Imagine if it were a real kitchen. It’s not as if we couldn’t even cook it. It would be a pretty good thing to have at a grocery store.
A mockito, it’s not really a kitchen at all. The only thing that bothers me the most is that it has no sense of smell. It’s actually almost impossible to tell if the person who was eating it is really, really hungry or not. The food is pretty gross. We eat the food we want to eat, and the person who has the sense of smell is the one who is really good at it.
I think we all get a little scared when we do this. The thing that scares me the most though is that it has no sense of smell. We would be talking about a dish that we would never think would be bad for us. Imagine if you are eating a dish that you never thought was bad for you. It would make you want to throw up.
This is, of course, a direct reference to the recent controversy between the United States Senate and the Food and Drug Administration. The question was whether the FDA had the authority to issue a new regulation for McDonald’s, calling it “morally suspect.” The response from the agency was to say that the regulation was “justifiable” and that the FDA should have acted on that basis alone. This is a perfect example of how it is possible for a regulation to be justified but still seem morally suspect.
The point is, if McDonalds is a government operated company, it’s a government-controlled company.
In other words, the FDA is just as much a part of McDonalds as the company itself. So if the company has gotten permission from the government to change its policy on animal welfare, then it must have gotten permission from the FDA as well. Because if the FDA is not a part of McDonalds, then it can’t possibly have the authority to change its policy on animal welfare.
The FDA is also owned by a private consortium of investors. So if McDonalds has gotten permission from the government to change its policy on animal welfare, it must have gotten permission from the FDA as well. Because if the FDA is not a part of McDonalds, then it cant possibly have the authority to change its policy on animal welfare.
So where’s the line between McDonald’s and the FDA? I guess none of us know. The point is that the FDA’s policy on animal welfare is pretty much the same as McDonald’s policy on animal welfare. It’s not that the FDA is any better or worse than McDonald’s, but that we’re talking about a different policy.
The FDA is the US government department in charge of animal welfare. So just like McDonalds, the FDA takes a certain amount of animal cruelty and violence in order to ensure the safety of human beings. The FDA’s policy on the welfare of animals is pretty clear and not too different from McDonalds policy on animal welfare.
That said, McDonalds policy on animal cruelty is, well, pretty clear: they force their employees to be inhumane to achieve a certain profit margin. The FDA, on the other hand, is more ambiguous. Some of their policy is pretty clear and understandable, but others are pretty vague and arbitrary. The FDA policy on animal cruelty is pretty clear: if you see an animal being injured or killed, you stop and do something about it. The FDAs policy is not so clear.
