Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New Law Protects Customers from Murderous Restaurateurs, Peanuts
A new
Massachusetts law sponsored by the marvelously named state Sen.
Cynthia Stone Creem (D-Middlesex and Norfolk) aims to protect food
allergy sufferers from the scourge of restaurants keen to kill
their customers, and restaurants from the scourge of allergic
customers keen to kill themselves.
In addition to basic awareness-raising poster and video mandates, the law contains this forehead-slappingly stupid requirement:
Every person licensed as an innholder or common victualer, when serving food, shall...include on all menus a notice to customers of the customer’s obligation to inform the server about any food allergies.
That's right: The law requires restaurants to use their menus to remind people whose throats will close up upon encountering a peanut to ask if there's any peanuts in their food. Really? We needed Sen. Stone Creem to make that conversation happen?
The law graciously allows restaurants until January 1, 2010, to add the warning sentence to their menus. Meanwhile, allergy sufferers will likely be dying in droves, without that vital reminder to ask if the food they're about to eat will kill them.
There's also a voluntary program where restaurants can create a book with all the ingredients they use in every dish and thus be certified "Food Allergy Friendly." Hilarious syntax aside—are the restaurants pro-allergy?—this program is a classic example of legislation that need not be. If restaurants want to make their ingredients list available and advertise that to allergy sufferers, more power to them. In fact, Chef Ming Tsai of Blue Ginger, who has been pushing this legislation for years, already does this at his restaurant.
***
My former boss and New York Times science columnist John Tierney likes to tell this tale of pro-regulation bias in the media:
I once sat in on a newspaper story conference the day after an armored-car company was robbed of millions of dollars bound for banks. The first idea that came up for a follow-up story was: Does this robbery show the need for stricter regulation of armored-car companies?
We kicked this idea around until I suggested that companies in the business of transporting cash already had a fairly strong incentive not to lose it—presumably an even stronger incentive than any government official regulating their security arrangements. That story idea died, but not the mind-set that produced it.
This goes double for legislators.
Via Mike Riggs
|2.19.09 @ 3:00PM|#
Thread Jack :
The
Chicago Sun Times is reporting that Illinois might put forth
bill in the General Assembly to allow Concealed Carry Weapons
permits
|2.19.09 @ 3:05PM|#
Chef Ming Tsai of Blue Ginger, who has been pushing this
legislation for years
Fuck. One of my favorite chefs is a moron and a statist.
Great.
The Extispicator|2.19.09 @ 3:06PM|#
This reminds me of a story one of my professors told in my legal
ethics class in law school. A story had been in the news about a
lawyer that stole a bunch of money from his clients' trust
accounts. The professor said he was at a conference of some sort
discussing the case with a group of colleagues when a judge asked
him, "Is there more we could be doing at the law school level to
prevent things like this?"
The professor replied, "You mean telling law students that it's
still wrong to steal even after they pass the bar?"
|2.19.09 @ 3:08PM|#
Peanut allergy is interesting. It doesn't seem to occur very often in places like India or China. But it seems to be rampant in the last 20 years among the children of a certain class of well off Americans. Are upper class yuppies just different genetically than everyone else in the world?
MNG|2.19.09 @ 3:17PM|#
"Meanwhile, allergy sufferers will likely be dying in droves,
without that vital reminder to ask if the food they're about to eat
will kill them."
This is one of those "uncommonly silly" laws, but the premise upon
which KMW rests is often just as uncommonly silly. Many
libertarians say "well of course we can trust that company x will
never harm its customers because then 1. the customer will die and
can' buy more stuff 2. the customer will be upset and never shop
there again and spread that word to his friends and neighbors or 3.
the bad press over harming a customer will cause boycotts and
such."
And while there is something to that, it's uncommonly silly too. I
mean, according to that logic a company would never, ever put out
peanut butter that would harm its customers, right?
The thing is, people are fairly irrational, and its amazing how
irrational they can be when they think they can make a few bucks.
You simply can't count on the constant rationality of producers and
consumers, because it's just not there...
phalkor|2.19.09 @ 3:19PM|#
Why do Democrats insist that they can save people from their own
stupidty? If they had their way we wouldn't have Darwin
Awards.
John, I heard about a study regarding allergies and yuppies (no
linky) and there seemed to be two things to take away. Yuppies and
especially their children have a greater number of reported
allergies. The cause is either growing up in environments that are
too sterile to develop any resistances and worry-wart parents
ushering in an ever-growing nanny state.
Fuck'em, my parents let me eat dirt. Sure, it was gross, but how
else do you learn?
New World Dan|2.19.09 @ 3:20PM|#
Chef Ming Tsai of Blue Ginger, who has been pushing this
legislation for years
Fuck. One of my favorite chefs is a moron and a statist.
Great.
It could be, given that he has been known to cook with peanuts and
shellfish, that he is looking for a more formal liability shield.
He may also just really care about people with food allergies. The
legislation also includes sections on creating "allergy friendly"
resturaunts, which could be of interest to him. I suspect the
labeling is a small part of it for Mr. Tsai.
Also, he cooks on PBS. What do you expect?
MNG|2.19.09 @ 3:25PM|#
Or here is an interesting way to think about this kind of thing.
What about a law that requires the seller to make known the
ingredients, maybe just upon request, prior to allowing sale?
I can almost see the response: "well if a person wants to buy stuff
from a company that won't tell him the ingredients then it should
be free to do that." Reasonable. But that "freedom" easily becomes
something else: since the eateries don't have to supply many will
not because the marginal benefit of making those who ask for it
happy may not be greater than the cost of supplying the
information, and then it becomes not just the freedom but the
common practice of most eateries to just say "tough it we don't do
that here" and the customer faces the regular weighing of going
along and taking a risk (mind you I don't just mean deathly risks
of course, but a whole continuum) so that he/she can eat with
friends and co-workers or restricting themselves to a small group
of catering establishments.
And passing such a law would really only mean that people have to
honestly represent their wares, something that would provide
greater assurance that following transactions were voluntary to the
fullest extent...It's just no big deal imo...
MNG|2.19.09 @ 3:26PM|#
"Why do Democrats insist that they can save people from their
own stupidty?"
We care about people. I mean, when you do care about someone you
often feel a very strong desire to not see them suffer, even if
said suffering is "because of their own stupidity."
Really. Lots of humans feel this way dude.
MNG|2.19.09 @ 3:29PM|#
"Fuck'em, my parents let me eat dirt. Sure, it was gross, but
how else do you learn?
"
But they didn't let you drink anti-freeze I bet...I mean, why
didn't they? How are you ever going to learn that's its bad for
you...
Maybe thats a good analogy. The Democrat wants to stop kids from
drinking anti-freeze, even though their stupidity is what makes
them want to do it. The libertarian says "oh so you still disagree
with my reasoned lecture on why drinking anti-freeze is bad, eh
son, then go ahead, drink up, it's the only way you'll ever learn
son..."
¢|2.19.09 @ 3:38PM|#
One of my favorite chefs is a moron and a statist.
Great.
Of psychological interest: The highlighted section of his law
demands notice of the customer's obligation to inform the
restaurant how dysgenic he is, not notice for customers of
what's in the food, so they can decide what they should be
eating.
Chefing is a cultish, bodies-as-cogs, the-weak-will-be-broken kind
of occupation. Put that kind of mind to politics, and...yeah. Scary
nanny.
|2.19.09 @ 3:40PM|#
Common intertubes figure is 50 to 200 fatalities per year from
anaphylaxis with up to 90% food related (no way). Let's assume 20%
of these deaths are exposures in restaurants (also, no way).
MA is 2% of US total population, so using all conservative
factors:
200 x 0.9 X 0.2 x 0.02 = 0.72 lives saved per year.
My god, how could we have overlooked this? It scandalous.
|2.19.09 @ 3:40PM|#
Also, he cooks on PBS. What do you expect?
Well he used to cook on the Food Network!
|2.19.09 @ 3:42PM|#
But they didn't let you drink anti-freeze I
bet...
I drank a lot of Mountain Dew. That's almost the same, right? Just
look at me!
CAIR Bear|2.19.09 @ 3:47PM|#
The solution is to keep mum about peanut content. That way all of the peanut allergy folks will die off. It isn't Darwin's 200th birthday for nothinn'.
Obamatarian|2.19.09 @ 3:54PM|#
What MNG said.
I do fear requiring restaurants to notify patrons to ask servers if
there are any high risk ingredients used in food preparation will
some how "let them off the hook" legally when the inevitable
tragedy of anaphylaxis occurs.
MNG|2.19.09 @ 3:55PM|#
"That's almost the same, right?"
It's close. My car can run on it for a couple of days so there's
that...
BTW Epi, thanks a lot [sarcasm] for posting the link on the Shatner
Esperanto. The wiki on that was so freaky that now I gotta see
it.
I mean, this alone sealed that deal:
"Outraged by this, her sister Amael (Eloise Hardt) summons their
leader, a devilish incubus (Milos), who attempts to kill Marc and
rapes the soldier's sister Arndis (Atmar)."
Zeb|2.19.09 @ 3:59PM|#
People with food allergies piss me off. I know it's mean and irrational, but they just do. Especially this peanut allergy crap that is so popular these days.
|2.19.09 @ 4:01PM|#
I drank a lot of Mountain Dew. That's almost the same,
right? Just look at me!
Are you planning on trying the new
MD Throwback that uses real sugar rather than HFCS ?
|2.19.09 @ 4:01PM|#
You mean telling law students that it's still wrong to steal
even after they pass the bar?
It is? Nobody told me!
It could be, given that he has been known to cook with peanuts
and shellfish, that he is looking for a more formal liability
shield.
What this law really seems to do is promote individual
responsibility, by, potentially, creating a bar to suing a
restaurant if you neglected to tell them about your special
condition. The sad thing is that, in this day and age, it takes a
statute to accomplish this.
He may also just really care about people with food
allergies.
Apparently not, if he cooks with shellfish and peanuts.
robc|2.19.09 @ 4:02PM|#
MNG,
Maybe thats a good analogy.
The problem is that
Parent:Child::Government:Consumer
is a fucking poor analogy.
|2.19.09 @ 4:03PM|#
The libertarian says "oh so you still disagree with my
reasoned lecture on why drinking anti-freeze is bad, eh son, then
go ahead, drink up, it's the only way you'll ever learn
son..."
Maybe, but they may also say "How far do you intend to go to stop
the few people who want to drink anti-freeze despite the warnings
of their parents and the prominently displayed Mr. Yuk sticker?".
Zeb|2.19.09 @ 4:03PM|#
"I do fear requiring restaurants to notify patrons to ask
servers if there are any high risk ingredients used in food
preparation will some how "let them off the hook" legally when the
inevitable tragedy of anaphylaxis occurs."
Why should they be on the hook in the first place? Unless they are
asked and give false information, I don't see how the restaurant
could be liable for someone eating something they know could kill
them.
|2.19.09 @ 4:03PM|#
BTW Epi, thanks a lot [sarcasm] for posting the link on the
Shatner Esperanto. The wiki on that was so freaky that now I gotta
see it.
It's actually not bad. The cinematography is gorgeous.
|2.19.09 @ 4:04PM|#
The professor replied, "You mean telling law students that it's still wrong to steal even after they pass the bar?"
That wouldn't have stopped Frank Abignale from pretending not to
steal. We need to law outlawing pretending to steal! Only then will
attorneys' clients be safe.
|2.19.09 @ 4:12PM|#
Are you planning on trying the new MD Throwback that uses
real sugar rather than HFCS ?
Whoa.
No, I won't be trying it. I'm past the MD and on to energy drinks
now. I need my Taurine, damn it!
What is Taurine?
robc|2.19.09 @ 4:16PM|#
Taurine, or 2-aminoethanesulfonic acid, is an organic acid. It is also a major constituent of bile
|2.19.09 @ 4:18PM|#
It was a joke, rob. I know what Taurine is. I was mocking people who drink things that say stuff like "with extra Taurine!!!" without even knowing what it is.
|2.19.09 @ 4:19PM|#
On top of the low societal risk for this issue, advisory labeling is only protective for people who KNOW they're allergic. I'd be willing to bet most anaphylaxis fatalities are people who didn't.
Christopher Monnier|2.19.09 @ 4:28PM|#
I have a food allergy (nothing as serious as a peanut allergy),
and I always read ingredients on product labels in stores. I'm sure
many people do, especially those with allergies. I don't see why
it's not reasonable to apply the same type of thing to restaurants.
Right now, patrons have to ask the waiter (or cashier in the case
of fast food) whether the food they want to order contains certain
ingredients. Not only does this waste the waiter's time, but it
also increases the probability that the information obtained will
be erroneous.
Now, all that being said, it should be in any restaurant's best
interest to always disclose ingredients, if for no other reason
than to avoid lawsuits. But having a law that requires it doesn't
really seem like that big of a deal to me.
|2.19.09 @ 4:37PM|#
I don't see how the restaurant could be liable for someone
eating something they know could kill them.
[Shakes head sadly.] New here, huh, kid? This is a society where
someone so drunk that they fall onto a subway track and pass out
can collect a $2.3MM check when they get hit by the train.
You see, its never the idiot's
victim's fault. Why didn't the restaurant ask? Why
didn't the restaurant disclose all their ingredients? Why expect
this person to look after their own best interest, when there will
always be somebody around we can send the bill to?
robc|2.19.09 @ 4:40PM|#
Actual conversation from 2003 in a bar in the Bahamas:
Me: Does your drink special have coconut in it?
Waitress: We cant tell you what is in it.
Me: I just want to know if it is made from coconut rum or
not.
Waitress: If we give out the ingredients, people will make it at
home.
Me: Well, Im about to order one and I would like to know if Im
going to be throwing up all over your restaurant or not, since Im
allergic to coconut.
Waitress: Oh...uh...welll...yeah, it has coconut rum.
Me: I will have a [something non-deadly] then.
No need for government involvment at all.
phalkor|2.19.09 @ 4:54PM|#
I'm sorry I missed MNG here, but you (and robc) did point out something very important. The government is not and should not be your mommy and daddy. Appeals to sympathy don't change that statement. I guess this is the ideological line in the sand.
|2.19.09 @ 5:02PM|#
But what else will lawmakers do if they don't pass laws that save our children from peanuts?!
|2.19.09 @ 5:14PM|#
But what else will lawmakers do if they don't pass laws that
save our children from peanuts?!
Pass laws that save our children from economic prosperity and
freedom.
Naga Sadow|2.19.09 @ 5:14PM|#
MNG,
I work in a restaurant. EVERYONE already lets me know they have a
peanut or shellfish allergy. Fuck you! I'm not going to be held
liable just because someone was to stupid to let me know ahead of
time. I feel for that person, but I'm not going to go down just
because that person is stupid.
|2.19.09 @ 5:33PM|#
An interesting article explains how food allergy
fatality stats commonly cited in the media are like the Super Bowl
wife beating stats.
A call to the CDC press office revealed that the number of deaths from food allergies, as collected from 2.5 million death certificates across the country, is miniscule. Only eleven people died from food allergies in 2005, the last year for which we have data available. More people died from lawnmower accidents.
And avalanches.
What we have here is stupid law promoted by stupid people for
stupid reasons based on bullshit numbers.
But hey, their intentions are good.
Paul|2.19.09 @ 5:46PM|#
But they didn't let you drink anti-freeze I bet...I mean,
why didn't they? How are you ever going to learn that's its bad for
you...
MNG, were you in a state-run orphanage as a kid? My dad taught me
this stuff. My guess is the government and its agents actually
taught you this stuff? When looking at your comments through that
lens, I begin to see your point.
Kreel Sarloo|2.19.09 @ 5:49PM|#
God a'mighty, MNG is really angling to take joe's Hit and Run's
Most Self Righteous Busy Body crown, isn't he?
Do you think we should vote on it?
wage slave|2.19.09 @ 5:52PM|#
With a name like Cynthia Stone Creem she is either going to be a
porn star or food activist. Or both (coming soon, Kelly Brownell
jelly-wrestling Marion Nestle - "I've just come to control your
portions ma'am" "What a large nanny state you've got there" etc
etc).
Anyway, this is back at MNG: my brother has a severe peanut allergy
(the slightest exposure leads to Epipens, ambulances, and the
sinking feeling that Death has your faltering heart in his icy
grip). In my experience, he is very active when it comes
to checking ingredients, and all without the government prompting
him. Astonishing, I know.
Unfortunately, even when the severity of the allergy is spelled out
to wait staff, we still get food with nut shavings sprinkled on
top, peanut oil used to seal flaps etc. So now he mostly goes to
McDonalds as its food is clearly labelled on its website. Thank God
for highly processed food. Is this the free market at work or
something?
Jeff P|2.19.09 @ 5:56PM|#
How 'bout a law that restaurants can't have 70s hits blasting above conversational levels.
Paul|2.19.09 @ 5:56PM|#
J sub... be careful on CDC statistics. It's the shortest path to
pissing off the let's-regulate-it alarmists. Shortest. Fucking.
Path.
I used to use this
cdc tool to successfully shut down every "omg, teh guns are killing
children" argument I ever got hit with.
ev|2.19.09 @ 5:59PM|#
I also have to comment on the 'rampant' nature of these
allergies these days. Peanut allergies seem new, and this whole
gluten-free thing also. I worked with a girl who couldn't have
gluten. Gluten is in like everything. The food she had to eat was
more like that prison-brick food.
Did these people just die if they were born 100 years ago? And
that's why we never heard of it? That makes sense to me
biologically but it seems as if this fad (or...whatever)has been
accelerating with remarkable speed.
MNG-
"Why do Democrats insist that they can save people from their own
stupidty?"
We care about people. I mean, when you do care about someone you
often feel a very strong desire to not see them suffer, even if
said suffering is "because of their own stupidity."
Really. Lots of humans feel this way dude.
I've discovered that I really don't care for the folk. They just
irritate me. Most people can go fuck themselves.
|2.19.09 @ 6:14PM|#
J sub... be careful on CDC statistics. It's the shortest
path to pissing off the let's-regulate-it alarmists. Shortest.
Fucking. Path.
The weird thing about the CDC is that if lawmakers and journalists
actually used the data collected in decision making and op-ed
pieces, instead of lazily quoting some bullshit number a rent
seeking teat sucker handed them, a libertarian could almost justify
continuing its federally funded existence.
But they don't.
Gregor|2.19.09 @ 6:32PM|#
As the world falls apart, REASON forges ahead through the
various arcane worlds of drug laws and food regulation. As I said
starting 6 weeks ago, your publication has completely ceded the
intellectual battle over a debt deflation to others. Even your on
topic articles are just rehash jobs, of the ideas of others.
Take another hit off yer bong.
Fluffy|2.19.09 @ 7:45PM|#
Here's my prediction:
This law will turn into a law requiring all restaurants to identify
all the ingredients in items on their menus, as well as preparation
methods.
MNG will say this is reasonable, since the rest of us are only
experiencing a minor cost in order to provide information of very
high value to a small number of people.
That law will then turn into a law banning the use of certain
ingredients [first peanuts, then other things] in order to "protect
consumers" and "protect workers" from the chance they might
accidentally come into contact with a molecule of peanut. Because
after all, the rest of us should change our lives to accomodate
genetic defectives.
MNG will tell us this is reasonable, because the rest of us
encounter only a modest restriction on our liberty ["It's not that
many ingredients!"] while a small number of people gain an increase
in safety.
Personally, I think it's a GOOD thing that the market does not
always accomodate niche interests by imposing costs on everyone.
Niche interests should bear their own costs. If we start playing,
"Can't we inconvenience / limit / extort the majority, if it's in a
small way, if it has a great benefit to this small group of
unfortunates?" you basically turn one of the strengths of the
market completely on its head.
economist|2.19.09 @ 9:25PM|#
"The libertarian says 'oh so you still disagree with my reasoned
lecture on why drinking anti-freeze is bad, eh son, then go ahead,
drink up, it's the only way you'll ever learn son...'"
No, most libertarians assume that children, not being the same as
adults, need guidance and restraint at times. They just object to
treating adults as children. And if an adult decides he wants to
drink antifreeze, go right ahead. They just shouldn't come crying
to me when it makes them go blind.
|2.20.09 @ 4:55AM|#
I have a shellfish allergy. It's so bad I can't even eat in a
restaurant that serves a lot of crab because it's in the air from
people cracking legs open. You know who's to blame the three or
four times a year that I get a dose of shellfish and get sick? Me.
And only me.
The urge to treat adults like children is the last form of
authoritarianism that will die out.
|2.20.09 @ 10:31AM|#
The joke isn't just that her name is Cynthia Stone Creem. Its that she represents Middlesex and Norfolk (correctly pronounced).
|2.20.09 @ 10:44AM|#
"Upper Class Yuppies" tend to be well educated and obtain better
medical care when their child's throat swells, they turn blue and
are struggling to breathe. They also tend to be able to have
insurance and/or AFFORD Epipens which can cost $100-300 if you are
uninsured.
In the inner city, there are other worries, and a food allergy is
less likely to be accurately diagnosed. Also, the level of
vaccination is not the same in India or China, and the immune
systems are subject to many more types of disease.
Your article is obnoxious. Oh, but you knew that. Stop picking on
small children who have a serious medical condition and find
another topic.
economist|2.20.09 @ 12:18PM|#
"I have a shellfish allergy."
You have my deepest sympathies. I can't imagine a life without
shrimp, scallops and crawfish.
James C.|2.20.09 @ 3:30PM|#
ABC News had a special last week about hillbillies who are addicted to Mountain Dew (among other substances). They don't have a clue that they're ruining their health and their children's health. They put Mountain Dew in baby bottles and they're toothless in their 20s. Sometimes the law does need to step in to protect people from the mass advertising budgets that convince people that they need junk food.
economist|2.22.09 @ 12:34PM|#
James C.,
That's an example of stupid/lazy parenting. I don't remember any
Mountain Dew commercials saying, "This is a great substitute for
Baby Formula".
Btw, "mountain dew" used to be slang for moonshine. So, naturally,
my first thought was "No shit, I'm surprised they aren't dead."
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245