We spent some time talking about acceptable risk this week, and LaMotte's article focuses on this issue: specifically, the ways in which we are willing to allow a certain amount of contaminant into our foods as a matter of law. In other words, because all food is to some degree processed, all food is (legally allowed to be) "contaminated" or "hazardous" to a certain level and the idea of "pure" food is a fiction we all must live by. As one person she interviews says, "Look, this is all a very, very, very low-risk situation." Maybe so--but how did you respond to the information in here? What specifically stuck out to as new or surprising information? Given the range of response to risk that we've looked at in this week's material (the chapter and lecture) what's one specific connection you would make? As you response, make sure you cite something specific from both out chapter (or lecture) and from LaMotte's article to anchor your thinking.