> do they not grasp that being unable to explain the cause of the illnesses keeps people away?
Well, yeah. I'm sure they do grasp that. They also grasp that there's no way of knowing what caused it, and that lying would be immoral and unwise.
> I'd feel far more comfortable with Chipotle if they could definitively say, "It appears uncooked cilantro in our rice was harboring E. coli; we've changed how we prepare that item and believe the problem is fixed."
The reality is that it was some bit of fresh produce, it could have happened to anyone, it does happen to everyone (McDs, Burger King, KFC, etc have all had E. coli outbreaks, and will again), and they've made some changes to reduce the risk, but not to zero because no kitchen in the world, private or corporate, has a zero risk of food-borne illnesses.
> What if people aren't sick from bacteria in the food
Then you'd see a radically different pattern of infections.
Well, yeah. I'm sure they do grasp that. They also grasp that there's no way of knowing what caused it, and that lying would be immoral and unwise.
> I'd feel far more comfortable with Chipotle if they could definitively say, "It appears uncooked cilantro in our rice was harboring E. coli; we've changed how we prepare that item and believe the problem is fixed."
The reality is that it was some bit of fresh produce, it could have happened to anyone, it does happen to everyone (McDs, Burger King, KFC, etc have all had E. coli outbreaks, and will again), and they've made some changes to reduce the risk, but not to zero because no kitchen in the world, private or corporate, has a zero risk of food-borne illnesses.
> What if people aren't sick from bacteria in the food
Then you'd see a radically different pattern of infections.