Fair. Though based on previous experiments fascist regimes aren’t that stable and competent, they have a tendency to self-destruct once they are in power. It’s a sad state of affairs that is considered optimistic
> “Based on simple math, these outbreak responses—which require rapid, timely responses—are going to be greatly diminished,” the former CDC lab director tells WIRED.
It's worth noting that Taylor Farms consumer bagged salads are consistently marked, in the form of an alphanumeric code printed on the bag near the sell-by date.
When this code begins with TF (like, say, the TFRB182A11B I had on a bag in my fridge last month), it's a Taylor Farms product.
They control a huge percentage of this market. Their products can be hard to avoid, and are sold under a wide variety of different brand names. But again: They're all marked with TF.
---
It's also worth noting that there's some brand names that are never products of Taylor Farms.
Dole is the only example that I can find in stores near me (Ohio), but there may be others wherever you are. (Food distribution is often very regionalized.)
I went to restaurant last night and asked where the chicken was sourced from and their response was "it's not the usual place we get chicken, but it's US Farm Raised Hatched", but I misinterpreted the her answer as a distributor name but then I realized even if I had a name, I probably couldn't figure out past that whether or not these chickens were pasture raised. If food labels are law, why doesn't this apply to where restaurants source their ingredients?
The new QR codes (to replace the 2D UPCs) that manufacturers and merchants are moving to will contain source information and even which lot it came from.
This is a really good video explaining it. There is a good opportunity for someone more enterprising than I to stand up some infrastructure to support it.
For some things like meat, eggs, and milk: The USDA-inspected processing facility is required to be listed on the package. It is usually not very far-removed from the farm. It's coded, and these days it's usually printed near the sell-by date.
They (the USDA) publish cross-references betwixt the codes and the processing plants.
It's been kind of a pain in the ass when I've looked this stuff up in the past and I wish someone would take it upon themselves to make it easier, but it's do-able.
It's crazy how nothing has been done in the US about this. I got an egg allergy in my late 20s, I had never thought about it before and now eating at restaurants is such a hassle. Even the delivery apps seem to have zero affordances for food allergies, at least with a restaurant you can get some assurance by asking the staff.
The places I worked over 15 years ago had extensive lists of allergens. They were mostly chain or corporate, I think the mom and pop places did a little guessing. I wouldn’t trust them.
I’m very sorry to hear that, but I don’t think restaurants have to be forced to deal with that. The only thing I could support is “if revenue >X then allergen disclosure is mandatory”. I know personally multiple little shops that had to refuse customers, because that’s extra hassle and responsibility that they can’t afford to deal with.
In my experience in NYC kitchens, I wouldn't trust most restaurants to actually be able to accommodate certain allergies. If it isn't stated clearly on the menu, I would rather be turned away than to have an inexperienced kitchen try to manage something they haven't done before. My experience is different now that I live in the EU.
They manage fine in Europe. It’s a cultural issue. If you can’t be arsed working through the minor administrative hassle once (how often do you change the menu..) to not kill your customers then you shouldn’t be in this business.
Do you also think businesses shouldn’t need to be “forced” to deal with accessibility? Web devs shouldn’t be forced to deal with accessibility either right?
Depends on the country, as enforcing that falls to the agencies of the member states. At least here in Slovakia it is followed very strictly, but then our restaurant inspectors are notoriously business unfriendly.
Good. Restaurants are hectic to work in. Menus can change quickly, and many dishes are being cooked and prepped at once. Cross contamination chances are high, so if a restaurant MUST say an allergen is not in X,Y,Z they basically can't have it in their restaurant at all.
When entering, "any allergens or intolerances" is normally asked before you're sat down. They distinguish the two to decide whether a station clean is required or if they can just point you to the menu.
If it's not already clear on the menu, most medium/large chains then hand you a tablet letting you filter by almost anything.
Alternately, they could truthfully state what allergens are in literally all of their foods, and then people who are allergic to them can safely avoid them, which is what you're expecting them to do now except without actually saying which allergens they are.
In forty years I have very rarely seen menus change substantially.
If you are working with food you should know about allergies. It just comes with the territory. I’m baffled by how this is somehow too hard for US folks yet we manage fine.
Your menus don't change because of the administrative overhead. In the mid-sized American city where I live, menus change seasonally at nice restaurants and daily at really nice restaurants. Even fast food chains experiment with adding new items all the time.
I wonder how high the ongoing implementation cost of that would be and how that would affect choice between small, specialized and large, integrated suppliers. Sysco can probably hand me a single sheet I can use without any extra work.
I think if you watch video of a massive meatpacking plant, you'll pretty quickly realize how hard it would be to track. At the commodity scale, basically no one in the supply chain other than the rancher seems to care where the meat comes from. And the brands (Tyson, Smithfield, etc.) only want consumers to care about the logo on the box.
Literally the canonical example of capitalism-as-meat-grinder.
So you're saying that this type of regulation would force the food industry to start caring about whether their food comes from? That sounds like an argument in favor of it, not against it
trying to convert a massive meatpacking plan isn't step 1. it's too big a problem. that's top down. probably easier bottom up -- have a processing plant that only sources from ranchers that grass feed/finish, pasture raise, and slowly subsidize other ranchers to stop sending their product to massive meatpacking plants.
Seems like more bureaucracy that would make it even harder for new restaurants to get set up and the paperwork they would have to maintain in order to provide that information.
We have enough “restaurants” that fry an egg. We can do that ourselves. Running a proper business requires such formalities to not kill your customers. If knowing about your craft is too hard - allergies is a major part of it - then you shouldn’t be in this business.
Restaurants are one of the classic immigrant paths to upward mobility. We don't want to make that too hard.
By all means, get a license, food handler permit, etc. and know and practice good food safety, and buy ingredients from legitimate wholesalers. But at some point you don't have visibility into the supply chain and it's not reasonable to expect Joe's Taco Truck to know which specific farms produced their lettuce.
I've thought about this a lot as it's effectively my idea of Origin Marks (not the same as the curvy OM/GI system), that are like trade marks but they serve the consumer rather than the companies.
Anyway, all companies have lists of what they buy and who from in their accounts - and their banks and suppliers can corroborate those details.
I think I'd provide limits for micro-businesses (1-2 employees, below the VAT threshold in UK), and maybe have limited reporting for SMEs too. Only listing all suppliers, say.
But for larger businesses, they should list the goods/services they use and the origin of all inputs to a product (including energy). Down to the factory, not a trade mark, the actual inputs.
Companies already keep all this information.
Capitalism supposedly optimises markets, but it can't do anything like that without full information. I mean the psychological manipulation of 'brand marketing' also opposes the supposed optimisations of capitalism too, but that's another story.
All this information is already maintained, it's just not exposed for the public.
What farm was my chicken produced on? Then I can look at that farm to see if they bought a tonne of penicillin, or a GM feed. I can look at the farm to see if they have outside access for the birds, say.
We can also readily graph essential businesses for food security, and new companies can easily find suppliers, B2B companies can find gaps and opportunities - the whole web of production can be mapped this way.
You can also spot corruption and loss. Consumers can avoid companies that use upstream suppliers they disprove of - like if a footwear company has a factory in an area known for human rights abuses, that's now public info, I can check it out if I want.
Anyway, restaurants already have to know the origin of their goods for pubic health purposes, codifying can just mean the suppliers send them an enhanced receipt that the restaurant catenates with others and uploads to the government, that can be done as part of the same process as finance reporting.
If you're buying chicken out the back of a van in an alley then you're going to have extra work; if you're just using standard supply chains it should all work pretty seamlessly.
If we can't figure out a way as a society to honestly tell people what food is being sold in restaurants, maybe we shouldn't be starting new restaurants until we figure that out.
Knowing the sources of the food we eat is a very popular thing right now.
Isn't the capitalist way to help with this to build new restaurants that do openly provide the lineage for the food that they sell?
All of the consumers who are motivated by this information will then be free to reward these eateries with their business.
After that: Other restaurateurs will surely notice how unspeakably profitable these loyal consumers are and will begin to mimic the effort to try to capture a slice of the pie.
Ultimately, this snowballs into information being the norm instead of the rare exception. Everyone wins!
(Or, more likely: We'll broadly forget that we cared about any of this a few months from now, just as we have always done in the past, and the idea will die at the invisible hand of the free market.)
Explosive diarrhea doesn’t take long to show up, and it may be hard to identify which company or who’s responsible when you fired all of the people from the department that it’s supposed to police those type of things.
Isn't all diarrhea explosive? Has anyone had "unexplosive" diarrhea? Or what aspect of the ordinance renders it "explosive"? And the cause is essentially exposure of the foodstuffs (in this case, likely leafy greens) to feces?
And TBF, I don't think they've established why the issue is so prevalent in Michigan specifically, since Taylor Farms apparently doesn't have any unique connection to Michigan.
What changed is that right after the CEO visited the White House, a retraction was issued. This White House does not have a history of being factual, but does have a history of doing "favors" for big donors, which Taylor Farms is.
Mostly to be a pedantic devil's advocate here, I'm going to argue with something you're not saying. I've heard a _lot_ of people argue that the visit is _proof_ of corruption. You're just pointing out the possibility and I'm hoping to head off a bad path.
Anyway, if a company is being declared the source of a multi-state outbreak, that company _should_ be talking to the WH. And it's possible that some of those discussions would present evidence that _should_ result in a retraction.
For example, during heartbleed my grand-boss was in on calls with the WH (I don't work on openssl, at the time I worked on a product that _used_ openssl a couple of layers down). AIUI, official guidance changed because of those calls.
If we want to find proof of corruption, this is a place to start looking, not a place to stop.
Unfortunately, the mark of corruption spreads to everything it touches. Once you are seen taking bribes for pardons, engaging in crypto scams, and manipulating the stock market to make billions you no longer are given the benefit of the doubt. There is zero evidence for corruption in this case, other than all of the blatant corruption elsewhere. Worse, the person involved is responsible for investigating the corruption.
Yup, don't care. The trust has been broken a thousand times with this admin. Why should I believe this is the one time they are being straight with us?
> family owned company act like they have stock holders
A family owned company does have shareholders. The shareholders are the people who own the company.
There’s nothing all that special about a family owned business in this regard, even though they want you to believe it’s completely different. Family owned is a loose term anyway. Large companies are large companies.
Companies can prioritize things other that money if the shareholders all agree. The more shareholders a company has, the harder it is for them all to agree on anything aside from "we want more money". Family-owned business often (but not always) have a small number of shareholders, so it's easier for them to have shared values.
For example, my brother and I co-own a smallish (~$5 million/year revenue) software business. We do care about money to some extent, but we regularly agree to do things that work against shareholder value because we also care about things other than money. With two people, it's easy for our values to be aligned on those other things.
With dozens or more shareholders, that's basically impossible. A publicly traded company couldn't realistically be like "hey shareholders, can we agree that we care a lot about this niche local political issue in the town the company was founded?" The more shareholders you have, the more the only commonality between them is "we want more money".
There are many family-owned businesses that are only in it for the money, but "family-owned" can be a proxy for "not very many shareholders" which at least opens the door for the company to have non-financial priorities.
The existence of "socially conscious" investment funds says that there are investors out there who do value things other than total return. It is a myth that "shareholder value" must only be defined in terms of money. Brand reputation, goodwill, etc. can all be considered. It just happens that money is the overriding concern most of the time.
Sure, if you gather the investors from the start to have a unifying theme other than money, that's fine. But it's very difficult to take a random company with a bunch of unrelated shareholders and convince them all to care about the same thing.
Even the things you named (brand reputation, goodwill, etc.) are prioritized by companies because they're upstream of shareholder value. Many companies have a float in the Pride parade, an employee volunteer day and post on social media about how they're reducing their carbon footprint. Most of those companies are doing those things because they believe they ultimately increase shareholder value, not because shareholders have decided to sacrifice money because they care more about other things.
>Brian Thure served as president of Taylor Farms Tennessee from about 2012 until March 2026 and allegedly used his authority over finances, payroll, vendors and accounting to divert company money for personal benefit.
>Taylor Farms claims the alleged fraud came to light during an IRS audit
That doesn't seem at odds with what they said. The Waltons are a family, which illustrates the point of what a fully "family-owned" business might look like compared to one with external shareholders pretty directly. I don't think it's that hard to understand that giving the Walton's 100% of the stock seems unlikely to address any concerns people have with Walmart, which is evidence of their point that maybe "family-owned" is a red herring.
There's a tendency to want to be nice to farmers who own "family owned farms" because it evokes imagery steeped in quaint classical Americana. It is mostly from misinformation that this impression arises. Don't feel bad for a family owned farm that isn't going well. They get special bankruptcy rules, they can sell off their very valuable land as a backstop, and most of all they are probably not as small and quaint and cute as you think they are.
How much of a sin is it for the ambulance-chaser to chase ambulances if the ambulances are there and legitimate? This is what the tort law is for. He's not the one who sprayed feces-water on the lettuce...
Commercial insurance means whatever action they do or don't do is ultimately irrelevant. The supplier will re-brand under another name when things quiet down, proceed to continue selling product, and deduct any capital loss over a year or two.
Global weather changes means more tropical pests and pathogens are migrating north. People are literally on fire, and shitting their pants in excitement. =3
I remember seeing advice, years ago, to let lettuce sit in a weak bleach solution before use. But I doubt that’s ever been followed by many people. Current advice (at least at home) seems to be to rinse lettuce to remove dirt ( https://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheet/safe-handling-of-lettuce-... ). Apparently most health problems from lettuce are on the surface and not particularly hard to get off.
I'm so confused how to feel about these articles. this one is clearly AI written. But blessed by a lawyer so we think the stuff in here is accurate with facts?
I've accidentally posted an AI article before that seemed just as this was, and the community flagged that to oblivion. Rightfully so I think?
Does Hacker News need a "report AI" and we can then hide the AI articles as a filter?
This is the Claudiest article I've seen in a long time. "Defensible view." "No correction, no note, no acknowledgment." "The honest statement about X."
So the next question is, how much of this is true at all, versus just being hallucinations.
I'd subjectively say <10%. Comes off to me as a well-spoken attorney speaking with their natural voice, which happens to be the kind of voice LLM's target. Attorneys are fine-tuned to sound boring and wooden.
If you go back through the blog's archives, the author's heavy em-dash usage predates GPT3. (Although in that era he tended to use it incorrectly, using an EN dash character in place of the EM. But the style of how he uses them is the same).
There are also idiomatic human-typist fat-finger mistakes in this post, like the deleted whitespace character in "generic <em>E. coli</em>or fecal coliforms".
It seems plausible that someone could make a decent discriminator for distinguishing human text from AI text. I wouldn't immediately discount the idea.
> A company’s public statement in the middle of an outbreak is not marketing. It is evidence — what the company said it knew, and when, published to the world at a moment when nobody had the benefit of hindsight.
Stopped reading immediately. If we’re just going to delegate writing to Claude, I won’t bother reading this. And maybe I’ll just delegate my decisions to Claude directly.
> The CDC Has a Cyclospora Lab. DOGE Downsized It Last Year [1]
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/cdc-cyclospora-lab-doge-downsize...
DOGE will be seen by historians as the cause of so many crisis…
optimistic, this requires the arc of history to bend towards non-fascism.
Fair. Though based on previous experiments fascist regimes aren’t that stable and competent, they have a tendency to self-destruct once they are in power. It’s a sad state of affairs that is considered optimistic
Impressive results! How does it compare to existing solutions on cost?
Too bad that article doesn't have any evidence that the alleged cuts have had any impact on the cyclospora response.
It's in the subheading:
> “Based on simple math, these outbreak responses—which require rapid, timely responses—are going to be greatly diminished,” the former CDC lab director tells WIRED.
You think an agency with less people can more capably do its job? Come on now.
what would make you think that a downsized lab can do the same amount of work
It's worth noting that Taylor Farms consumer bagged salads are consistently marked, in the form of an alphanumeric code printed on the bag near the sell-by date.
When this code begins with TF (like, say, the TFRB182A11B I had on a bag in my fridge last month), it's a Taylor Farms product.
They control a huge percentage of this market. Their products can be hard to avoid, and are sold under a wide variety of different brand names. But again: They're all marked with TF.
---
It's also worth noting that there's some brand names that are never products of Taylor Farms.
Dole is the only example that I can find in stores near me (Ohio), but there may be others wherever you are. (Food distribution is often very regionalized.)
I went to restaurant last night and asked where the chicken was sourced from and their response was "it's not the usual place we get chicken, but it's US Farm Raised Hatched", but I misinterpreted the her answer as a distributor name but then I realized even if I had a name, I probably couldn't figure out past that whether or not these chickens were pasture raised. If food labels are law, why doesn't this apply to where restaurants source their ingredients?
This, but unironically
https://youtu.be/G__PVLB8Nm4
also, allergies pride parade https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhaUKnt1Zmw
Are food labels required to identify where they're sourced from? I don't think so?
The new QR codes (to replace the 2D UPCs) that manufacturers and merchants are moving to will contain source information and even which lot it came from.
This is a really good video explaining it. There is a good opportunity for someone more enterprising than I to stand up some infrastructure to support it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R32j6ZA3byI
That's bad ass
It’s not but they should list country of origin for the ingredients
In the US I also want to know State of Origin. Not all state food and agricultural department regulations and inspections are the same.
"Should" or "are required to?"
Regulations are minimal compared to what most consumers would want and expect.
https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/cool
For some things like meat, eggs, and milk: The USDA-inspected processing facility is required to be listed on the package. It is usually not very far-removed from the farm. It's coded, and these days it's usually printed near the sell-by date.
They (the USDA) publish cross-references betwixt the codes and the processing plants.
It's been kind of a pain in the ass when I've looked this stuff up in the past and I wish someone would take it upon themselves to make it easier, but it's do-able.
Depends on the thing. Olive oil, for example, is required to list its country/countries of origin
Restaurants don't even have to track and disclose what allergens their food contains.
It's crazy how nothing has been done in the US about this. I got an egg allergy in my late 20s, I had never thought about it before and now eating at restaurants is such a hassle. Even the delivery apps seem to have zero affordances for food allergies, at least with a restaurant you can get some assurance by asking the staff.
The places I worked over 15 years ago had extensive lists of allergens. They were mostly chain or corporate, I think the mom and pop places did a little guessing. I wouldn’t trust them.
I’m very sorry to hear that, but I don’t think restaurants have to be forced to deal with that. The only thing I could support is “if revenue >X then allergen disclosure is mandatory”. I know personally multiple little shops that had to refuse customers, because that’s extra hassle and responsibility that they can’t afford to deal with.
In my experience in NYC kitchens, I wouldn't trust most restaurants to actually be able to accommodate certain allergies. If it isn't stated clearly on the menu, I would rather be turned away than to have an inexperienced kitchen try to manage something they haven't done before. My experience is different now that I live in the EU.
They manage fine in Europe. It’s a cultural issue. If you can’t be arsed working through the minor administrative hassle once (how often do you change the menu..) to not kill your customers then you shouldn’t be in this business.
I would rather food vendors have the right to refuse service than be subjected to laws that effectively squeeze out smaller operators.
Do you also think businesses shouldn’t need to be “forced” to deal with accessibility? Web devs shouldn’t be forced to deal with accessibility either right?
They have to in EU!
https://food.ec.europa.eu/food-safety/campaign-2026/allergie...
Very, very poorly enforced and followed.
Depends on the country, as enforcing that falls to the agencies of the member states. At least here in Slovakia it is followed very strictly, but then our restaurant inspectors are notoriously business unfriendly.
Good. Restaurants are hectic to work in. Menus can change quickly, and many dishes are being cooked and prepped at once. Cross contamination chances are high, so if a restaurant MUST say an allergen is not in X,Y,Z they basically can't have it in their restaurant at all.
They manage here in the UK.
When entering, "any allergens or intolerances" is normally asked before you're sat down. They distinguish the two to decide whether a station clean is required or if they can just point you to the menu.
If it's not already clear on the menu, most medium/large chains then hand you a tablet letting you filter by almost anything.
Alternately, they could truthfully state what allergens are in literally all of their foods, and then people who are allergic to them can safely avoid them, which is what you're expecting them to do now except without actually saying which allergens they are.
In forty years I have very rarely seen menus change substantially.
If you are working with food you should know about allergies. It just comes with the territory. I’m baffled by how this is somehow too hard for US folks yet we manage fine.
Your menus don't change because of the administrative overhead. In the mid-sized American city where I live, menus change seasonally at nice restaurants and daily at really nice restaurants. Even fast food chains experiment with adding new items all the time.
The rest of the world has been able to solve that issue
But you understand that if it were required, everyplace that doesn’t specify today, would slap allergens on the whole menu.
I wonder how high the ongoing implementation cost of that would be and how that would affect choice between small, specialized and large, integrated suppliers. Sysco can probably hand me a single sheet I can use without any extra work.
I think if you watch video of a massive meatpacking plant, you'll pretty quickly realize how hard it would be to track. At the commodity scale, basically no one in the supply chain other than the rancher seems to care where the meat comes from. And the brands (Tyson, Smithfield, etc.) only want consumers to care about the logo on the box.
Literally the canonical example of capitalism-as-meat-grinder.
Meat is already tracked to its origin. They can track a specific box to the farmer and supplier.
Anytime there would be a recall, they would include the lot number and manufacturer dates.
Source: I worked in meat packing and boutique butcher shops.
Edit: even things like ground beef from trimmings, we would write down every lot that went into it
So you're saying that this type of regulation would force the food industry to start caring about whether their food comes from? That sounds like an argument in favor of it, not against it
Tyson and Smithfield are the worst two brands in the USA that you can get any meat from.
trying to convert a massive meatpacking plan isn't step 1. it's too big a problem. that's top down. probably easier bottom up -- have a processing plant that only sources from ranchers that grass feed/finish, pasture raise, and slowly subsidize other ranchers to stop sending their product to massive meatpacking plants.
also the canonical example of a commodity. Basically the claim that all units are fully fungible.
Seems like more bureaucracy that would make it even harder for new restaurants to get set up and the paperwork they would have to maintain in order to provide that information.
We have enough “restaurants” that fry an egg. We can do that ourselves. Running a proper business requires such formalities to not kill your customers. If knowing about your craft is too hard - allergies is a major part of it - then you shouldn’t be in this business.
Restaurants are one of the classic immigrant paths to upward mobility. We don't want to make that too hard.
By all means, get a license, food handler permit, etc. and know and practice good food safety, and buy ingredients from legitimate wholesalers. But at some point you don't have visibility into the supply chain and it's not reasonable to expect Joe's Taco Truck to know which specific farms produced their lettuce.
I've thought about this a lot as it's effectively my idea of Origin Marks (not the same as the curvy OM/GI system), that are like trade marks but they serve the consumer rather than the companies.
Anyway, all companies have lists of what they buy and who from in their accounts - and their banks and suppliers can corroborate those details.
I think I'd provide limits for micro-businesses (1-2 employees, below the VAT threshold in UK), and maybe have limited reporting for SMEs too. Only listing all suppliers, say.
But for larger businesses, they should list the goods/services they use and the origin of all inputs to a product (including energy). Down to the factory, not a trade mark, the actual inputs.
Companies already keep all this information.
Capitalism supposedly optimises markets, but it can't do anything like that without full information. I mean the psychological manipulation of 'brand marketing' also opposes the supposed optimisations of capitalism too, but that's another story.
All this information is already maintained, it's just not exposed for the public.
What farm was my chicken produced on? Then I can look at that farm to see if they bought a tonne of penicillin, or a GM feed. I can look at the farm to see if they have outside access for the birds, say.
We can also readily graph essential businesses for food security, and new companies can easily find suppliers, B2B companies can find gaps and opportunities - the whole web of production can be mapped this way.
You can also spot corruption and loss. Consumers can avoid companies that use upstream suppliers they disprove of - like if a footwear company has a factory in an area known for human rights abuses, that's now public info, I can check it out if I want.
Anyway, restaurants already have to know the origin of their goods for pubic health purposes, codifying can just mean the suppliers send them an enhanced receipt that the restaurant catenates with others and uploads to the government, that can be done as part of the same process as finance reporting.
If you're buying chicken out the back of a van in an alley then you're going to have extra work; if you're just using standard supply chains it should all work pretty seamlessly.
How hard would it be for them to know their immediate supplier?
If we can't figure out a way as a society to honestly tell people what food is being sold in restaurants, maybe we shouldn't be starting new restaurants until we figure that out.
Knowing the sources of the food we eat is a very popular thing right now.
Isn't the capitalist way to help with this to build new restaurants that do openly provide the lineage for the food that they sell?
All of the consumers who are motivated by this information will then be free to reward these eateries with their business.
After that: Other restaurateurs will surely notice how unspeakably profitable these loyal consumers are and will begin to mimic the effort to try to capture a slice of the pie.
Ultimately, this snowballs into information being the norm instead of the rare exception. Everyone wins!
(Or, more likely: We'll broadly forget that we cared about any of this a few months from now, just as we have always done in the past, and the idea will die at the invisible hand of the free market.)
Such are the wages of destroying trust in the supply chain.
When you elect visibly corrupt people who promised to destroy that trust upstream, you double the burden for everyone downstream from them.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
I have not been following this very closely but it seems like the source of this cyclospora contamination has been very challenging to identify.
Especially because it takes weeks before the infected start showing symptoms.
Isn't it reasonable to update the official statement as new information emerges?
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” -John Maynard Keynes.
I have gone down that quote’s rabbit hole before and it looks a lot more apocryphal than Maynard.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/07/22/keynes-change-mind/
> Especially because it takes weeks before the infected start showing symptoms.
I just wanted to say that your phrasing here is a fabulously ominous one for the first episode of an HBO show.
Ha! Seems like I am living in one these days.
Explosive diarrhea doesn’t take long to show up, and it may be hard to identify which company or who’s responsible when you fired all of the people from the department that it’s supposed to police those type of things.
It seems that cyclospora normally averages about a week between ingestion and making its presence known.
This is, in my opinion, something that qualifies as being a long time.
Isn't the "explosive" superfluous?
Isn't all diarrhea explosive? Has anyone had "unexplosive" diarrhea? Or what aspect of the ordinance renders it "explosive"? And the cause is essentially exposure of the foodstuffs (in this case, likely leafy greens) to feces?
So poop causes poop.
Who pooped in my salad :(
As an IBS enjoyer, no, not all diarrhea is explosive.
No, it’s actually one of the symptom, it is described as explosive, not a standard diarrhea
To me "explosive" means it comes unannounced and evacuates bowels within few seconds, ovepowering any sphincter resistance.
If that's your normal poop maybe seek medical advice.
No, from what I have heard "explosive" isn't being treated with enough weight.
Not all diarrhea is "explosive". This is worse than your average food poisoning from everything i've read (luckily, no personal experience so far).
>No, from what I have heard "explosive" isn't being treated with enough weight.
Hmm I had not heard this, that is concerning. Thank you for sharing. No more salad for me, thanks.
And TBF, I don't think they've established why the issue is so prevalent in Michigan specifically, since Taylor Farms apparently doesn't have any unique connection to Michigan.
What changed is that right after the CEO visited the White House, a retraction was issued. This White House does not have a history of being factual, but does have a history of doing "favors" for big donors, which Taylor Farms is.
Mostly to be a pedantic devil's advocate here, I'm going to argue with something you're not saying. I've heard a _lot_ of people argue that the visit is _proof_ of corruption. You're just pointing out the possibility and I'm hoping to head off a bad path.
Anyway, if a company is being declared the source of a multi-state outbreak, that company _should_ be talking to the WH. And it's possible that some of those discussions would present evidence that _should_ result in a retraction.
For example, during heartbleed my grand-boss was in on calls with the WH (I don't work on openssl, at the time I worked on a product that _used_ openssl a couple of layers down). AIUI, official guidance changed because of those calls.
If we want to find proof of corruption, this is a place to start looking, not a place to stop.
Unfortunately, the mark of corruption spreads to everything it touches. Once you are seen taking bribes for pardons, engaging in crypto scams, and manipulating the stock market to make billions you no longer are given the benefit of the doubt. There is zero evidence for corruption in this case, other than all of the blatant corruption elsewhere. Worse, the person involved is responsible for investigating the corruption.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2026/05/07/democra...
https://www.binance.com/en/square/post/21073697321938
https://fortune.com/2026/05/23/trump-stock-portfolio-trading...
Yup, don't care. The trust has been broken a thousand times with this admin. Why should I believe this is the one time they are being straight with us?
You don’t mean that the people behind $MELANIA coin may have ill intentions, do you? /s
The credulousness that this administration is granted by devil’s advocates and “rationalists” is exhausting.
Thanks.
Took me a sec to realize you weren't quoting the guy from Tool lol
Deficit spending the biggest ponzi ever invented. Thanks Keynes
Fiat currency (including bitcoin) is a bigger ponzi, and the stock market (including crypto project tokens) is a bigger ponzi than that.
It's next level for a family owned company act like they have stock holders to please by cutting corners rather then doing the right thing.
> family owned company act like they have stock holders
A family owned company does have shareholders. The shareholders are the people who own the company.
There’s nothing all that special about a family owned business in this regard, even though they want you to believe it’s completely different. Family owned is a loose term anyway. Large companies are large companies.
Companies can prioritize things other that money if the shareholders all agree. The more shareholders a company has, the harder it is for them all to agree on anything aside from "we want more money". Family-owned business often (but not always) have a small number of shareholders, so it's easier for them to have shared values.
For example, my brother and I co-own a smallish (~$5 million/year revenue) software business. We do care about money to some extent, but we regularly agree to do things that work against shareholder value because we also care about things other than money. With two people, it's easy for our values to be aligned on those other things.
With dozens or more shareholders, that's basically impossible. A publicly traded company couldn't realistically be like "hey shareholders, can we agree that we care a lot about this niche local political issue in the town the company was founded?" The more shareholders you have, the more the only commonality between them is "we want more money".
There are many family-owned businesses that are only in it for the money, but "family-owned" can be a proxy for "not very many shareholders" which at least opens the door for the company to have non-financial priorities.
The existence of "socially conscious" investment funds says that there are investors out there who do value things other than total return. It is a myth that "shareholder value" must only be defined in terms of money. Brand reputation, goodwill, etc. can all be considered. It just happens that money is the overriding concern most of the time.
Sure, if you gather the investors from the start to have a unifying theme other than money, that's fine. But it's very difficult to take a random company with a bunch of unrelated shareholders and convince them all to care about the same thing.
Even the things you named (brand reputation, goodwill, etc.) are prioritized by companies because they're upstream of shareholder value. Many companies have a float in the Pride parade, an employee volunteer day and post on social media about how they're reducing their carbon footprint. Most of those companies are doing those things because they believe they ultimately increase shareholder value, not because shareholders have decided to sacrifice money because they care more about other things.
if anything they are even more tight fisted because every penny is theirs.
publicly traded/vc funded companies have always paid me the most because the money isn’t really theirs.
Every family-owned company I've worked for was has been owned by a greedy family.
Family or not, when these are the executives you hire for over a decade it shouldn't surprise anyone that events like this occur: https://www.ksbw.com/article/taylor-farms-tennessee-ex-presi...
>Brian Thure served as president of Taylor Farms Tennessee from about 2012 until March 2026 and allegedly used his authority over finances, payroll, vendors and accounting to divert company money for personal benefit. >Taylor Farms claims the alleged fraud came to light during an IRS audit
It’s a multi billion dollar corporation. It’s not a mom and pop 10 acre farm. Family owned means nothing at that point.
Right. By those stretches, the Sinaloa Cartel and Saudi Aramco could advertise as "family owned"
The WalMart Waltons are a "family"
At the core, "Family-owned" just means nepotism is preferred over merit.
(The mob is also "Family-owned")
SpaceX is more “family owned” than Walmart.
That doesn't seem at odds with what they said. The Waltons are a family, which illustrates the point of what a fully "family-owned" business might look like compared to one with external shareholders pretty directly. I don't think it's that hard to understand that giving the Walton's 100% of the stock seems unlikely to address any concerns people have with Walmart, which is evidence of their point that maybe "family-owned" is a red herring.
95% of farms are "family owned". Large scale family owned farms make up about 4% of all farms but 48% of agricultural output. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2025/Censu...
There's a tendency to want to be nice to farmers who own "family owned farms" because it evokes imagery steeped in quaint classical Americana. It is mostly from misinformation that this impression arises. Don't feel bad for a family owned farm that isn't going well. They get special bankruptcy rules, they can sell off their very valuable land as a backstop, and most of all they are probably not as small and quaint and cute as you think they are.
Mary Antoinette should've tried that line "It's not a monarchy, just a family-owned state"
stockholders? no. stakeholders? absolutely.
Marketing blogspam by an ambulance chasing attorney who stands to make a lot of money from this if public perception moves a certain way.
How much of a sin is it for the ambulance-chaser to chase ambulances if the ambulances are there and legitimate? This is what the tort law is for. He's not the one who sprayed feces-water on the lettuce...
Started out with "It's not X, it's also Y", followed by an em-dash. I didn't read any further than that.
Commercial insurance means whatever action they do or don't do is ultimately irrelevant. The supplier will re-brand under another name when things quiet down, proceed to continue selling product, and deduct any capital loss over a year or two.
Global weather changes means more tropical pests and pathogens are migrating north. People are literally on fire, and shitting their pants in excitement. =3
engaging with the identity of the arguer rather than the argument. 5 yard penalty, loss of down.
All I know is the Taylor Farms Creamy Ranch from Costco gave me the worst stomach aches for 4 days and horrible gas
I was always under the impression that disease and pesticide don't usually just "wash off" at home.
I remember seeing advice, years ago, to let lettuce sit in a weak bleach solution before use. But I doubt that’s ever been followed by many people. Current advice (at least at home) seems to be to rinse lettuce to remove dirt ( https://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheet/safe-handling-of-lettuce-... ). Apparently most health problems from lettuce are on the surface and not particularly hard to get off.
This depends on the food and the disease/pesticide in question.
"is not marketing. It is evidence". ugh.
I'm so confused how to feel about these articles. this one is clearly AI written. But blessed by a lawyer so we think the stuff in here is accurate with facts?
I've accidentally posted an AI article before that seemed just as this was, and the community flagged that to oblivion. Rightfully so I think?
Does Hacker News need a "report AI" and we can then hide the AI articles as a filter?
This is the Claudiest article I've seen in a long time. "Defensible view." "No correction, no note, no acknowledgment." "The honest statement about X."
So the next question is, how much of this is true at all, versus just being hallucinations.
btw people are DYING from this infection now:
* https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/michigan-d...
The lawyers rewrote it four times
GPTZero "AI" score for this post: 100%
I'd subjectively say <10%. Comes off to me as a well-spoken attorney speaking with their natural voice, which happens to be the kind of voice LLM's target. Attorneys are fine-tuned to sound boring and wooden.
If you go back through the blog's archives, the author's heavy em-dash usage predates GPT3. (Although in that era he tended to use it incorrectly, using an EN dash character in place of the EM. But the style of how he uses them is the same).
There are also idiomatic human-typist fat-finger mistakes in this post, like the deleted whitespace character in "generic <em>E. coli</em>or fecal coliforms".
AI "AI" scores are snake-oil.
Why should I put any stock in what some snake oil "AI detector" says?
You shouldn't. You should instead take note of "it's not X, it's Y" and em-dashes.
You're absolutely right! Those are load-bearing assumptions.
This is the right shape!
It seems plausible that someone could make a decent discriminator for distinguishing human text from AI text. I wouldn't immediately discount the idea.
Related: https://www.wired.com/story/diarrhea-outbreak-taylor-farms-m...
Don't care. TF uses slave labor. Boycott.
You referring to their use of prison labor?
> A company’s public statement in the middle of an outbreak is not marketing. It is evidence — what the company said it knew, and when, published to the world at a moment when nobody had the benefit of hindsight.
Stopped reading immediately. If we’re just going to delegate writing to Claude, I won’t bother reading this. And maybe I’ll just delegate my decisions to Claude directly.
Kept reading and yep there’s more, so it wasn’t just the intro.
Not quoting it though since someone said they’re ambulance chasers, they’ll have to hire out a smellchecker.
This is an obvious next step tho? When I want news, I'll just ask Claude. Everything funnels to these providers?
I see they followed Fauci's Covid playbook. Thank goodness Cyclospora is rarely fatal.