If a batch of meat becomes *not* fit for consumption due to bacterial growth from lack of refrigeration, where does the failure primarily lie?
Answer
The failure lies in the process, not necessarily the raw material.
When bacterial growth occurs due to improper handling like lacking refrigeration, the failure is attributed to the processing or holding conditions rather than the quality of the initial raw material.
Related Questions
What does the phrase "fit for human consumption" fundamentally imply about a substance?How does the definition of "fit for human consumption" change in a legal or contractual setting?According to the RCW section mentioned for Washington State, what factor can render meat adulterated even if the ingredients are safe?When a product is labeled as *not* fit for human consumption and intended for animals, what does this typically signal?What does the term "human-grade" usually imply beyond merely being "fit for human consumption"?In figurative usage, what does stating information is *not fit for public consumption* imply?What characteristic often defines food served in institutional settings sometimes labeled as substandard (but still safe)?Which scenario represents an administrative reason for a food item being marked "not fit for human consumption"?If a batch of meat becomes *not* fit for consumption due to bacterial growth from lack of refrigeration, where does the failure primarily lie?According to the actionable checkpoint, what should a consumer default to if a product looks like food but lacks the "fit for human consumption" term?