated to food safety regulations.
Their larvae look a lot like maggots, but actual maggots wouldn't likely survive inside a small, sealed plastic container like that. Pantry moths are like bedbugs and German roaches...once they get in deep they're tough to eradicate. This woman likely has a much larger problem than a single bottle of bad sesame seeds.
If this story gains a lot of nationwide attention, then there's an actual production-level problem. If it quickly fades away, then we'll know why.
61
u/PivotRedAce 8d ago edited 8d ago
For the record, social media generally makes the situation look worse than it actually is. This goes for a lot of things posted from the US where you’re given a tiny snippet of context and a story from one side.
With the current administration, every little thing that goes wrong gets amplified and spread across the internet, especially Reddit, even if those same things happened prior. This basically creates a confirmation-bias feedback loop.
Not that I think RFK or the Trump admin shouldn’t be held liable for their fuck ups, they absolutely should (and hopefully will be), but this post in particular is an example of a rare lemon that has always been a thing.
No process is perfectly airtight, and there will be times where insects somehow find their way into a batch of food product. Most of those get caught before they’re shipped, but some make it into stores OR get contaminated at the store if the product has a broken seal.
Food here is still very safe, period. Companies especially don’t want to endure a shitstorm from customers receiving bad product, and so generally have standards that are more rigorous than what the Federal government requires.
There’s no doubt however that a few of those companies (cough Taylor Farms cough) took advantage of a politically convenient situation though, and rested on their laurels before being forced to react to the (literal) public shitstorm over their cyclospora-contaminated lettuce, for example.