What I don't understand is why the slant of the story is that she's a victim and it's the meat processing plant's fault. This woman chose to eat dead animal flesh, chose not to make sure it was cooked to 160 degrees, and chose not to buy flesh that was certified as being from a particular part of a healthy organically raised animal. I absolutely believe she had the right to make a bad choice, as we all do, and I don't believe she should suffer or be made to feel guilty. But we don't need to view her as an absolute 100-percent victim. I think this is much more along the lines of someone who has a brain injury because they decided to go racing motorcycles at night with no helmet. It was a really stupid choice to make.
If there is some blame to be placed -- which I'm not sure there is -- it should be on our society allowing the United States Department of Agriculture to be viewed as a nutritional authority. I have no doubt that this woman grew up surrounded by the USDA's meat promotion posters hung alongside the fire safety and crosswalk safety posters in the classroom disguised as nutritional information and their heavily subsidized corn syrup and hotdogs portrayed in the lunchroom as a balanced meal. That kind of propaganda needs to stop, and people need to be taught accurate nutritional information by schools and physicians. But we also need to view conscious choices that adults make as exactly that. We don't need to blame our bad choices on the animal slaughterer or the vodka distiller or the car manufacturer.