Government to the rescue?

[Cylinder]

And that is crap, because the former is mostly safe, it just carries a small risk to some people. Remember about all the cheese deaths you hear about from canada?

I probably overstated a bit. I was arguing the reasoning, not necessarily the reality. I don't really know enough about the raw cheese issue for informed debate.

 

[PopeTom]

So what parts of the established health code do you also have a problem with, as some of it certainly does that.

To answer this question would require I know the full health codes of NYC, or my local area, which I do not.

When I eat at a restaurant I expect that the food has been properly stored as to limit the growth of potentially dangerous bacteria, tools and work surfaces washed to limit the potential of cross contamination, steps to be taken to limit the likelihood of pest infestation, and the employees to be clean within reason.

I'm sure health codes cover more then just that but those are the basics that come to mind when I think of what an eating establishment should be required to provide in terms of food safety.

 

[Mephisto]

So in other words you have problems with a great many laws becides this one?

Yes I do. Here are some examples:

Alabama

It is illegal to wear a fake mustache that causes laughter in church.

Putting salt on a railroad track may be punishable by death.

Men may not spit in front of the opposite sex.

Alaska

Moose may not be viewed from an airplane.

It is considered an offense to push a live moose out of a moving airplane.

It is considered an offense to feed alcoholic beverages to a moose.

Arizona

Hunting camels is prohibited.

There is a possible 25 years in prison for cutting down a cactus.

When being attacked by a criminal or burglar, you may only protect yourself with the same weapon that the other person posseses.

You may not have more than two dildos in a house.

It is illegal for men and women over the age of 18 to have less than one missing tooth visible when smiling.

Arkansas

A man can legally beat his wife, but not more than once a month.

Oral sex is considered to be sodomy.

California

Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship.

It is a misdemeanor to shoot at any kind of game from a moving vehicle, unless the target is a whale.

No vehicle without a driver may exceed 60 miles per hour.

Many animals are illegal to own as pets, including snails, sloths, and elephants.

Nobody is allowed to ride a bicycle in a swimming pool.

It is illegal for a man to beat his wife with a strap wider than 2 inches without her consent.

It is illegal to cry on the witness stand.

Molesting butterflies can result in a $500 fine.

It is illegal for a secretary to be alone in a room with her boss.
One may not carry a lunch down the street between 11 and 1 o'clock.

Persons classified as "ugly" may not walk down any street.

It is illegal to pile horse manure more than six feet high on a street corner.

Giving or receiving oral sex is prohibited.

http://www.legal-forms-kit.com/legal-jokes/dumb-laws.html

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes I do. Here are some examples:

It is considered an offense to push a live moose out of a moving airplane.


It is a misdemeanor to shoot at any kind of game from a moving vehicle, unless the target is a whale.

No vehicle without a driver may exceed 60 miles per hour.

Many animals are illegal to own as pets, including snails, sloths, and elephants.

It is illegal for a man to beat his wife with a strap wider than 2 inches without her consent.
http://www.legal-forms-kit.com/legal-jokes/dumb-laws.html

Most of those seem pretty reasonable, the last one makes sense because it limited actions of wifebeaters before it was entirely a illegal.

Also as I can find no way to find out dirrectly what the law says or when it came about it does not give you enough information to judge the laws at all.

 

[Beerina]

I think it is wrong for the government to take this type of action -after all trans fats aren't poisonous.

It depends on what you mean by poisonous. From what I have read, there is no known small amount that is safe to consume -- it all goes to clogging arteries. And, unlike smoking, you can remove the trans fats without affecting the flavor. You can't remove smoking yet continue to smoke. Nobody is sitting around declaring the right to pointlessly consume artery-clogging artificial fats.

However I would think it was OK for the government to ensure that restaurants etc. should have to, if asked provide honest answers to questions regarding what is in the food they serve.

This would be a fine idea, but make the penalties for lying more severe than a warning or a $10 fine.

 

[Katana]

It is only a ban on resturants useing transfats, snack food is not effected as is personal use. So how is this so different from banning smoking in resturants? Minimal exposure to that enviroment has about the same health effects as the transfats.

You presume that I agree with the government imposing bans on smoking. It should be up to the establishment and its patrons as to what it serves and what behavior is permitted within its confines. If I don't like either one, I can move on. If enough people do so, then the establishment can either change or go out of business. That's how it should work, but the government felt that it needed to interfere.

Health codes are intended to ensure that restaurants uphold minimum sanitation standards to protect against foot-borne illness. They are not intended to protect consumers from eating foods that are potentially bad for their health.

That's why New York's food inspections concentrate on things like employer hygiene, the presence of rodents, insects, or other animals, unsafe food storage, cooking and cleaning practices:

Link

The purpose of the health code is not to enforce the overall healthiness of the food that we consume.

 

[Beerina]

Yes I do. Here are some examples:

California

Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship.

Do they get put in jail?

It is a misdemeanor to shoot at any kind of game from a moving vehicle, unless the target is a whale.

Couldn't they just exempt boats hunting sea life?

No vehicle without a driver may exceed 60 miles per hour.

'

No wonder AI research is fleeing the area for greener pastures.

It is illegal for a man to beat his wife with a strap wider than 2 inches without her consent.

The wider the strap, the less damage it does.

It is illegal to cry on the witness stand.

I'm sorry, little molested 8 year old girl, into jail ya go. The law is a ass and all that...

Molesting butterflies can result in a $500 fine.

Cost of doing business. Molesters'll just charge the flies $600.

Persons classified as "ugly" may not walk down any street.

Tori Spelling's career is now twice as unlikely as I thought it was.

It is illegal to pile horse manure more than six feet high on a street corner.

A sound law if you ask me. What's the joke?

Giving or receiving oral sex is prohibited.

Wouldn't that constitute "double jeopardy" if also charged with molesing a butterfly?

 

[ponderingturtle]

You presume that I agree with the government imposing bans on smoking. It should be up to the establishment and its patrons as to what it serves and what behavior is permitted within its confines.

ANd it should be up to the customers if their hygenic standards are met by a particular establishment.

Health codes are intended to ensure that restaurants uphold minimum sanitation standards to protect against foot-borne illness. They are not intended to protect consumers from eating foods that are potentially bad for their health.

Wrong, there are all kinds of food safety standards that are for that express purpose. And here we have something that is clearly bad for your health and serves no real purpose.

That's why New York's food inspections concentrate on things like employer hygiene, the presence of rodents, insects, or other animals, unsafe food storage, cooking and cleaning practices:

Link

The purpose of the health code is not to enforce the overall healthiness of the food that we consume.

Mabey, but there are plenty of codes about that as well.

 

[IXP]

One point that I have not seen is this discussion is why they are using oils containing trans-fats. They do not make the food taste better. They make the oil last longer. People are being exposed to a risk for the benefit of others. I see no problem in outlawing their use.

IXP

 

[gnome]

A suggestion for a standard--that if the product is inherently harmful if used as reccomended, or regardless of how much or how often the customer chooses--then it should be fair game for restriction on sales. Yes, you have the right to eat crap. Do people have the right to sell products that are inherently harmful no matter how the buyer chooses to use the product?

On the other hand, if moderate use of the product offers no risk to health, the government should leave it up to consumers.

 

[UserGoogol]

I go along with you 100% regarding government intrusiveness. I would just be happy if they would do the job they're SUPPOSED to do to ensure a safe (i.e. not poisonous) food supply.

Poisonous is relative. I don't think there's an obvious place to draw the line between poisonous and healthy. I do think this might be going too far, but it's really hard to say why. (Unless of course you're opposed to government food regulation as a general thing.)

 

[Mephisto]

Most of those seem pretty reasonable, the last one makes sense because it limited actions of wifebeaters before it was entirely a illegal.

Also as I can find no way to find out dirrectly what the law says or when it came about it does not give you enough information to judge the laws at all.

As are most laws, but you can't tell me that you agree that a fake moustache in church should be illegal, and you can't tell me that putting salt on a railroad track should be punishable by death.

The same with other laws - they're just stupid because they're too didactic (legislating morality, or health, etc.) in a supposedly free country.

 

[Katana]

ANd it should be up to the customers if their hygenic standards are met by a particular establishment.

I don't follow you here. Are you or are you not in favor of the government regulating restaurant hygiene/sanitation?

Wrong, there are all kinds of food safety standards that are for that express purpose. And here we have something that is clearly bad for your health and serves no real purpose.

Why don't you discuss the other safety standards and governmental bodies that regulate restaurants' distribution of what have been deemed unhealthy foods? We're not talking about dangerous foods. We're talking about unhealthy foods. Please describe them because I am not familiar with them.

Mabey, but there are plenty of codes about that as well.

Please provide them.

 

[Mephisto]

Poisonous is relative. I don't think there's an obvious place to draw the line between poisonous and healthy. I do think this might be going too far, but it's really hard to say why. (Unless of course you're opposed to government food regulation as a general thing.)

You're right UserGoogol, I should have said unsafe food. Meaning NOT laced with e coli, botulism or anything else similarly dangerous to us.

 

[OMGturt1es]

trying to draw an analogy between the current health codes and the proposed regulations is fallacious, as the concept of false advertisement is ignored. a paying customer can rightfully assume that the purchased meal is not covered in rat feces, soaked in bacteria, deficated upon, etc, but cannot assume that it is necessarily healthy. it is the customer's responsibility to inquery regarding the nutritional value, or lack thereof.

 

[Didaktylos]

... and you can't tell me that putting salt on a railroad track should be punishable by death.

Er ... doesn't salt promote corrosion of ferrous metals?

Rails are made of steel (a ferrous metal).

Corrosion could result in failure of points/signals.

A derailment could result from the previous.

Derailments often have fatal consequences.

Wilful sabotage of railway infrastructure is therefore tantamount to murder.

If you're going to have the death penalty, a case can definitely be made for including railway sabotage.

BTW - what does the statute in question actually say?

 

[Katana]

trying to draw an analogy between the current health codes and the proposed regulations is fallacious, as the concept of false advertisement is ignored. a paying customer can rightfully assume that the purchased meal is not covered in rat feces, soaked in bacteria, deficated upon, etc, but cannot assume that it is necessarily healthy. it is the customer's responsibility to inquery regarding the nutritional value, or lack thereof.

Whether its fallacious or comes from a misunderstanding of the purpose of health codes is probably neither here nor there. As for your basic point, I agree with you.

 

[Mephisto]

Er ... doesn't salt promote corrosion of ferrous metals?

Rails are made of steel (a ferrous metal).

Corrosion could result in failure of points/signals.

A derailment could result from the previous.

Derailments often have fatal consequences.

Wilful sabotage of railway infrastructure is therefore tantamount to murder.

If you're going to have the death penalty, a case can definitely be made for including railway sabotage.

So then, you believe that railway passengers are being protected by this law? Do you honestly believe that anyone caught putting salt on a train rail deserves the death penalty? If you wanted to derail a train for whatever purposes there are more expedient ways to do it instead of waiting for corrosion.

BTW - what does the statute in question actually say?

Check out the link, it says nothing else about the law. Besides, what laws do you have to read the entire law before understanding it? They are pretty much cut & dry and even taken out of context they are pretty clear. The one in question is as clear as an unmuddied lake - put salt on a train rail and you could be put to death; it doesn't play "what if" (what if I dropped my salty hamburger on the rail, what if I'm attacked by a vicious dog while carrying a 25lb. sack of salt as I walk alongside the railroad tracks, etc.

I just think there is a gigantic difference between legislating safe food handling procedures and cleanliness and legislating health. If making trans fats illegal happens are obese people going to have to prove a thyroid condition or will they immediately become criminals?

 

[ponderingturtle]

So then, you believe that railway passengers are being protected by this law? Do you honestly believe that anyone caught putting salt on a train rail deserves the death penalty? If you wanted to derail a train for whatever purposes there are more expedient ways to do it instead of waiting for corrosion.



Check out the link, it says nothing else about the law. Besides, what laws do you have to read the entire law before understanding it? They are pretty much cut & dry and even taken out of context they are pretty clear. The one in question is as clear as an unmuddied lake - put salt on a train rail and you could be put to death; it doesn't play "what if" (what if I dropped my salty hamburger on the rail, what if I'm attacked by a vicious dog while carrying a 25lb. sack of salt as I walk alongside the railroad tracks, etc.

I just think there is a gigantic difference between legislating safe food handling procedures and cleanliness and legislating health. If making trans fats illegal happens are obese people going to have to prove a thyroid condition or will they immediately become criminals?

Please cite the current death penaly laws that do that.

 

[Katana]

Please cite the current death penaly laws that do that.

He never made a claim that any did.

Please respond to my post:

Request for Evidence