PDA

View Full Version : Government Regulations - Restaurants



genglandoh
07-13-2011, 04:54 PM
I am a small Government guy
But that does not mean no Government.

So lets take Restaurants as an example.

What is the min amount of Government Regulations for Restaurants?

Can the Government force Restaurants to serve all people?
(Not talking abut race but other reasons like dress code)

PS I was in a small town during a major snow storm last year and the Restaurant had a paper sign that read "No shirt, No shoes, No Service" just too funny.

Waddie
07-13-2011, 05:01 PM
Last year the police escorted a patron out of the restaurant up the street from me. He came in to eat accompanied by his dog. (Not seeing-eye). The dog caused no ruckus, just sat down by his owner's seat. No-one in the restaurant complained, but the restaurant manager kicked him out anyway. I guess the manager was within his rights.

regards,
Waddie

seanz
07-13-2011, 05:05 PM
Last year the police escorted a patron out of the restaurant up the street from me. He came in to eat accompanied by his dog. (Not seeing-eye). The dog caused no ruckus, just sat down by his owner's seat. No-one in the restaurant complained, but the restaurant manager kicked him out anyway. I guess the manager was within his rights.

regards,
Waddie

Or obliged by regulation perhaps?

Flying Orca
07-13-2011, 05:07 PM
I don't have a problem with health inspections and reasonable building codes.

S.V. Airlie
07-13-2011, 05:07 PM
State or federal..?There is a difference.

genglandoh
07-13-2011, 05:08 PM
State or federal..?There is a difference.

All Government local, state and fed.
what should the level of regulation be?

Flying Orca
07-13-2011, 05:09 PM
If you're asking me, there isn't a difference here, exactly... the feds recommend a code, the province adopts some or all of it, and the municipalities add their bits and enforce everything. More or less, anyway.

S.V. Airlie
07-13-2011, 05:11 PM
I look at that as acually being 2 questions: one how much is dictated or required and secondly, how much/many regs.are actually needed or appropriate.

S.V. Airlie
07-13-2011, 05:17 PM
I suspect the big federal agencies would be:
Osha
the health department
Labor department
IRS
Local restrictions would vary and can be added...
Zoning
Health
Local ordinances

It probably be a long list of specific requirements in all categories (state or fed)..Each resturant and function is different..I'E. Take out vs. sit down. Parking or nonparking etc.

Glen Longino
07-13-2011, 05:23 PM
No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service is a management decision.
No rat crap in the pantry is a government regulation, and a good one, IMO.

S.V. Airlie
07-13-2011, 05:31 PM
No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service is a management decision.
No rat crap in the pantry is a government regulation, and a good one, IMO. Which make sense...Liability plays a part..
How a stove ( cooking facilities) worksinto the requirements for a restuarant..I know why but I sense that they are a wee tad extreme. Cooling systems have to be under a certain temp. Food can't be left in salad bar containers over a certain amount of time..The list is long but fairly straight forward. Much of the laws are logical though..
I think between the feds and the locals, the local restrictions are tougher...

genglandoh
07-13-2011, 05:47 PM
No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service is a management decision.
No rat crap in the pantry is a government regulation, and a good one, IMO.

I think I would only have 2
1. Government regulation requiring a clean kitchen, food prep areas and workers washing hands.
2. A law saying a Restaurant must serve to all races, religions, sexual orientation etc.

I would not have have the Government get involved with
1. The type of food.
So if a Restaurant want to put mice on the menu they should be allowed to.
2. The Restaurant should be allowed to ban certain types of people if they make it a clear policy.
So a non-smoking Restaurant is OK
A smoking Restaurant is OK
An Adult only (no children) Restaurant is OK
Etc.

ljb5
07-13-2011, 05:48 PM
I think all restaurants have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.... although they might get in trouble if they form patterns about who they refuse to serve.

Where's the line?

I dunno.... but I'm pretty comfortable with where it is right now.

Bobcat
07-13-2011, 05:58 PM
What about regulations preventing serving adulterated food or spoiled food? Regulations involving the serving of liquor? Regulations on the manner of treating employees? How about where you can put a restaurant (zoning) or the amount of noise it can create?

S.V. Airlie
07-13-2011, 06:03 PM
Well. I mentioned zoning. I assume a liquor lic. wouldbe state..No ne, well I did, mentioned regs on parking..etc. Take out vs Sit down meals..It gets complicated but overall, I sense the glitches that do occur are local.

genglandoh
07-13-2011, 06:17 PM
What about regulations preventing serving adulterated food or spoiled food? Regulations involving the serving of liquor? Regulations on the manner of treating employees? How about where you can put a restaurant (zoning) or the amount of noise it can create?

1. Food Quality - OK but it may open up a door.
Sauerkraut is a fermented (spoiled) product.
So if a Restaurant opens up serving some kind of fermented food that an inspector has not seen or understands than it might get banned.
2. Serving of liquor?
All restaurants should be allowed to serve anything (that is legal).
So special license needed.
Yes they would have to only serve it to adults of legal age.
3. Treating of employees.
Yes that would follow all the labor laws but no new special laws just for restaurants.
4. Zoning - No
5. Noise limits - Yes they should follow the towns noise laws but again no special laws just for restaurants.

Bobcat
07-13-2011, 06:48 PM
Okay. I'll bite: no zoning so a restaurant can go anywhere. How about if it's a bar? How about next to a school?

Liquor: should there be any regulation aside from age? Should the restaurant serve obviously intoxicated people? Should there be rules about training the services to signs that a person has had too much. Should there be regulations about inspections?

Should a restaurant accommodate people with disabilities?

S.V. Airlie
07-13-2011, 06:57 PM
There is always zoning that is applicable. The big difference between state, federal, and local rules/laws is enforcement..The local rules and laws are easier to monitor. It might take a month between the state receiving a complaint and some action taken by the state or the feds depending on circumstances but the local rules can be picked up on really quickly.

wardd
07-13-2011, 07:04 PM
I think I would only have 2
1. Government regulation requiring a clean kitchen, food prep areas and workers washing hands.
2. A law saying a Restaurant must serve to all races, religions, sexual orientation etc.

I would not have have the Government get involved with
1. The type of food.
So if a Restaurant want to put mice on the menu they should be allowed to.
2. The Restaurant should be allowed to ban certain types of people if they make it a clear policy.
So a non-smoking Restaurant is OK
A smoking Restaurant is OK
An Adult only (no children) Restaurant is OK
Etc.

i believe in a virgin sacrifice before each meal

genglandoh
07-13-2011, 07:06 PM
Okay. I'll bite: no zoning so a restaurant can go anywhere. How about if it's a bar? How about next to a school?

Liquor: should there be any regulation aside from age? Should the restaurant serve obviously intoxicated people? Should there be rules about training the services to signs that a person has had too much. Should there be regulations about inspections?

Should a restaurant accommodate people with disabilities?

1. Zone laws - No problem with having restaurants and bars anywhere yes next to a school.
If people do not want a bar next to a school then people will not go to the bar and it will go out of business.
No need for a law.
2. Liquor
a. Restaurants and bars should only have to worry about age. No special laws just for restaurants and bars.
b. Intoxicated people - In General it is not the owner of a business should be asked to decide it someone has had too much.
c. Training people - no
3. Inspections - yes for clean kitchen, food prep areas and workers washing hands
4. People with disabilities - Yes but I would give a break to small restaurants.
I do not want the costs to put the business out of business.

Bobcat
07-13-2011, 07:15 PM
So if a bar makes its money selling alcohol until people are staggering drunk and these drunks kill or maim people in traffic accidents, the bar should be allowed to continue its business plan?

Should restaurants have sprinkler systems or fire exits?

genglandoh
07-13-2011, 07:34 PM
So if a bar makes its money selling alcohol until people are staggering drunk and these drunks kill or maim people in traffic accidents, the bar should be allowed to continue its business plan?

Should restaurants have sprinkler systems or fire exits?

1. Restaurants and Bars being held responsible for actions of their customers.
If a person drinks at a bar then gets into an accident should the bar be responsible, no.

2. Fire safety - I think this can be handled by the private insurance industry not the Government.
This is how you home fire safety issue is handled today.

S.V. Airlie
07-13-2011, 07:38 PM
1. Zone laws - No problem with having restaurants and bars anywhere yes next to a school.
If people do not want a bar next to a school then people will not go to the bar and it will go out of business.
No need for a law.
2. Liquor
a. Restaurants and bars should only have to worry about age. No special laws just for restaurants and bars.
b. Intoxicated people - In General it is not the owner of a business should be asked to decide it someone has had too much.
c. Training people - no
3. Inspections - yes for clean kitchen, food prep areas and workers washing hands
4. People with disabilities - Yes but I would give a break to small restaurants.
I do not want the costs to put the business out of business. Zoning law and requirements are different by state or county or even towns. What may be okay in one town may not be the case elsewhere..

Bobcat
07-13-2011, 07:42 PM
1. Restaurants and Bars being held responsible for actions of their customers.
If a person drinks at a bar then gets into an accident should the bar be responsible, no.

2. Fire safety - I think this can be handled by the private insurance industry not the Government.



This is how you home fire safety issue is handled today.

Do you think a restaurant owner should be able not have sprinklers or fire exits if it saves money?

Do you think there's a difference between fire safety in a house and fire safety in a business where there might be hundreds of people?

Bobcat
07-13-2011, 07:44 PM
Zoning law and requirements are different by state or county or even towns. What may be okay in one town may not be the case elsewhere..

Sounds as if genglandoh doesn't think there should be any zoning

genglandoh
07-13-2011, 07:44 PM
Zoning law and requirements are different by state or county or even towns. What may be okay in one town may not be the case elsewhere..

In this thread we are talking about what laws and regulation we should have.
Not what laws we already have.

S.V. Airlie
07-13-2011, 07:49 PM
I am a small Government guy
But that does not mean no Government.

So lets take Restaurants as an example.

What is the min amount of Government Regulations for Restaurants?

Can the Government force Restaurants to serve all people?
(Not talking abut race but other reasons like dress code)

PS I was in a small town during a major snow storm last year and the Restaurant had a paper sign that read "No shirt, No shoes, No Service" just too funny. Geng... This is the first OP.. I responded to this one. If some wanted to deviate from it okay

genglandoh
07-13-2011, 07:51 PM
Do you think a restaurant owner should be able not have sprinklers or fire exits if it saves money?

Do you think there's a difference between fire safety in a house and fire safety in a business where there might be hundreds of people?

I think the fire safety issue can be solved without making a Law.
If people want to go to a Restaurant with fine food they look for a 5 star rating.
If people want to go to a Restaurant with a high level of fire safety they will look for a high insurance fire safety rating.

genglandoh
07-13-2011, 07:54 PM
Sounds as if genglandoh doesn't think there should be any zoning

I do not think we need zoning laws for Restaurants, Offices, Shopping centers, etc.
I do think we need zoning laws for heavy industry like Chemical plants, Power Plants, etc.

Bobcat
07-13-2011, 08:27 PM
I think the fire safety issue can be solved without making a Law.
If people want to go to a Restaurant with fine food they look for a 5 star rating.
If people want to go to a Restaurant with a high level of fire safety they will look for a high insurance fire safety rating.

And how will they know the fire safety rating? Have you ever heard of such a rating?

genglandoh
07-13-2011, 08:27 PM
1. Restaurants and Bars being held responsible for actions of their customers.
If a person drinks at a bar then gets into an accident should the bar be responsible, no.

2. Fire safety - I think this can be handled by the private insurance industry not the Government.
This is how you home fire safety issue is handled today.

I took the dog for a walk and thought a little more about the issue of Restaurants and Bars serving alcohol to people who are drunk.

There should be some kind of law that holds a person responsible for the actions of others who knowingly helped a person get drunk.
I do not know exactly how this would work but it would include individuals who have a party at their homes as well as bars.

Can anyone come up with a good law to cover this?

Bobcat
07-13-2011, 08:35 PM
I took the dog for a walk and thought a little more about the issue of Restaurants and Bars serving alcohol to people who are drunk.

There should be some kind of law that holds a person responsible for the actions of others who knowingly helped a person get drunk.
I do not know exactly how this would work but it would include individuals who have a party at their homes as well as bars.

Can anyone come up with a good law to cover this?

There are already laws that prevent bars from serving people who are obviously impaired. If they serve a drunk and the drunk injuries someone they owe compensation to the injured person. Most states have not extended the same duty to a person having a party in their home.

genglandoh
07-13-2011, 08:47 PM
There are already laws that prevent bars from serving people who are obviously impaired. If they serve a drunk and the drunk injuries someone they owe compensation to the injured person. Most states have not extended the same duty to a person having a party in their home.

Not knowing the details I will assume the existing laws are OK because I have not heard of a lot of problems.
Crap did I really same I am assuming the Government did an OK job in creating these laws.

But because laws are written by politicians I would guess they are overly complicated and would need to be simplified.

Flying Orca
07-13-2011, 09:02 PM
Not only do we have laws against serving people who are obviously impaired, we have mandatory training for anyone serving alcohol. Probably a good thing.

ccmanuals
07-13-2011, 09:05 PM
do you want the gov't inspecting the food that restaurants buy? do you want the gov't regulating food content in terms of how it is marketed, i.e. a restaurant servers you a steak and calls it usda prime but it's really an old billy goat.

Bobcat
07-13-2011, 09:07 PM
Not knowing the details I will assume the existing laws are OK because I have not heard of a lot of problems.
Crap did I really same I am assuming the Government did an OK job in creating these laws.

But because laws are written by politicians I would guess they are overly complicated and would need to be simplified.

Actually the statute itself is pretty clear. Application of it in an injury claim can get messy


Washington's Dram Shop Law:
RCW 66.44.200

Sales to persons apparently under the influence of liquor — Purchases or consumption by persons apparently under the influence of liquor on licensed premises — Penalty — Notice — Separation of actions.


(1) No person shall sell any liquor to any person apparently under the influence of liquor.

(2)(a) No person who is apparently under the influence of liquor may purchase or consume liquor on any premises licensed by the board.

(b) A violation of this subsection is an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars.

(c) A defendant's intoxication may not be used as a defense in an action under this subsection.

genglandoh
07-13-2011, 09:15 PM
The list is getting bigger
Specific laws for Restaurants
1. Government regulation requiring a clean kitchen, food prep areas and workers washing hands.
2. A law saying a Restaurant must serve to all races, religions, sexual orientation etc.
3. Food Quality law.
4. Serving Alcohol customers who are drunk.
I would make this law more general and cover personal parties.
Basically I think what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Other laws not specific to Restaurants but Restaurants would have to comply.
1. Building codes
Fire safety may be part of this.
Handicap access would be part of this.
2. Noise limits
3. Employee labor laws

genglandoh
07-13-2011, 09:17 PM
Actually the statute itself is pretty clear. Application of it in an injury claim can get messy


Washington's Dram Shop Law:
RCW 66.44.200

Sales to persons apparently under the influence of liquor — Purchases or consumption by persons apparently under the influence of liquor on licensed premises — Penalty — Notice — Separation of actions.


(1) No person shall sell any liquor to any person apparently under the influence of liquor.

(2)(a) No person who is apparently under the influence of liquor may purchase or consume liquor on any premises licensed by the board.

(b) A violation of this subsection is an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars.

(c) A defendant's intoxication may not be used as a defense in an action under this subsection.

This is simple and clear, a good law.

genglandoh
07-14-2011, 08:12 AM
The list is getting bigger
Specific laws for Restaurants
1. Government regulation requiring a clean kitchen, food prep areas and workers washing hands.
2. A law saying a Restaurant must serve to all races, religions, sexual orientation etc.
3. Food Quality law.
4. Serving Alcohol customers who are drunk.
I would make this law more general and cover personal parties.
Basically I think what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Other laws not specific to Restaurants but Restaurants would have to comply.
1. Building codes
Fire safety may be part of this.
Handicap access would be part of this.
2. Noise limits
3. Employee labor laws

I started the thread for
1. To show that even a small Government Guy like myself does agree Government should have a role.
2. To show that the Restaurant industry does not need a lot of laws and regulations.

It was also nice that the people who participated on this thread kept an open mind and discussed the topic with respect.

S.V. Airlie
07-14-2011, 08:32 AM
I think the fire safety issue can be solved without making a Law.
If people want to go to a Restaurant with fine food they look for a 5 star rating.
If people want to go to a Restaurant with a high level of fire safety they will look for a high insurance fire safety rating. How many patrons go into a rest. and count the heads of a sprinkler syste. How manyonlygive a casual look at the fire exit signs as they are usually lit. Do we have a waitress stand up every hour and ask for the patrons attendance while she reviews the safety procedures the rest. has enacted in case of fire? I don't think so. People go to a rest. to eat..Period..They expect what fire prevention methods exist and leave and don't worry about it. I think there should be a law. Rest. owners are human, they will cut costs if they can get away with it and pray every day that a fire doesn't break out. Rest. are one of the top ten most competative businesses in a small town. It's easy for them to lose their shirt. It's cut throat.and a few thousand dollars by cutting corners may be the difference of staying viable for another season, many would take a chance.

Bert Langley
07-14-2011, 01:50 PM
The list is getting bigger
Specific laws for Restaurants
1. Government regulation requiring a clean kitchen, food prep areas and workers washing hands.
2. A law saying a Restaurant must serve to all races, religions, sexual orientation etc.
3. Food Quality law.
4. Serving Alcohol customers who are drunk.
I would make this law more general and cover personal parties.
Basically I think what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Other laws not specific to Restaurants but Restaurants would have to comply.
1. Building codes
Fire safety may be part of this.
Handicap access would be part of this.
2. Noise limits
3. Employee labor laws

The interesting part of this discussion is that above there are 4 laws that seem to be reasonable and still not overly burdensome. Now look a little closer:

"Government regulation requiring a clean kitchen, food prep areas and workers washing hands"

seems simple enough, but you have to remember for any regulation to be effective it has to be enforceable. So lets look at "Government regulation requiring a clean kitchen" So how do you define a clean kitchen? Exactly what part of the establishment is the kitchen? Does it include food storage areas? Does the floor have to be clean? Exactly what do you mean by clean? If you can not define what is clean then you can not cite someone for being dirty.

The list goes on and on just for something simple like this. Before you know it the simple law 'Restaurants have to have clean kitchens" is enforced by multiple pages of regulations. Most people do not really realize that the law is not generally the culprit it it the endless pages of regulations it generates that is the killer. This from someone who enforces government regulations for a living.

Back in the 80's the federal government decided that hazardous wastes needed to be regulated more stringently than they were. A federal law was passed that was not too complicated. Then the rule making began. The current definition of hazardous waste runs over 12 pages plus several charts in the Code of Federal Regulations. Missing a preposition in a couple of places can result in a serious misunderstanding with major consequences.

I have been the guy in court having to prove each and every step that lead to a citation. As most of you know 'everbody knows what that means" is not good enough for a judge.

Most people on this board, including myself, are not fond of government laws and regulations. Most people also agree that certain laws like "restaurants should have clean kitchens" make sense. Most people have no idea what can of worms you open up though when you take a simple concept and try to make it a legally enforceable regulation.

Kevin T
07-14-2011, 02:10 PM
What Bert said +1

Laws aren't written to be complicated simply for complications sake, they are written to address and consider "contingencies and variations" as any two situations that may arise are rarely the same.

Statements like: But because laws are written by politicians I would guess they are overly complicated and would need to be simplified. seems overly simplistic, which I can understand the desire to have things very "black and white" the reality is likely in the gray area.

Or as Herman Cain is advocating, should we make all legislation no greater then 3 pages long, or as Jon Stewart recently opined, "perhaps no longer than the average bowel movement" ;)

Flying Orca
07-14-2011, 02:17 PM
One point I might add is that such legislation does not generally arise from the regulation-besotted bosom of a misguided legislator. Rather it is crafted in response to public demand by people who do their best to create laws and regulations that will address the problem comprehensively and effectively. Those who cling to their faith in "small government" often overlook public demand for regulation.

genglandoh
07-14-2011, 02:48 PM
One point I might add is that such legislation does not generally arise from the regulation-besotted bosom of a misguided legislator. Rather it is crafted in response to public demand by people who do their best to create laws and regulations that will address the problem comprehensively and effectively. Those who cling to their faith in "small government" often overlook public demand for regulation.

Yes I completely agree.
Small groups of people are always demanding new laws all the times.
The politicians need to resist the urge to just make a new law because of a small group who is complaining.

BarnacleGrim
07-14-2011, 02:52 PM
I don't condone segregation, but if a restaurant had a sign saying "No Europeans" it probably wouldn't be my kind of place anyway.

Mrleft8
07-14-2011, 02:53 PM
Some of the best food I've ever had at restaurants/taverns/rum shops/bodegas/roadside huts, have come from some of the least attractive looking kitchens.
That said, I prefer not to have flies in the food, or dogs and cats jumping on the tables grabbing food.

Kevin T
07-14-2011, 02:55 PM
Yes I completely agree.
Small groups of people are always demanding new laws all the times.
The politicians need to resist the urge to just make a new law because of a small group who is complaining.

But it is not a small group complaining all the time. Maybe I misunderstood that ideal of "for, of, and by the people"

How about things that are for the collective good? Or better still, what would constitute a group that is not small and should be heard relative to health and safety issues? If 30 people die from e-coli at the hands of a restaurant chain, is that enough, or is that still a small group?

Should we wait till it's a hundred dead, or maybe two hundred. What is the number of dead we should allow before we indicate a willingness to provide regulation? Yes this is a question in the extreme, but what is the number that would not be considered small in your opinion, and who gets to decide that number?

genglandoh
07-14-2011, 02:55 PM
I don't condone segregation, but if a restaurant had a sign saying "No Europeans" it probably wouldn't be my kind of place anyway.

What about No Children?

McDain’s Restaurant and Golf Center in Monroeville, Pennsylvania has a rule we find intriguing: children under the age of 6 are not allowed.

Mike Vuick, the owner of the restaurant, imposed the ban because he found that children were disrupting his other customers’ meals, WSJ

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/07/14/no-kids-allowed-a-restaurant-bans-young-diners/

BarnacleGrim
07-14-2011, 03:10 PM
Iririki Island in Port Vila has a similar policy. Makes sense if your chief client่le is out to conceive children, in peace.

genglandoh
07-14-2011, 03:13 PM
But it is not a small group complaining all the time. Maybe I misunderstood that ideal of "for, of, and by the people"

How about things that are for the collective good? Or better still, what would constitute a group that is not small and should be heard relative to health and safety issues? If 30 people die from e-coli at the hands of a restaurant chain, is that enough, or is that still a small group?

Should we wait till it's a hundred dead, or maybe two hundred. What is the number of dead we should allow before we indicate a willingness to provide regulation? Yes this is a question in the extreme, but what is the number that would not be considered small in your opinion, and who gets to decide that number?

The Government can not make the world completely safe.

In your example above the laws I listed included food quality so hopefully it would cover e-coli. So let's use a different example.

Today over 100 children die each year because of food choking.

So what law should be created to handle this problem?

Kevin T
07-14-2011, 03:16 PM
More attentive parenting, doesn't require a law.

Kevin T
07-14-2011, 03:20 PM
Okay I agree with your premise on the e-coli being covered by rules regulating the cleanliness of the food.

So then tell me what or who is this small group clamoring for onerous regulation that you have come across lately that politicians should resist the urge to make legislation on behalf of?

genglandoh
07-14-2011, 03:22 PM
More attentive parenting, doesn't require a law.

I agree it does not require a law.

But we can see how a small group of parents who have lost kids to food choking could put pressure on their congressman to have a law.
For example they might push to have all Restaurant employees trained in the Heimlich Maneuver.

I think congressmen need to resist these kind of requests for new laws.

genglandoh
07-14-2011, 03:29 PM
Okay I agree with your premise on the e-coli being covered by rules regulating the cleanliness of the food.

So then tell me what or who is this small group clamoring for onerous regulation that you have come across lately that politicians should resist the urge to make legislation on behalf of?

Here is a current example.

The American Academy of Pediatrics.
The nation's largest pediatricians group is calling for sweeping changes in the way food is designed and labeled to minimize children's chances for choking.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35511567/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/t/choking-warning-urged-food-labels/

Kevin T
07-14-2011, 03:38 PM
One would assume that pediatricians might have some knowledge as to what does and does not constitute a danger.

But yes in the main, warning labels can sometimes verge on the ridiculous, but in the same article there was this:

"Grocery Manufacturers Association spokesman Scott Openshaw declined to say whether food makers would consider warning labels or new designs, but said making parents aware of choking dangers is key to keeping kids safe."

Which would lead me to believe that manufacturers would not put up much of a fight on this issue. I mean, is is doubtful that food manufacturers wouldn't want to do everything in their power to keep kids alive so that the parents will buy more of their products.

Business 101, you need live, willing consumers of your product to stay in business.

genglandoh
07-14-2011, 04:03 PM
One would assume that pediatricians might have some knowledge as to what does and does not constitute a danger.

But yes in the main, warning labels can sometimes verge on the ridiculous, but in the same article there was this:

"Grocery Manufacturers Association spokesman Scott Openshaw declined to say whether food makers would consider warning labels or new designs, but said making parents aware of choking dangers is key to keeping kids safe."

Which would lead me to believe that manufacturers would not put up much of a fight on this issue. I mean, is is doubtful that food manufacturers wouldn't want to do everything in their power to keep kids alive so that the parents will buy more of their products.

Business 101, you need live, willing consumers of your product to stay in business.

There are 2 ways to look at this
1. It is not a big deal so why not have warning labels on hot dogs?
2. It is not a big deal so why create a new law putting warning labels in hot dogs?

I would go with #2

If a hot dog manufacture thinks it is an important issue for their customers they will adjust their product to increase sales.

Another question.
Do you think the Government should have some public service announcements about the dangers of children choking on hot dogs?

Kevin T
07-14-2011, 05:33 PM
Point #1 Your right it's no big deal, so why not.
Point #2 I don't always think someone needs do something only when compelled by law.

No PSA necessary, see point about "attentive parenting"

B_B
07-14-2011, 05:41 PM
Here is a current example.

The American Academy of Pediatrics.
The nation's largest pediatricians group is calling for sweeping changes in the way food is designed and labeled to minimize children's chances for choking.
Hot dogs are one of, if not the biggest, dangers of choking in children NOT because of the way they are designed, but because kids eat them at parties, outside, etc. where they are generally running and goofing around.

If you don't want your kid to choke the best thing you can do is make them sit down while they're eating.

There is no warning label for negligent parenting.

Glen Longino
07-14-2011, 06:08 PM
There are 2 ways to look at this
1. It is not a big deal so why not have warning labels on hot dogs?
2. It is not a big deal so why create a new law putting warning labels in hot dogs?

I would go with #2

If a hot dog manufacture thinks it is an important issue for their customers they will adjust their product to increase sales.

Another question.
Do you think the Government should have some public service announcements about the dangers of children choking on hot dogs?

I don't think the Government should make public announcements about kids choking on hot dogs.
Only a hundred kids die of choking on food, while millions of kids are obese and are at risk of dying from some cause less dramatic than choking. It's a crisis that the government has begun to address and should continue to address.

genglandoh
07-14-2011, 06:43 PM
I don't think the Government should make public announcements about kids choking on hot dogs.
Only a hundred kids die of choking on food, while millions of kids are obese and are at risk of dying from some cause less dramatic than choking. It's a crisis that the government has begun to address and should continue to address.

What do you think the Government should do?