Thought
Dear Editor,
In her letter “Letter to the Editor: Industry supporter out of line on line speeds,” (https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2020/11/letter-to-the-editor-industry-supporter-out-of-line-on-line-speeds/) Jessica Chapman presents her advert hominem idea that I’m “an industry supporter whose learn is poke to public health” and mistakenly claims that I based mostly my most up-to-date e-newsletter “Elevated Line Velocity in Young Chicken Slaughter Establishments Does Not Predict Elevated Salmonella Contamination Risks” (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032579120307367) on what she describes as “basically unsuitable info.”
To enhance her claims, Ms. Chapman cites assorted idea pieces, blogs, and affidavits (https://foodwhistleblower.org/training-outreach/public-sources/). But the guidelines referred to in these sources is light, and is now not what my see outmoded. Thus, Ms. Chapman’s argument is in line with a fallacious premise. As explained in my article, the guidelines I relied on had been newly silent, from July 2, 2018, to July 12, 2019, and so that they included solutions to survey questions developed namely for this see. Thus, Ms. Chapman’s issues about info and practices from earlier years and decades, alongside side her references to affidavits from 2012, are now not pertinent to the guidelines I analyzed or to the validity of my info, analyses, and conclusions.
Ms. Chapman labels me “an industry supporter.” I exhaust into myth myself instead to be a science supporter. I if truth be told enjoy labored extensively for both public and deepest sectors, looking out out for to notice sound and purpose programs of information analysis, machine discovering out, and customary scientific system to behold purpose scientific truth from info, no topic whose protection pursuits it’ll very neatly be perceived as supporting or opposing. This has assuredly been controversial, as Ms. Chapman notes. But I deem that the public ardour is better served by adhering to purpose scientific system, no topic where it leads, than by counting on advert hominem attacks, deepest judgments, or light objections to beside the point info. This perspective is extra absolutely developed in plenty of places (https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030573577). I deem that participants that desire truth-based mostly resolution-making would possibly maybe maybe aloof exhaust into myth most up-to-date relevant info without being deterred by Ms. Chapman’s mistaken objections to “basically unsuitable info” that attain now not address the guidelines I if truth be told outmoded.
— Louis Anthony Cox, Jr., Ph.D.
Cox Mates and College of Colorado
Editor’s price: We would possibly maybe like to hear from our readers. Letters to the Editor would possibly maybe maybe be submitted via the Contact Us link on our internet recount.
(To affix a free subscription to Food Security Info, click on right here.)
