commandar
or if they are, they get their house firebombed.
For those unfamiliar, this isn’t hyperbole:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendlyjordies#Firebombing_incidents
There’s literally someone in this thread right now saying you can eat raw pork in America without worry…
The correct response to that is to provide the actual guidelines based on actual data, not to fearmonger while quoting lines referencing wild game.
A huge part of why commercial pork is safe – that you’re consistently leaving out – were major changes to how livestock are raised. Trichinosis transmission in pigs is primarily caused by the consumption of infected meat; US standards were changed to more strictly control what’s fed to pigs, which led to the decreased risk. The risk remains in wild boar because they’re omnivores that will scavenge whatever they can find.
145 is still a limit people need to follow, lots of people don’t.
145 isn’t a hard limit. It’s the recommended holding temperature for one minute.
The USDA and FDA, which both lean conservative in their recommendations, consider whole cuts of pork safe down to 145F (roughly equivalent to cooked to medium):
https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2011/05/25/cooking-meat-check-new-recommended-temperatures
https://www.fda.gov/media/107000/download
This has been the case for over a decade. Pork should be cooked but the old 160F recommendations have been gone for a long time now because commercial pork is relatively safe.
Also note that this is the one-minute pasteurization temp; meat can be held at a lower temperature for longer to render it safe.
Stakeholders are people with any kind of interest in the company doing well
Corporate social responsibility as a concept is even broader than that – it’s not just anyone who has interest in the company doing well, but broad consideration of anyone impacted by the decisions of the company.
A company might be able to save operational costs by dumping toxic sludge in a river, but within a CSR framework, people living downstream would be considered stakeholders and the potential negative impact of the decision on those people is supposed to be taken into account when decisions are made. The corporation is supposed to have a responsibility to do right by anyone impacted by their actions wherever possible.
At least that’s the theory. It shouldn’t be surprising that the language of CSR gets pretty commonly coopted by companies looking to whitewash what they’re actually doing.