Knee-jerk Reactions

Now that we have had the listeriosis accident with the meat and that we have had shock and surprise that such things can still happen in the 21st century, there is now a new development in the news. Listeriosis was found in some of the locally produced cheeses in the province of Quebec (that's in Canada and a "province" is like a "state" in the U.S.). Now we come to the opposite extreme of do nothing with existing protocols, which is based upon a lack of judgment and a refusal to think about an issue; and we decide to throw out all the cheeses found, in case they may have been contaminated.

Both situations indicate move before thinking, a shoot before asking questions type of scenario. The unfortunate knee-jerk reaction. We get the listeriosis because we want to move too quickly and get the product out there before the competitor (see previous blogs for the rationale of that argument); then when a product is discovered to be infected with listeriosis, we throw everything out with no verification because we want to move too quickly to reassure non-thinkers that the situation is under control. Lets throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater, no thinking required: bathwater dirty-->throw out contents of bath!

There was a limited number of cheese brands that fell in the category of the infection and the government inspectors decided to include all the cheese and destroy it all in one shot. Store owners were prepared to destroy the identified infected cheeses but tried to talk sense in the government inspectors to at least test the other unrelated products before throwing them out. Were the other cheeses infected? Who knows? But the decision assumed that they were all infected and needed to be destroyed. Again, a loss of valuable resources for the same reason: move quicker than what your brain can react to.

The actions of allowing listeriosis products to go onto the marketplace and the actions of destroying ALL products that were found in the same store as a FEW contaminated products are opposite extremes. Both ridiculous extremes, both show a lack of judgment and both based upon not wanting to think things out first.

If we drive down a highway and see a deer on the road, the better reaction is to slow down and bypass the deer. Some would prefer to ignore the deer and plough on through with the deadly consequences as we have seen with the meat infection. Others would prefer to get off the road altogether and drive through the wilderness because if the deer is on the road it aint in the wilderness. If people can't drive properly and either ignore the deer or decide to go on treks through the wilderness (both damaging the car beyond repair), why do we still allow them access to the controls? Give the controls of the car to someone who has better judgment, yes?

One last thing, if the driver slows down to consult a bureaucratic manual to make a decision about the deer then it shows that he is under training and this better be a car-simulator (we may not have the luxury to consult the regulation for every new situation that comes up, this person may be better suited to be in the co-pilot's seat until he can ignore the regulations and use his proper judgment to make snap decisions which will then be included in the updated regulations for the next trainee).