Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Instead of clinging to an ideology that dictates nothing the government does is necessary, like food regulations, why not just be open to the idea that there are indeed areas that government regulations helps people's lives?
It's should be a no-brainer that having the government license food producers to assure that their products are safe to eat is a good thing that most people would agree is a good thing.
I think that it's silly to assume that regulating food safety is a bad thing and the reasonable alternative is to stop eating unregulated foods. That's a step backwards.
Like I said: if it doesn't have the gubmint stamp of approval, get out of line and let us enjoy it.
People are going to get their healthier fare whether government tries to get in the way or not.
It's just a good thing that corporations can absorb these costs and the crunchy granola progressive small business owners cannot. Oh, and I do recall the history books illustrating the dying folks on the street from bad strawberries before these regulations began. Oh wait...
Perhaps instead of just shutting her down, maybe she could create a disclaimer on her merchandise that her strawberries don't have the gubmint seal of approval, and let people judge for themselves on whether they want to take a risk.
Unintended consequences, how do they work?
^^Excellent post and it strikes to the heart of the matter.
WE DON'T WANT PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. So we create a nerf-society of massive and costly regulation.
Oh, and warning lables don't do CRAP anymore because regardless of actual law it's not hard to get a jury out to give money to someone regardless of their actions to "teach a lesson" laws be damned.
This is why you have labels on hairdryers saying things like "Do not use in shower" and so on and so forth.
Hey guys - for those of you who are focusing this on Chicago, please give me a break, ok? I read the entire article that OP posted, and while the lead story was about a small entrepeneur who is getting it stuck to her by the cities Dept of Health, the article goes on to cite examples of this same type of thing going on nationwide.
This thread is in P&OC - not Chicago, and the article puts the outrage in the context of a national trend, so maybe you can see why it may not be obvious that this is supposed to be a Chicago topic.
Probably because it's a complex topic often extremely impacted by the state specific laws governing vastly different facets. ie) not pasturizing your product for public sale somewhere like whole foods is a completely different issue from say....raw-foods co-ops.
It's like marijuana....very very different ENFORCEMENT by state even if the laws on the books are the same.
Oh Poo! There ya go using reading comprehension and an intellectual thought process to ruin a perfectly good slander and B.S. ***** party rant. They were just starting to get worked up into a lather, frothing at the mouth, and you hosed 'em off.
Lucky for you and the interested watchers, they'll just ignore you like the lemmings they are and start agitating and working themselves up again in a matter of minutes.
Did you see anything in the tech's words or the original story that indicated the Nice Cream had been tested for bacterial level? I failed and still wonder why that wasn't part of the order to shut down. Is it not possible that the test was done and when nothing was found they went ahead on the other trumped up charges.
Instead of clinging to an ideology that dictates nothing the government does is necessary, like food regulations, why not just be open to the idea that there are indeed areas that government regulations helps people's lives? (I know the answer. It would undermine your believe in this outdated ideology.)
It's should be a no-brainer that having the government license food producers to assure that their products are safe to eat is a good thing that most people would agree is a good thing.
I think that it's silly to assume that regulating food safety is a bad thing and the reasonable alternative is to stop eating unregulated foods. That's a step backwards.
Have you found the place in the links where the city people indicated they had tested Nice Cream to see if it was filled with the bacteria you and they talked about? I keep looking and can't find the words that say that. Do you suppose that they were just trying to drive her out of business with their regulations? I see a lot of the same kind of thing coming from other government agencies operating under bureaucratic created regulations that are aimed at something other than public health.
Have you found the place in the links where the city people indicated they had tested Nice Cream to see if it was filled with the bacteria you and they talked about? I keep looking and can't find the words that say that. Do you suppose that they were just trying to drive her out of business with their regulations? I see a lot of the same kind of thing coming from other government agencies operating under bureaucratic created regulations that are aimed at something other than public health.
In my experience most laws are there with the intention of being for the public good. However one poster noted unintended consequences and I have noted that selective of abusive use of otherwise reasonable laws is more easy to do than to create new laws.
Someone once told me they worked at a southern newspaper and wrote an article about waste in the sheriffs dept. After that they were often followed until exceeding the speed limit by 1mph....for which they were pulled over, cuffed etc etc et.
Did you see anything in the tech's words or the original story that indicated the Nice Cream had been tested for bacterial level? I failed and still wonder why that wasn't part of the order to shut down. Is it not possible that the test was done and when nothing was found they went ahead on the other trumped up charges.
You guys are really on a run at this point.
As pointed out by tech, read the link. Within the link it uncovers more of the story:
She says that a couple of weeks ago a representative from the Illinois Department of Public Health came to Logan Square Kitchen and informed her she’d have to shut down if she did not get something called "a dairy license."
Quote:
To get this license Swanberg wrote, in an email, she would have to:
"Work out of our own space. Currently we work out of the Logan Square Kitchen."
"Have our product tested once a month for bacterial levels."
"Change all of our packaging and labels to meet state standards."
"Purchase a pasteurizer, which from what the state tells me will be about $40,000 or use a pre-made ice cream mix."
Swanberg says that the IDPH officer who visited told her that her ice cream probably wouldn’t pass the bacteria tests if she continued to use fresh strawberries. Instead the officer suggested she use "strawberry syrup," Swanberg said.
More over-reaction and hyperbole by those who fit into the reckless hysteria mold. Yes...pun intended.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
