What's Worse: 'Tuna Scrape' or 'Pink Slime'?

It's simple! Pink slime has actually been looked at, and the potential risks have stood up to some scientific scrutiny... Tuna Scrape on the other hand has not been analyzed to the same degree as the pink slime, so there is nothing to indicate the tuna scrape inherently possesses the risks. Case in point, It's known that salmonella is a risk with raw meats, such as fish or chicken. Since the article focuses on sushi restaurants, there is nothing in the articles own cited data to indicate the meat was inherently bad and not simply mishandled. Now let's look at what the article actually says:

"Of the 116 people in 20 states and the District of Columbia who have experienced salmonella poisoning, many said they had eaten spicy tuna rolls, NPR reports."

Without a specific number I'd be VERY SKEPTICAL... This line will make people who skim the article think 116 people got salmonella poisoning from eating tuna scrape. But what is actually suggests is an undetermined amount of people, from a groups NO LARGER than 116 and no smaller than FOUR, who got salmonella poisoning, THINK they may have gotten it from eating sushi, which MAY or MAY NOT have made use of tuna scrape, as many sushi places do in fact refuse to use it.

This is deceptive use of statistics if there ever was; furthermore, the statements leave out key details such as the severity of the cases and give us many questions to consider. Why is there only 20 states being looked at? Was this the number of states which would divulge and answer to the question, "Did they eat spicy tuna rolls?" Wouldn't a more scientific analysis ask, "What food did they eat, as specifically as possible?" You see this was data collected with a FORGONE CONCLUSION, where the hypothesis was made, then the data to support that hypothesis was gathered, only any data which does not support the hypothesis was not bothered with, and the data that does was skewed in order to do so.

Many say so? HOW MANY?

This is nothing more than a baseless attack on Japanese restaurants. Calling 116 cases over an undetermined time frame and outbreak(When 116 cases in 20 states in 1 year is not abnormal unless you poll only the 20 least populous states in the Union.), focusing the issue entirely upon sushi, and telling people not to go to Japanese restaurants (some of which don't even serve sushi), based on a statistical survey of undetermined scope and on an "expose" of the methods the food is harvested designed to make people think there's a risk, when no actual scientific analysis of a potential risk for the process has been produced.

In other words: This is NOTHING but the EQUIVALENT of saying the Mexican place is serving dog food or the Chinese place is serving dog meat.