I think this question is particularly difficult to think about because it refers to the direct life and death of people. That is not to say that our other topics have not just that food safety is of the utmost importance to many people. When I think about who should have the responsibility or blame for these food borne illnesses, I think we focus on an aspect of these illnesses that is in the grand scheme of things unimportant. Being negligent towards food safety, whether that be on a farm or in your kitchen is precisely why people die of things like e-coli or salmonella. To argue for the responsibility of the individual is to passively allow for the possibility of foodborne illnesses. The danger is all around us no matter what we eat or how we eat it. I believe that the responsibility similar to society should be placed in the hands of the producer. I completely understand that some might say that an individual is responsible for what they eat, and that the producer has no control on whether they decide to eat raw chicken and get salmonella from it. My belief stems from the fact that I can not control whether people are going to be stupid and eat something bad for them. I can however control the fact that what I give them will not be bad. When it comes to food eaten in a restaurant or fast food chain, I think there is little argument that the responsibility should be placed on the supplier of the food. For cases like Jack-In-The-Box that was seen very clearly. The food that is distributed to people should be safe from the get go because companies can not be certain that the individual cooking it is not a moron. Someone that eats raw chicken and dies from it might be dumb, but they are still dead. I think that the responsibility of the death is unimportant because what should be important is stopping more deaths.
