If ten folk ate at three places each in a week, and one they all shared, and the place was dirty and all that, they're pretty likely to complain about that and talk about how they and others caught something.
Did you not read what I already tapped? I don't mean no offence but I just said that (almost all cases of foodbourne illnesses today, anyway) are not systemic or consistent. A parasite can crawl into one fish and not another. Even when government checks for sources of outbreaks, commun sellers of food to those who have akin symptoms, it meets big blocks:
*just forgetting or misremembering
*many shared foods
*unrelated (to food illness) spawners of the same symptoms
Also you take your food from more than just three sellers each day, you seem to be just talking about hut kind of eatings. It's wanting to buy cans without bugs in it and other foods. Grocery, as they're called.
Let's also not forget about carcinogens (most often in foods, pesticides) and gene-engineered foods, which can take much longer to noticeably manifest, if it does at all.
a regulatory body can exist without a government, they give out regulations to meet and if you meet them, they approve of you, and that draws folk to your store because it's approved by a commission.
That's the way I think the government should be doing, making them have a noticeable score of some kind.
But anyhow, you'd think that food safety would be the same everywhere then, don't you think? It's awful in Thailand and good in Belarus. Also not to say the bribing of these "independent" scorers as well. And that's generally not what happens with things without regulation, that they still get noticeable "independent" regulation. See pretty much any black market.
Not to say that it's way easier to bribe independent.
they approve of you, and that draws folk to your store because it's approved by a commission.
Independent studies and reviews don't have much effet on advertising. It's quite a narrow hold that they would sway over - most are drawn more by seeing good things and happy folk, and the few who think through it logically would rightfully come to the endsay that it was a paid self-promotion.
They might not have the power to gaol folk for being bad or being dirty
Again you exaggerate what the government does. In most governments that care, you'd likely just have the store shut down, and maybe fined.
Edited 10/8/2016 05:11:39