• catchy_name@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    2 days ago

    The article doesn’t make this clear but “proficiency testing” is a “testing the testers” activity that ensures that labs’ procedures are working. So milk testing done by labs will still be done but those labs won’t be tested until this is resolved. Yes, the activity being stopped is important but a short stall shouldn’t immediately accept food safety.

    • Lasherz@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      From working with lab equipment, you’d be surprised how quickly results turn to unreliable slop if not consistently calibrated. Is that what you’re saying is being skipped?

      The article really didn’t do a good job of explaining. Would this be the equivalent of CAPP inspections where one lab will audit another?

      • CuddlyCassowary@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        2 days ago

        No, it’s making sure people still know how to do their jobs that will be paused. If you work in a lab you have to do regular periodic training and then be tested on your ability to execute to those standards. Those tests of the lab workers are being paused until they’re in the new location. This is actually pretty common.

        • ovalofsand@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          15 hours ago

          That kind of expense is meant to ensure standardized practices, correct?

          Trump thinks measure once cut once is more efficient.

          • CuddlyCassowary@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 hours ago

            To some extent, but more so to ensure people actually absorbed the training.

            So if you train people on shitty practices, then they can pass their competency tests doing shitty things really well!

            The actual training (typically called SOPs - standard operating procedures / policies or some such thing) quality is generally what makes a bigger difference. Those are typically reviewed annually or on some timeline based on risk and volatility.

    • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      Now corporations can slide a few bucks to food safety testing labs and get past all these pesky regulations

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        And testing companies can reduce prices and take on many more customers if they don’t actually test anything.

        • cuteness@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          And when people are upset about that system the labs can go and pay the big4 to be their testers and rubber stamp everything they do because the labs are now paying the salary of the people who are there to stop them.

    • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      They still allow 30% pus (by volume) in the milk sold in my State. Thats the status quo you think is OK?