California Law Forces Chefs and Bartenders to Wear Gloves
"This law, which seems to be really focused on the Subways and Chipotles of the market, now affects your most well-trained and experienced chefs who have mastered their craft and have never had any issue," says Jordan Bernstein, a Los Angeles'"based attorney at Michelman and Robinson who represents some of California's top chefs and eateries. "They've been using their hands for 30 years and now this really throws them for a loop."
At a time when California is considering a statewide ban on plastic shopping bags, the legislature unanimously approved a measure that would force fine dining chefs and bartenders to wear plastic gloves when handling a variety of food items.
Recent changes to the California Food Retail Code meant to promote food safety have created a backlash in the restaurant industry. Signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown last year, the modifications ban any bare-handed contact with ready-to-eat foods. This means that all chefs and bartenders must now wear single-use plastic gloves when handling food such as steak, sushi, bread, fruit, and even the lemon garnish on your tasty cocktail.
And because California is considered to be one of the pioneers of food safety laws, changes made in the state could eventually spread nationwide.
"There's a possibility that wearing the gloves won't have the intended affect because there's a possibility that people will use it as a false sense of security'"that their hands are clean and they won't actually wash their hands," Bernstein continues. "I don't know why this notion of not washing hands was not good enough. You could have just as much contamination with gloves."
Not only are there concerns about the effectiveness of the law, but the blanket rule changes also have unintended consequences on sushi chefs and bartenders.
"The big issue is the sushi chef," states Bernstein. "You've never seen a sushi chef wear gloves when preparing your rolls or pieces. So that's an unintended consequence." Bernstein also points out that the cost of stocking kitchens with high volumes of disposable gloves could also negatively impact a restaurant's bottom line.
Though the state has said that certain chefs and establishments can apply for an exemption from the law, it hasn't defined how an exemption can be obtained'"nor has it stated how it plans to enforce the law when it fully goes into effect later this year.
Bartenders have taken a grassroots approach to fight the law and launched a petition on Change.org to get an exemption from the statute. The petition has received over 11,000 signatures in just a few weeks. Angelica Pappas, spokesperson for the California Restaurant Association, says the trade group is also working with the state health committee to make improvements to the law. Maybe they can convince Sacramento bureaucrats that having a cookie cutter approach to food safety has no place in any kitchen.
Approximately 5:30 minutes.
Produced by Alexis Garcia. Camera by Tracy Oppenheimer, Paul Detrick, William Neff, Sharif Matar, Gabrielle Cole, and Alex Manning.
Scroll down for downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for daily content like this.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
You know who else liked to wear gloves while working?
Warty.
No fingerprints that way.
*snaps glove*
Try to relax.
How do you put gloves on tentacles?
How do you keep a wave upon the sand?
How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?
How do you catch a cloud and pin it down?
Well hellooooooooo, Alexis.
Anywho, does this mean employees no longer have to wash their hands after shaking the dew off the lily?
Now Shreek was on here last night telling everyone that that women from X who is leaving California is just bitter old woman with MA. Saying California is anything but the land of freedom is totally just a rightwing meme.
Shreek is a fucking idiot. But you knew this already.
That is an insult to idiots. He is a deranged retard.
That was grade A butthurt. I felt sorry for the guy to have to experience his Manichean world view becoming undone.
Health codes are just an excuse to push people around. I remember one time as a cook I got dinged for drinking out of a cup of water that I held with my hands. I was supposed to have a covered cup with a straw, and bob like a bird when I drank. Presumably for the amusement of the health inspector (Ha ha I can make cooks bob like birds ha ha!).
You know it's true.
I don't know about that. I think she was a member of militia etheridge.
What you you think bossing guys around and making them look like idiots doesn't turn on radfem lesbians?
Because they are lesbians.
What's the deal with the California government forcing people to wrap things? First condoms, now gloves, what's next?
Next all restaurants will be Taco Bell.
You mean Salad Works.
No. He means Taco Bell. Don't ask anyone to pass the salt.
He doesn't know how to use the three seashells.
*snicker*
I would have at least tried the virtual sex. Who knows, it could be fun.
OT This is awesome!
Tom Perkins' big idea: The rich should get more votes
An oldie but a goody.
Where is "One man person adult competent non-felon adult, one vote" etched in stone?
You never go full Heinlein.
Well, it is more in line with the Founders who believed you had to be a land owner to vote, so that you had skin in the game, so to speak. I would be on board with net tax payers having the vote, and net tax recipients not having the vote.
Aye, but there's the rub! Early in the Republic, over Jefferson's attempts to prevent it, they decided to continue the British Crown's policy of not recognizing allodial title in the American colonies. (Reason is not allowing me to link to Jefferson's essay, but do a search on "A Summary View of the Rights of British America" and skip to the third paragraph from the end.) Therefore, all land in the United States is held in fee simple. This means that the ultimate owner of all land in the United States is the Federal government. This is the common law justification for both property tax and eminent domain. Therefore, no individual actually "owns" land in the United States, and thus, the argument could be made that no one would be eligible for a vote.
Quite a racket, eh?
I did not know that - thanks HM, that is really interesting!
what the hell are you talking about? Nothing you said about fee simple is accurate. Land taxation isn't justified by our land not being alloidial title; you're spouting conspiracy theory type douchebag ideas about laws. The alloidal title claims are nonsense; if they still recognized allodial title, they would just tax that, too.
Fee simple most certainly is a kind of ownership. Just because it can be and is subject to eminent domain, doesn't mean it isn't. Just because something doesn't fit your aspberger extremist dichotomy view of all - or - nothing on property rights doesn't mean you "don't own it"
So you want the IRS to decide who gets to vote, or not ?
They have their hands full managing our access to healthcare.
I would happily trade my vote for a few hundred dollars knocked off my monthly rent now that I don't have to pay property taxes. Hell, I don't vote anyway.
Works for me. If you don't pay the freight, how do you justify having a say?
Because laws and other actions of the government affect everyone, not just rich people. That's why the Constitution starts with "We the People," not "We Your Economic Betters."
This. It's not like all the government does is set tax policy and spend money on welfare. There are a lot of areas of government where poor people are more adversely affected than rich people, making taxes the end-all-be-all is asinine. IMO, it wouldn't even help the budget situation all that much, at the expense of social unrest, exasperation of class division, and possible worsening of liberty in other areas. It's not hard to think of examples of societies that would have been far more free if people who didn't own land or pay taxes had the right to vote. Furthermore, what's the minimum? $1 paid in taxes? Do you net out government benefits? Who is going to enforce this system and how are they going to do it? I don't think the people proposing this have really thought it through.
Me thinks you missed the point.
I don't see how he missed the point. John asked a question, Square gave a relevant response.
The point is the hypocrisy.
Many that would oppose such a notion have no problem with the appropriateness of stealing from the wealthy to obtain their free shit.
I think both are equally morally reprehensible. And I believe that was the point of Mr Perkins.
That's a straw man you're arguing with, not me.
How is it a straw man?
Nobody brought up welfare. John asked whether anyone could justify having a vote if they didn't pay taxes. I offered such justification. My justification referred to free services paid for by rich people in no way.
I'm pretty sure that neither John or Mr Perkins actually believe the rich should actually get more than one vote or that those not paying taxes shouldn't get a vote.
I'm pretty sure what they are saying is, claiming the rich should pay for the entitlements of the poor is just as absurd as claiming only taxpayers should vote.
Perkins was clearly joking when he said one million votes for one million dollars, but I really didn't get the sense that he was joking about those not paying income taxes not getting a vote. And I certainly didn't catch even the vaguest tone of disapproval of the whole "only property owners vote" aspect of the original Constitution. Tone sounded more like "those were the good old days" to me. But I may be misreading him.
If you agree that each individual gets one vote regardless of how much they pay in taxes, then we agree.
Since those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul, they're not likely to take his vote away.
I think it's a fairly good counter to a progressive tax system. If a rich guy gotta pay more for his government services, he deserves more representation.
Let them slobber all over themselves trying to argue against the logic.
But, but, but the rich already own the government! They already get more services because they have more property to protect! And they don't pay their fair share! How can they have? They're rich! Inequality! Aaaauuuggghhh!
If you want to take advantage of a bunch of tax breaks and reduce your bill to zero, knock yourself out. But understand you lose the right to vote the following year.
Deal.
Actually I think people should have the right to buy votes.
1st vote is free
2nd vote costs $1
3rd vote costs $10
4th vote costs $100
...
10th vote costs $100,000,000
etc.
You can buy as many as you want.
Each additional vote only counts for 1 office or ballot question however, so if you want to put 4 votes for President, Senator, Congressman, State Senator, State Rep, and Mayor you'd be looking at $2400 and you'd get 1 vote for everything else.
Also, it would be explicitly legal for 3rd parties to give anyone they wanted cash to case extra votes, however since the ballots would remain secret they would have no way of ensuring or enforcing that the votes were case in the way they wanted, or even to know that the person used the funds to cast those extra votes vs just pocketing the cash.
The funds raised this way would go towards funding the government, the level of government to which the office/ballot question belongs gets the proceeds from the election to fund their operations.
This would create a system in which not just the support but the intensity of the support for a given politician/initiative was being considered but also extra leverage in the election would be given to the middle classes as they would outnumber the rich by such a large margin that the rich would never be able to buy enough votes to match them and they have similar numbers as the poor but the ability to buy far more votes.
If we are against regulations in part because of the potential for regulatory capture and barriers to entry, then I don't see how the same doesn't apply to voting. Hard to imagine that this wouldn't be abused.
Yeah. Voting and democracy are inherently very flawed, but it's not like societies that limited voting to a select elite have a good (or even just better) track record of protecting liberty.
Right. I don't worship at the altar of democracy the same way progressives do, who view it as an end in itself and justification for a wide variety of anti-freedom laws. But I still think that constitutionally limited democracy with universal franchise is the most just system of government you could really come up with. Or, if you prefer, least unjust.
"Hey, waiter! Why does my food taste like latex?!"
"How do you know what latex tastes like?"
"Because I lick my gloves clean while I'm preparing your food."
Sounds like a fertile new field for the asshole who goes around suing hundreds of small businesses for failure to comply with every jot and tittle of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Next up - actors will need to wear nose and face masks whenever they kiss in a movie scene.
Who knows what germs are being passed between actors who are in a relationship with each other.
And if they're NOT in a relationship -- Don't get me started!
ADA is the only law, I believe, that is enforceable by attorneys who have suffered no damages. Enforcement of the plastic glove law would have to be by health inspectors.
IOW, I don't think there's a scam going on here (like with ADA), this is just stupidity.
One regulation from perfection.
"No Glove, No Love - Part Two"
I am not sure anyone noticed this. But Prog newspeak reached a new low this week. Linda Greenhouse wrote about the Little Sisters of the poor suing for an exemption to the contraception mandate and said the following.
will tell us whether the Supreme Court, captivated by the nuns' narrative, merely stumbled into the role of enabling a school-yard bully.
That is right, she calls a bunch of elderly nuns who asked not to be forced to act against their religious beliefs "school yard bullies". These people really have no shame.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02......html?_r=0
Tolerant people don't tolerate intolerance. Nuns, being religious, are intolerant. Thus Linda was simply being tolerant.
I'm sure she also endorses the right of bakers to bake or not bake for who they want and photographers to turn down customers if they want right?
Back in my mis-spent youth, I printed out a sheet of stickers for placement in restaurant and bar bathrooms:
Employees must wash hands after masturbating.
After an incident involving a trip to the can after failing to adequately wash hands after cleaning hot peppers, I'd amend that to say:
Employees must wash hands before and after masturbating.
I did the same with cinnamon oil when I was but a wee lad. (Hand it on my hands and went in for a scratch.) Fingerprint-sized scabs came off my poor little scrotum a couple of weeks later.
Holy crap. All I got was temporary capsaicin pain after taking a leak. That's crazy.
I was like 8 maybe. Cinnamon toothpicks were all the rage and my parents refused to buy them for me, so I tried to make my own. I was in the bathroom and jumped straight in the shower, but it took a lot of soaping to do any good. And of course I didn't tell my parents, so I got yelled at for "walking funny" for a week.
I've never peppered my junk, but I get it in my damn eyes all the time. I even wear latex gloves and I'll still rub my eye an hour later and tear myself up.
I remember those cinnamon toothpicks !
Wow..you brought back a flood of memories.
I was told Reason magazine was family entertainment.
I ran a manufacturing facility for a food/beverage packaging item. Much manual handling, especially during inspection. We spent a LOT of time plating product samples, conveyors, and anything else that could affect hygiene, to detect bacteria/mold. My workers used bare hands with lots of washing. At the insistence of one of our big customers, we tried using polyethylene gloves. And... you guessed it, contamination levels went WAY up. Showed the customer the data, and (since they weren't government chimps) they shrugged and said basically, "Ah well, thanks for trying, go back to the way you were doing things before."
Apparently plastic and latex gloves are preferable in California landfills than plastic bags.
I'd like to see the numbers of illnesses and or death caused by non-gloved hands in the food industry to requires such a regulation in the first place. I think it is the glove industry lobbiest more than likely.
Are latex gloves really that much less of a potential home for yucky stuff than clean hands? And when do the plastic bag banners in San Francisco start harping about the landfills overflowing with latex gloves? Send in the robot chefs...
Also allergic reactions to food handled with latex. It would be interesting to see the number of food related illness deaths vs allergic reaction to latex after the change in law.
It isn't the hand that is dirty. It is the germs on the hand. So, now the germs will be on the glove.
Are they saying someone has to change their gloves each time they've handled meat, for example?
The Subways and Chipotles of the world as mentioned at the start of the article already used gloves and rarely if ever get anything but top marks for cleanliness and other standards.
You know who this law is for? Top restaurants and small local joints that routinely end up violating various laws during inspections.
The L.A. Times runs a weekly report on restaurant health inspector closures and it's mostly made up of local joints, but occasionally you see one of the "better" restaurants on the list and never a chain restaurant due to standards put in place by the corporation.
Also, how long until chefs who have a couple of decades of experience doing delicate work with their bare hands start lopping off their own fingers because they're now prepping with boxing gloves on?
Then legislature will require that they wear a stinky Kevlar glove when using a knife.
Shitty consequences created by shitty rules require more shitty consequence creating rules.
Repeal is simply not an option.
The Publix lady wears a chain mail glove while making my sammiches. Again probably a corporate policy.
Don't you ever mention Publix again!!
My love of Publix will never die, and yet I am not able to see my lady.
Publix, where shopping is a pleasure.
Best fucking subs made, period.
Now if we could just make everyone wear masks. And animals wear underwear. Then we'd all be safe.
I'm concerned with fish pooping where I surf.
Alan Abel is calling your name.
I think we all know the answer to that one.
Pretty much. I really don't get it. People whine about food-borne illnesses, but gloves just keep food from coming into contact with skin. Is human skin the only surface capable of transmitting germs? If someone sticks their gloved hand in a bag of infected lettuce, the glove doesn't magically kill all the germs.
The law sounds like it's designed for Californians who are squeamish eating food touched by someone's hands.
The law sounds like it's designed for Californians who are squeamish eating food touched by someone's hands. by a legislator's brother-in-law who owns a local latex glove manufacturer.
You can often get 90% of the benefits with a certain amount of work. But, to get to 99%, the amount of effort goes up by ten. To get to 99.9%, ten x again. Bureaucrats, and high maintenance women don't seem to get this.
People need to learn the difference between "effect" and "affect":
"There's a possibility that wearing the gloves won't have the intended affect because..."
What's the point of this law if people at home aren't mandated to wear gloves to prepare food?
Also, it's been proven that most people don't know how to properly wash their hands, meaning your germ ridden hands will make contact with food prepared by latex hands.
Don't worry folks, ethnic food joint owners and their immigrant workers will break the law to their heart's content. Sushi chefs and sandwich makers fret because they can be seen working at the counter.
It's an extension of the law which mandates that porn actors wear condoms. Something to do with handling anything that goes into another's mouth?
People are complying with this? Why is there so much listening and obedience in our society?