-
src_saurav
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2015 7:27 am
- Thanked: 2 times
- Followed by:1 members
Topic---
During a recent trial period in which government inspections at selected meat-processing plants were more frequent,the amount of bacteria in samples of processed chicken decreased by 50 percent on average from the previous year's level. If the government were to institute more frequent inspections, the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country could thus be cut in half. In the meantime, consumers of Excel Meats should be safe from infection because Excel's main processing plant has shown more improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination than any other plant cited in the government report."
-------------------------------
The conclusion that people who buy meat products of Excel meat company are safe is flawed.It assumes that
government reports are correct indicators of meat quality and that the government procedures are up to date.
Firstly,Government reports may not indicate the correct data.It could be that Excel's meat products are actually contaminated but excel was successful in hiding its technical and procedural flaws.It could also be that Excel purposely manipulated itself in front of the government auditors to get certified.
Secondly,the government procedures may be out of date.It is important that the government keeps itself up to date with the current happenings in the microbiology world.However,it is not mentioned in the argument above as to whether government has the best facilities or not.
Thirdly,it could be coincidental that the bacterial presence came down to below 50%.Weather plays a big role in breeding of bacteria and it could be that due to weather conditions that the bacterial presence was itself low.
Lastly,to think that frequent inspections would reduce the incidents of ailments in people is also flawed because bacteria may not only thrive in meat products but also in other products as well.By authors logic,only non vegetarians would be more likely to fall sick but bacteria may also effect vegetarians.
For the above mentioned reasons ,i think the conclusion is flawed.The author would do better by highlighting the competency of government's auditors and by insisting that bacteria may attack anyone regardless of his/her food habits.
During a recent trial period in which government inspections at selected meat-processing plants were more frequent,the amount of bacteria in samples of processed chicken decreased by 50 percent on average from the previous year's level. If the government were to institute more frequent inspections, the incidence of stomach and intestinal infections throughout the country could thus be cut in half. In the meantime, consumers of Excel Meats should be safe from infection because Excel's main processing plant has shown more improvement in eliminating bacterial contamination than any other plant cited in the government report."
-------------------------------
The conclusion that people who buy meat products of Excel meat company are safe is flawed.It assumes that
government reports are correct indicators of meat quality and that the government procedures are up to date.
Firstly,Government reports may not indicate the correct data.It could be that Excel's meat products are actually contaminated but excel was successful in hiding its technical and procedural flaws.It could also be that Excel purposely manipulated itself in front of the government auditors to get certified.
Secondly,the government procedures may be out of date.It is important that the government keeps itself up to date with the current happenings in the microbiology world.However,it is not mentioned in the argument above as to whether government has the best facilities or not.
Thirdly,it could be coincidental that the bacterial presence came down to below 50%.Weather plays a big role in breeding of bacteria and it could be that due to weather conditions that the bacterial presence was itself low.
Lastly,to think that frequent inspections would reduce the incidents of ailments in people is also flawed because bacteria may not only thrive in meat products but also in other products as well.By authors logic,only non vegetarians would be more likely to fall sick but bacteria may also effect vegetarians.
For the above mentioned reasons ,i think the conclusion is flawed.The author would do better by highlighting the competency of government's auditors and by insisting that bacteria may attack anyone regardless of his/her food habits.
