Thursday, February 11, 2010

Draw the Line...

State urges food allergy safety in restaurants

Concerned by a rise in food allergies, Massachusetts health authorities plan this summer to start requiring that restaurant staff and their menus address diners’ potential adverse reactions to nuts, dairy products, and other ingredients that can make pulses race and lungs tighten.

Under regulations unveiled yesterday by the state Department of Public Health, thousands of restaurant workers would undergo training and then return to their kitchens, sharing lessons on how to prevent dishes from being contaminated with allergy-inducing ingredients. Every menu in the state would be emblazoned with this admonition: “Before placing your order, please inform your server if a person in your party has a food allergy.’’

Oh hell no.

Look, if you have a food allergy so severe that mere contamination from preparation will pose a life-threatening risk, it is incumbent on YOU to be informed about the culinary practices of any restaurant you visit. If you are so susceptible to allergens and do not perform due dilligence in checking out that your food is not properly prepared to avoid a reaction, then I'm sorry but you've earned the ride in the back of the ambulance.

It is not the responsibility, duty, or business of the state to pass legislation protecting you from being lazy when it comes to saving your own damn life. End of story. This is something that affects the allergy sufferer and the allergy sufferer only - there is simply no reason, compelling or tenuous, for the state to be passing laws that protect those too stupid to protect themselves. This is an extra hoop for the restaurant business to jump through - those placards don't print themselves - for no added benefit to anyone.

Let's also think about this and follow it to its logical conclusion. What happens when someone who has food allergies gets so used to having things spoon-fed to them that they stop paying attention to what they're shoveling down their pieholes? That's right - they fucking die, because eventually not paying attention will be fatal for them. The state is passively trying to kill these people - and while I'm on board with the concept of stupidity and laziness being terminal, I don't think the state should play any sort of role in the process.

Look, Darwin will not be denied. If you have a medical condition that requires vigilance, TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT. Don't sit back on your rapidly expanding ass and expect the state to take care of it for you - to that path lies madness. Are we then going to pass legislation making mandatory visits to diabetics to make sure they're taking their insulin? Prohibit the sale of potato chips to folks with congestive heart failure? Quite simply, once we start letting the state take care of our health issues, there's no looking back.

That camel's nose needs to be whacked with the metaphorical newspaper long before it gets it into the tent...

That is all.

15 comments:

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

A-freakin'-men!

Something else that the .gov doesn't consider - once MA gets people with deadly allergies used to this hand-holding babysitting nonsense, to where they stop paying attention to what's in their food because MA is doing it for them, what happens when they travel to another state that doesn't hold people's hands for them? They die, because they've gotten out of (or never developed) the habit of making sure the food they eat won't kill them before they put it in their mouth.

Even better, what about the parents who don't get in the habit for their children who are too young to do it themselves?

The state needs to stay out of the Darwinism business.

scotaku said...

As a magnificently underemployed agent of the restaurant world, I meet people with food allergies nearly every day. To date, all of them have been diligent, while few have been petulant ("I'm allergic to shellfish but I want the shrimp cocktail - can't you do something...?").

The best was a couple who carried business cards listing their severe allergies. They gave me the card during the greeting, and they made it very clear that they'd stay the hell away from the deadly things, while they politely requested that chef please be diligent during preparation. It worked out beautifully.

The onus is on the allergic person to make it clear. From there, we do our best to be as diligent as we can be.

Bill said...

You said "responsibility" in the same article in which the word "Massachusetts" appeared.

This is known as a contradiction.
It's also a crime here in Mass. known as "attempted self-help."

Please report to your nearest re-education camp.

jimbob86 said...

"That camel's nose needs to be whacked with the metaphorical newspaper long before it gets it into the tent..."

That camel's nose needs to be used as an aiming point of a metaphorical gun that prints 3" high, as the newspaper method would not be very lasting.... camels (and Statist Busybodies) are relentless.


This idea? Kill it, and kill it with fire.

Anonymous said...

I am deathly allergic to mushrooms. I have never even once thought it was the restaurant's job to figure that out without my help.

Mushrooms are everywhere, and a word to the server has been enough for years and years.

I love the anecdote about the shrimp cocktail. Several times what sounded best on the menu was something with shrooms. Most of the time they are happy to make it without, sometimes I am told that they can't make it without because of how the ingredients are packed from their supplier.

So, count me as opposed to this dumb law! I know what I am allergic to and to tell the server on my own.

Jay G said...

So what you're saying is that you're not a fun gi, eh?

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week. Remember to tip your waitress!

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

If I tip the waitress, do I have to help her get back up again?

The Big Guy said...

Lemme ax you a question then...

(And sorry if you feel my view is a bit unPC...but I've watched my father and my father in law succumb to cancers, and the longer it's drawn out by chemo and other efforts, the worse it gets.)

When someone has terminal cancer,
how do you decide how many heroic measures are to be made in prolonging life?

One of our little circle of bloggers referenced a story of an under-insured woman who had developed breast cancer, let diagnosis go too long and it metastasized into bone, liver and other cancers, whereupon she was unable to get sufficient treatment to save her life.
The Left finds that she is more profitable in death as she was in life, since she can be held up as an example of how high-deductible insurance plans cause people to put off needed checkups and doctor visits...
My point is Darwinian selection-
If you get cancer, isn't it an indicator from Gaia that your time is up? Isn't that one of the tenets of the Left- Let nature take it's course, do what Mother Earth says is right?

It's the same with drastic food allergies. Isn't it a note from mother earth to slow the f-ck down?

Will they make up their freakin' minds already?

Besides...
If we save EVERYBODY that ever gets sick, eventually none of us will have a place to park.

TBG

Jay G said...

Soda... nose... OUCH...

Sigboy said...

Do I really want to get in on this? My wife is one of those allergy types, we feel that it is our problem, not the governments.
http://thesigboychronicles.blogspot.com/2010/02/ma-vs-ca-round-1.html

PeterT said...

scotaku, I hear that crap all the time... I'm allergic to A when there is no A in the product... for instance, Shrimp /= shellfish. Shrimp=crustaceon (or however it's spelled) If you're allergic to clams (shellfish or bi-valve) don't eat them..

Anonymous said...

Your fucking state gets dumber every day. How can you stand to live there? I have a hunch you would move if you could.

See Ya

Anonymous said...

Got to love Nanny states. How have you possibly made it alive this long without them?

Anonymous said...

Also, there are lots of people out there who think they are "allergic" to anything that doesn't agree with them.

Anonymous said...

The key word here that everybody is missing is "lawsuit".