Is this nirvana fallacy?

Person 1: Working in fast food restaurants will soon be obsolete and be replaced with robots

Person 2: That may be true, but we still need humans in the kitchen in case the food quality is not good

Person 1: People get food poisoned and get served food that's possibly rotten, all the while only humans are in the kitchens, you think that would solve anything

As I understand the nirvana fallacy, it involves comparing and contrasting realistic and ideal solutions in a way that the "real" world solution or situation is found lacking when compared with an "ideal" one, whether Ron to that "ideal" or "perfect" situation actually exists.   Therefore, I don't see this exchange as the nirvana fallacy .

The exchange involves some assumptions that I'm not sure are universally accepted: will robots really replace humans in restaurants? are humans really the best form of quality assurance?  As well, there are a number of missing quantifiers ... will ALL humans be replaced by robots in ALL fast food restaurants?  Which and how many people get poisoned by restaurant food?  

If Person 1 is trying to convince person 2 that robots are coming, the two need to come together to share a common understanding of some basic terms like quality of food and the frequency of food poisoning.  

I don't see a particularly good argument or presentation of ideas on either side, but I don't see it as the nirvana fallacy  

As I understand it, person 1 believes robots will entirely replace humans in fast food restaurants. Person 2 counters, saying this is impossible as humans will be needed as a quality-check. Person 1 points out that food-related incidents happen under human supervision anyway, so it's a moot point.

The problem is that this narrow definition of "food quality" that person 1 is responding to doesn't capture everything that person 2 is saying. Perhaps robots can't account properly for human tastes. Perhaps they will malfunction. Maybe they can't replace every  aspect of human labour. Concerns about food poisoning aren't the only things robots will need to address.

I'm reluctant to call 'fallacy' as I'd rather the two just explain what they mean in greater detail, although we could say that person 1 has  missed the point.