The article is basically saying that you shouldn't blindly trust authority, which is totally fair. The example is also fair, though without the nuance of the guidelines being for commercial restaurants and the like.
The issue though is that the "replacement" answers don't come from anywhere trustworthy either. The issue is the data simply isn't there.
The only "real" answer would be proper testing but if you think there is a chance of illness and death that gets into a huge ethics issue.
Instead the author points to common sense answers, while these are generally fine (talking about each ingredient and it's shelf life) I would argue that each ingredient is very different than when combined. Flour has a much longer lifespan than bread for example.
I don't have any answers myself, but it's certainly something to be discussed.
Though, no one should trust the "I did a bunch of times and I'm fine" argument, cause that's just silly for obvious reasons.
The issue though is that the "replacement" answers don't come from anywhere trustworthy either. The issue is the data simply isn't there.
The only "real" answer would be proper testing but if you think there is a chance of illness and death that gets into a huge ethics issue.
Instead the author points to common sense answers, while these are generally fine (talking about each ingredient and it's shelf life) I would argue that each ingredient is very different than when combined. Flour has a much longer lifespan than bread for example.
I don't have any answers myself, but it's certainly something to be discussed.
Though, no one should trust the "I did a bunch of times and I'm fine" argument, cause that's just silly for obvious reasons.