Freeze it

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
[Well, this has been going on for how many generations? If this is truly a health issue, there should be data which documents not generalities, but significant adverse effects of this practice. If not, then it's a pretty poor science. If someone can provide concrete data which directly addresses this specific concern which demonstrates a real hazard I'll rethink my position. Does anyone have scientific evidence which disproves the restaurant owners experience?

I gree with your standard that the science the government follows needs to be good science, but clearly few if any here are expert in the area, and if you want to add much, you will need to do some research and see who is right - even what the basic facts really are - and not just ask a question. My presumption is that the food safety people are more likely to have their facts right, and less inventive to cut corners. There's always a chance they're in the wrong, but it's hardly something to say is at all likely.

I don't know how a thread like this even becomes a controversy - the main issue with food safety inspectors is the need for more of them, not their using bad science.

I'd say the burden of proof in athis forum lies on those attacking the food inspectors, not placing it as you do on people to 'prove the restaurant owners wrong'.

When you worded the objection of the restaurant as "cultural religion".

You misquoted me terribly. You need to be careful when you put things in double quotes.

I don't think that was an accurate representation of the issue. I think "cultural empiricism" would be better. It's not as if anyone is confronted with a problem and they are rejecting it, there's no problem demonstrated. Consequently the government is enforcing regulations for a safety issue which apparently doesn't exist. Government has a list of regs, and it doesn't matter if they make sense. Rules are rules. A lot of people resent a scripted view of "science" which is really based on governmental inertia. "You will obey" doesn't sit will when those making the orders cannot explain their position in a particular context.

That's a lot of empty ideological blather, when what's needed is the specifics on the issue at hand.

The article said the inspectors had the situation reviewed by the federal FDA, and they concurred and said there was an 'unacceptable risk'.

First, understand why they said that before jumping to a conclusion.

As for the wording, the article's 'cultural tradition' is probably fine.

Again, if this practice had been shown to be a problem, then it would be perfectly reasonable to restrict it. As it is, the science mostly consists of "do what we tell you".

Again you are typing nothing but ideology. You imagine some psycho control freak bureacrats who masturbate while making senseless rules because they love it so much.

There are a lot of places that disgusting and dangerous practices are uncovered where the people who ate there recently didn't get clearly sick. Even with all the rules and processes we have there are still sometimes outbreaks of things like e.coli, even thou they are pretty rare. You don't regulate based on some vague 'no one got sick lately so it must be ok' basis. You're arguing out of terrible ignorance to try use that sort of standard to assume the regulators are just making rules for no reason.

If you had an informed case you could make, that would be one thing. You don't. Maybe the government is wrong here - I'm just giving the inspectors the presumption.

Let the restaurant owners prove their case, ask their customers to call their legislators and if they're wrong, it can be changed. If they're not wrong, hopefully it will remain the rule.

Somehow government has to become more flexible in dealing with individual circumstances, rather than forcing conformational standards because they can. Government intervention is not desirable. At times it might be necessary, and I understand that, but in every case it needs to act when problems actually exist, not because of some mandate from On High.

You're the one who doesn't want to pay for the government in the first place, and then to demand it do more work, more detailed, responding to all the 'indicidual situations'.

Make up your mind which you want.

Your 'On High' rhetoric just further confirms my point about your spewing ideology.

The inspectors should be using good science - the conclusion they reached, and that was confirmed by the FDA, understand why, what their scientific argument is.

Until then, this is a fact-free idscussion of hot air based on little but ideology and invented assumptions.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'm with the health experts, not the cultural superstitions.

The dude has been in business for 25 years. If his food was making people sick, he'd lose customers.

Would banks lose customers if they bought up mortgage securities from other banks without properly assessing their risk? Then leveraging them to institutions who insured them? Better tell AIG, Lehman, BOA, WaMu, et al, they wouldn't dare do something that wasn't in the customer's interest! Private industry routinely does things against their own customers' interests and sometimes without even knowing it. It's called asymmetric information.

What's sad is that you probably didn't understand any of that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
[Well, this has been going on for how many generations? If this is truly a health issue, there should be data which documents not generalities, but significant adverse effects of this practice. If not, then it's a pretty poor science. If someone can provide concrete data which directly addresses this specific concern which demonstrates a real hazard I'll rethink my position. Does anyone have scientific evidence which disproves the restaurant owners experience?

I gree with your standard that the science the government follows needs to be good science, but clearly few if any here are expert in the area, and if you want to add much, you will need to do some research and see who is right - even what the basic facts really are - and not just ask a question. My presumption is that the food safety people are more likely to have their facts right, and less inventive to cut corners. There's always a chance they're in the wrong, but it's hardly something to say is at all likely.

I don't know how a thread like this even becomes a controversy - the main issue with food safety inspectors is the need for more of them, not their using bad science.

I'd say the burden of proof in athis forum lies on those attacking the food inspectors, not placing it as you do on people to 'prove the restaurant owners wrong'.

When you worded the objection of the restaurant as "cultural religion".

You misquoted me terribly. You need to be careful when you put things in double quotes.

I don't think that was an accurate representation of the issue. I think "cultural empiricism" would be better. It's not as if anyone is confronted with a problem and they are rejecting it, there's no problem demonstrated. Consequently the government is enforcing regulations for a safety issue which apparently doesn't exist. Government has a list of regs, and it doesn't matter if they make sense. Rules are rules. A lot of people resent a scripted view of "science" which is really based on governmental inertia. "You will obey" doesn't sit will when those making the orders cannot explain their position in a particular context.

That's a lot of empty ideological blather, when what's needed is the specifics on the issue at hand.

The article said the inspectors had the situation reviewed by the federal FDA, and they concurred and said there was an 'unacceptable risk'.

First, understand why they said that before jumping to a conclusion.

As for the wording, the article's 'cultural tradition' is probably fine.

Again, if this practice had been shown to be a problem, then it would be perfectly reasonable to restrict it. As it is, the science mostly consists of "do what we tell you".

Again you are typing nothing but ideology. You imagine some psycho control freak bureacrats who masturbate while making senseless rules because they love it so much.

There are a lot of places that disgusting and dangerous practices are uncovered where the people who ate there recently didn't get clearly sick. Even with all the rules and processes we have there are still sometimes outbreaks of things like e.coli, even thou they are pretty rare. You don't regulate based on some vague 'no one got sick lately so it must be ok' basis. You're arguing out of terrible ignorance to try use that sort of standard to assume the regulators are just making rules for no reason.

If you had an informed case you could make, that would be one thing. You don't. Maybe the government is wrong here - I'm just giving the inspectors the presumption.

Let the restaurant owners prove their case, ask their customers to call their legislators and if they're wrong, it can be changed. If they're not wrong, hopefully it will remain the rule.

Somehow government has to become more flexible in dealing with individual circumstances, rather than forcing conformational standards because they can. Government intervention is not desirable. At times it might be necessary, and I understand that, but in every case it needs to act when problems actually exist, not because of some mandate from On High.

You're the one who doesn't want to pay for the government in the first place, and then to demand it do more work, more detailed, responding to all the 'indicidual situations'.

Make up your mind which you want.

Your 'On High' rhetoric just further confirms my point about your spewing ideology.

The inspectors should be using good science - the conclusion they reached, and that was confirmed by the FDA, understand why, what their scientific argument is.

Until then, this is a fact-free idscussion of hot air based on little but ideology and invented assumptions.

I'm sorry my karma ran over your dogma. Would you feel vindicated if I argued irrationally? Now this has been going on for how long? What problems have come about as a result? I said I would reconsider my position if there was a demonstrable problem. You have not been able to do so, however you have put your faith in this process notwithstanding. It would seem that ideology is of more concern to you than the lack of evidence supporting the action. You place the burden on the people, giving the government authority without demonstrated need. Do you want to know how government can be more responsive? Have it act at need, and they answer to the people instead of the people being obedient to regulations that don't make sense. Instead of government reforming it's attitude, we must comply. Good servants of the Very Wise.

I'm sorry, but if I have a religion, it's not the religion of State.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'm with the health experts, not the cultural superstitions.

The dude has been in business for 25 years. If his food was making people sick, he'd lose customers.

Would banks lose customers if they bought up mortgage securities from other banks without properly assessing their risk? Then leveraging them to institutions who insured them? Better tell AIG, Lehman, BOA, WaMu, et al, they wouldn't dare do something that wasn't in the customer's interest! Private industry routinely does things against their own customers' interests and sometimes without even knowing it. It's called asymmetric information.

What's sad is that you probably didn't understand any of that.

No, I understood it just fine, thank you.

The answer to your question is "no." Because of FDIC, people don't give a shit what their bank does with their money. So your analogy here is quite irrelevant.

 

[extra]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'm with the health experts, not the cultural superstitions.

The dude has been in business for 25 years. If his food was making people sick, he'd lose customers.

But it's not surprising to see you on the side of Authoritarianism instead of liberty.

This.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'm with the health experts, not the cultural superstitions.

The dude has been in business for 25 years. If his food was making people sick, he'd lose customers.

Would banks lose customers if they bought up mortgage securities from other banks without properly assessing their risk? Then leveraging them to institutions who insured them? Better tell AIG, Lehman, BOA, WaMu, et al, they wouldn't dare do something that wasn't in the customer's interest! Private industry routinely does things against their own customers' interests and sometimes without even knowing it. It's called asymmetric information.

What's sad is that you probably didn't understand any of that.

No, I understood it just fine, thank you.

The answer to your question is "no." Because of FDIC, people don't give a shit what their bank does with their money. So your analogy here is quite irrelevant.

All the FDIC does is provide insurance, and we've had insurance companies since the 18th century. Try again.

EDIT; Reading your comment again, it doesn't even make sense. Following this logic, insurance companies dissuade consumers from caring about their property or dollars and, if true, the alternative of not having insurance must have proven more successful in some country, somewhere? Nope. :laugh:

 

[alphatarget1]

Let me first state that I'm very offended by the action of the FDA due to my Asian heritage. It simply makes no sense that those who argue for more government intervention has no regard for the facts (that rice noodles being sold have not posed a health problem to the general public). I didn't see the need to politicize this particular issue, but many hard core liberals on this board (Craig et al.) simply lacks the intellectual capacity to rationally look at this so called "problem" to see that FDA regulations that pertains to this case makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Let me first state that I'm very offended by the action of the FDA due to my Asian heritage. It simply makes no sense that those who argue for more government intervention has no regard for the facts (that rice noodles being sold have not posed a health problem to the general public). I didn't see the need to politicize this particular issue, but many hard core liberals on this board (Craig et al.) simply lacks the intellectual capacity to rationally look at this so called "problem" to see that FDA regulations that pertains to this case makes no sense whatsoever.

The conclusion I've come to is that given a choice between facts and regulation, the second is more important to some.

It's sort of "The CFR says it, I believe it, and that settles it"

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'm with the health experts, not the cultural superstitions.

The dude has been in business for 25 years. If his food was making people sick, he'd lose customers.

Would banks lose customers if they bought up mortgage securities from other banks without properly assessing their risk? Then leveraging them to institutions who insured them? Better tell AIG, Lehman, BOA, WaMu, et al, they wouldn't dare do something that wasn't in the customer's interest! Private industry routinely does things against their own customers' interests and sometimes without even knowing it. It's called asymmetric information.

What's sad is that you probably didn't understand any of that.

No, I understood it just fine, thank you.

The answer to your question is "no." Because of FDIC, people don't give a shit what their bank does with their money. So your analogy here is quite irrelevant.

All the FDIC does is provide insurance, and we've had insurance companies since the 18th century. Try again.

EDIT; Reading your comment again, it doesn't even make sense. Following this logic, insurance companies dissuade consumers from caring about their property or dollars and, if true, the alternative of not having insurance must have proven more successful in some country, somewhere? Nope. :laugh:

FDIC is not an insurance company, it's part of government, and it's also a monopoly. So your argument, which is derailing this thread btw, is again, irrelevant.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Wow, that rule is complete BS, lots of foods aren't refrigerated and are quite safe.

Perhaps they can irradiate the noodles instead.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Wow, that rule is complete BS, lots of foods aren't refrigerated and are quite safe.

Perhaps they can irradiate the noodles instead.

YOU MUST NOT QUESTION!

 

[shiner]

Uh oh...you guys are going to get a very sternly worded, yet whiny, PM.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Let me first state that I'm very offended by the action of the FDA due to my Asian heritage. It simply makes no sense that those who argue for more government intervention has no regard for the facts (that rice noodles being sold have not posed a health problem to the general public). I didn't see the need to politicize this particular issue, but many hard core liberals on this board (Craig et al.) simply lacks the intellectual capacity to rationally look at this so called "problem" to see that FDA regulations that pertains to this case makes no sense whatsoever.

The conclusion I've come to is that given a choice between facts and regulation, the second is more important to some.

It's sort of "The CFR says it, I believe it, and that settles it"

You know, back in the early 90's, there was an adopted 2yo girl who doctors said was HIV+. She, along with 9 other kids diagnosed with HIV (all of whom had zero symptoms), were all put on AZT. The girl immediately started to get terribly ill, and it worsened as time went on.

The doctors said her illnesses were due to her HIV. The parents did further research and believed her illnesses were due to AZT, and took her completely off the medication. The doctors said she would die. The government tried to take the girl away from her parents because they refused to put her back on AZT. To this day, the girl is alive and hasn't been on any HIV/AIDS related medications, and all of the other 9 kids died early on.

I'm not 100% sure of the accuracy of this story, but I'm sure of the gist of it. Experts and authorities are not always right. And in this girl's case, they were wrong, and her parents refusal to conform to not only her doctors but also to government, saved her life.

The types of regulations like the one discussed in the OP are nothing more than trading liberty for security. It's nothing more than Authoritarianism. And those who cower to the fears often never understand the natural regulations under free market capitalism. If the noodles were making people sick, they wouldn't be purchased for 25 years, and the lawsuits would have put the guy out of business long ago. Unregulated markets don't exist, period. Too many see death as the ultimate cost to society. I see a lack of liberty as the ultimate cost to society. To live is not just being able to breathe and pump blood, life is so much more. Whether life to you is eating noodles stored at room temperature, or smoking a doob in your living room, it's something different to everyone, and something to be respected, not trampled upon.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'm with the health experts, not the cultural superstitions.

The dude has been in business for 25 years. If his food was making people sick, he'd lose customers.

Would banks lose customers if they bought up mortgage securities from other banks without properly assessing their risk? Then leveraging them to institutions who insured them? Better tell AIG, Lehman, BOA, WaMu, et al, they wouldn't dare do something that wasn't in the customer's interest! Private industry routinely does things against their own customers' interests and sometimes without even knowing it. It's called asymmetric information.

What's sad is that you probably didn't understand any of that.

No, I understood it just fine, thank you.

The answer to your question is "no." Because of FDIC, people don't give a shit what their bank does with their money. So your analogy here is quite irrelevant.

All the FDIC does is provide insurance, and we've had insurance companies since the 18th century. Try again.

EDIT; Reading your comment again, it doesn't even make sense. Following this logic, insurance companies dissuade consumers from caring about their property or dollars and, if true, the alternative of not having insurance must have proven more successful in some country, somewhere? Nope. :laugh:

FDIC is not an insurance company, it's part of government, and it's also a monopoly. So your argument, which is derailing this thread btw, is again, irrelevant.

No, FDIC is nothing more than insurance and it operates exactly the same way in terms of guarantees as insurance companies do. They routinely hire insurance execs from the private sector. There is no effective difference in how it insures deposits, and if you want to claim otherwise, using the term "government" isn't actually an argument. It's a word. For once you'll actually have to think through what you're saying and be specific. Or you can wimp out of the thread per usual.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Wow, that rule is complete BS, lots of foods aren't refrigerated and are quite safe.

Perhaps they can irradiate the noodles instead.

YOU MUST NOT QUESTION!

You wouldn't believe the shit my Chinese GF keeps at my place, these freaking eggs that are some kind of delicacy with black yolks, unrefrigerated of course.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Wow, that rule is complete BS, lots of foods aren't refrigerated and are quite safe.

Perhaps they can irradiate the noodles instead.

YOU MUST NOT QUESTION!

You wouldn't believe the shit my Chinese GF keeps at my place, these freaking eggs that are some kind of delicacy with black yolks, unrefrigerated of course.

Did you die?

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Wow, that rule is complete BS, lots of foods aren't refrigerated and are quite safe.

Perhaps they can irradiate the noodles instead.

YOU MUST NOT QUESTION!

You wouldn't believe the shit my Chinese GF keeps at my place, these freaking eggs that are some kind of delicacy with black yolks, unrefrigerated of course.

Those are preserved duck eggs (with table salt). They supposedly last a long time once preserved . My mom tried to make some with chicken eggs and sometimes it turned out okay.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'm with the health experts, not the cultural superstitions.

The dude has been in business for 25 years. If his food was making people sick, he'd lose customers.

Would banks lose customers if they bought up mortgage securities from other banks without properly assessing their risk? Then leveraging them to institutions who insured them? Better tell AIG, Lehman, BOA, WaMu, et al, they wouldn't dare do something that wasn't in the customer's interest! Private industry routinely does things against their own customers' interests and sometimes without even knowing it. It's called asymmetric information.

What's sad is that you probably didn't understand any of that.

No, I understood it just fine, thank you.

The answer to your question is "no." Because of FDIC, people don't give a shit what their bank does with their money. So your analogy here is quite irrelevant.

All the FDIC does is provide insurance, and we've had insurance companies since the 18th century. Try again.

EDIT; Reading your comment again, it doesn't even make sense. Following this logic, insurance companies dissuade consumers from caring about their property or dollars and, if true, the alternative of not having insurance must have proven more successful in some country, somewhere? Nope. :laugh:

FDIC is not an insurance company, it's part of government, and it's also a monopoly. So your argument, which is derailing this thread btw, is again, irrelevant.

No, FDIC is nothing more than insurance and it operates exactly the same way in terms of guarantees as insurance companies do. They routinely hire insurance execs from the private sector. There is no effective difference in how it insures deposits, and if you want to claim otherwise, using the term "government" isn't actually an argument. It's a word. For once you'll actually have to think through what you're saying and be specific. Or you can wimp out of the thread per usual.

Does FDIC have any competition? Does FDIC weigh the risks of banks' assets? Why are you trying to derail this thread? Did you come here to attack me, or to talk about noodles?

 

[al981]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'm with the health experts, not the cultural superstitions.

I wonder if they can pay enough lobbying to get their way?

moronic. i guess all subways need to be shut down since their bread is out in the open.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'm with the health experts, not the cultural superstitions.

The dude has been in business for 25 years. If his food was making people sick, he'd lose customers.

Would banks lose customers if they bought up mortgage securities from other banks without properly assessing their risk? Then leveraging them to institutions who insured them? Better tell AIG, Lehman, BOA, WaMu, et al, they wouldn't dare do something that wasn't in the customer's interest! Private industry routinely does things against their own customers' interests and sometimes without even knowing it. It's called asymmetric information.

What's sad is that you probably didn't understand any of that.

No, I understood it just fine, thank you.

The answer to your question is "no." Because of FDIC, people don't give a shit what their bank does with their money. So your analogy here is quite irrelevant.

All the FDIC does is provide insurance, and we've had insurance companies since the 18th century. Try again.

EDIT; Reading your comment again, it doesn't even make sense. Following this logic, insurance companies dissuade consumers from caring about their property or dollars and, if true, the alternative of not having insurance must have proven more successful in some country, somewhere? Nope. :laugh:

FDIC is not an insurance company, it's part of government, and it's also a monopoly. So your argument, which is derailing this thread btw, is again, irrelevant.

No, FDIC is nothing more than insurance and it operates exactly the same way in terms of guarantees as insurance companies do. They routinely hire insurance execs from the private sector. There is no effective difference in how it insures deposits, and if you want to claim otherwise, using the term "government" isn't actually an argument. It's a word. For once you'll actually have to think through what you're saying and be specific. Or you can wimp out of the thread per usual.

Does FDIC have any competition? Does FDIC weigh the risks of banks' assets? Why are you trying to derail this thread? Did you come here to attack me, or to talk about noodles?

You made the laughable claim that insuring bank deposits makes people not "give a shit what their bank does with their money", which of course is no different than any other bank around the world. So you'll have to back that up with fact and explain what is relevant about the FDIC not having "competition" for insuring bank deposits. I know you just made it up because you still can't explain why banks would make better decisions without the FDIC, I'm just having fun knowing you don't have the first clue what's going on.

And sorry, this thread isn't about noddles. It's about whether the laws protecting consumer health should be enforced by the FDA on this particular case, which just happens to be noddles but could be about any cuisine that has a particular cultural tradition. Your argument that the gov't shouldn't intrude is the same nonsense anti-vaccine crazies use to deny their children life-saving medical technology.

 

[Moonbeam]

I can't decide if I think the government has been taken over by Al Capone or Al Dente.

 

[CPA]

Here we go, once again "culture" from one country being used as an excuse to supersede American law. I don't care what your damn "culture" is in China or wherever, if you're going to come to America, you have to follow American law. Otherwise, we might as well allow Sharia customs like the British are doing.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: spittledip

I'm with the chefs. The stuff will get ruined if refrigerated. If you don't want to take that risk, then don't eat the stuff.

Not anymore "ruined" than it would be if became infected with disease casing bacteria or mold, and not as "ruined" as anyone who ate such infected food would be. If restaurants want to sell such foods, contrary to health and safety laws, the burden is on them to prove their food cannot become a public health or safety hazard.

There has been no problems for the last thousands of years since we Asians have been making this stuff. Anyone who side the FDA is right on this particular issue is ignorant, based on the fact that these products have posed no harm to consumers.

It's not a matter of ignorance. It's a matter of using "culture" as an excuse to ignore law. You're probably correct that it poses no harm. So, if the law is wrong, then work to change it, but don't come in and say "oh, it's okay our culture allows it".

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: CPA
Here we go, once again "culture" from one country being used as an excuse to supersede American law. I don't care what your damn "culture" is in China or wherever, if you're going to come to America, you have to follow American law. Otherwise, we might as well Sharia customs like the British are doing.

The freedom to cook food equates to the right to stone women to death?

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: threeringbinder

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'm with the health experts, not the cultural superstitions.

I wonder if they can pay enough lobbying to get their way?

i'm with the health experts as well...but if it's required that we freeze noodles...you have to apply that to many other foods as well...take bread for example...why not bread?

Well, it doesn't require them to "freeze" the noodles, just keep them below 41F. I don't see that as being required for a safe product but I also don't think it would affect the quality of the product much, if any either.

I don't blame them for trying to get an exception to the law. Complying with the law is just adding unnecessary cost to the product IMHO.