if you want to argue the advice should be based on how often an activity actually makes people sick, that's reasonable (though hard to measure), but is obviously a way lower safety standard
> In the USDA’s standard this is probably a net benefit - you basically know they are lying at all times, ...
Equating the USDA recommendations to lies, because their conservative recommendations are meant for easy understanding and practice undermines any of the above research. Since now you're left wondering what viewpoint the author is advocating any why I'm reading yet another science bashing writer.
sure in a vacuum that food might not harbor enough bacteria to make you sick but you don't always grab that food with clean hands and separate the slice from one another with clean hands or if someone sneezed near to the time the box was open and some bad stuff landed on it and then grew like a petri dish. it's good advice to follow in general. just like the fda guideline says cook your chicken to 165ºF they also have a more nuanced outlook on it too with appropriate charts for pasteurization schedules and risk management guidelines for restaurants.
why do they say 165 is the best temp? well that's the temp that if your chicken reaches internally there will be a large log reduction in salmonella populations within mere seconds of reaching that temp. you can cook chicken safely when you do so at a lower temperature but you need to cook it longer. 165 for seconds is safe and a good phrase to teach the general population about.
For at least one recommendation, the Food Pyramid, many allege the influence of lobbying groups played a role. Do you dispute their claims?
I’m wondering because I’ve been noticing a trend that I’ve read happened towards the end of the USSR: as the rulemakers made ever more nonsensical rules, educated people invented explanations since calling the rules nonsensical wasn’t allowed in polite company.