Actually I would be happy to eat at a restaurant that went to the bother of hiring a professional kitchen inspector, who might even swab sinks for listeria samples, instead of the city-paid dweeb trained only in ticking boxes on a check-list and probably totally lacking in food-prep experience. The real comparison should be “would you eat at a restaurant that was probably serving fake food?”
Actually I would be happy to eat at a restaurant that went to the bother of hiring a professional kitchen inspector, who might even swab sinks for listeria samples, instead of the city-paid dweeb trained only in ticking boxes on a check-list and probably totally lacking in food-prep experience. The real comparison should be “would you eat at a restaurant that was probably serving fake food?”
I'm sorry to see that you have entirely missed the point of the editorial in Science magazine.
No I didn't! But, guess you can't understand the link between "fake food" and carbon credits.
Wow. Can you explain where in this post I say anything about "fake food"?