Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Food safety ?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Food safety ? Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Food safety ? - 11/26/2011 6:03:52 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		I have seen it happen, pam.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: Food safety ? - 11/26/2011 6:05:26 AM   
gungadin09


Posts: 3232
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha
Watch out, it was the defendants that moved for summary judgment, not the plaintiffs. The judge moved in favor of the motion, so the plaintiffs lost. There will be no trial (though there could be an appeal).


Why no trial?  i thought he didn't dismiss the case altogether, just denied them a summary judgement.

pam

ETA: It says "The Zinniker Plaintiffs seek clarification regarding the court's decision and order dated August 12, 2011, which denied their motion for summary judgement."

Doesn't "their" refer to the Zinniker Plaintiffs? Why do you think it wasn't the Plaintiffs who asked for a summary judgement?
The judge denied the summary judgement. He didn't move in favor of anything. Why do you think being denied a summary judgement would mean there would be no trial? Why would it mean the Plaintiffs lost their law suit?

pam

< Message edited by gungadin09 -- 11/26/2011 6:24:43 AM >

_____________________________

[link] www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlvDnbFOkYY [/link]

(in reply to BanthaSamantha)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: Food safety ? - 11/26/2011 6:09:25 AM   
gungadin09


Posts: 3232
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
I have seen it happen, pam.


Maybe so.  But for me to believe there is no double standard in this case, i would have to see that the government is equally harsh with the local restaurants.  (And obviously they are stricter when it comes to sushi.)

pam

< Message edited by gungadin09 -- 11/26/2011 6:11:22 AM >

_____________________________

[link] www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlvDnbFOkYY [/link]

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: Food safety ? - 11/26/2011 6:10:19 AM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
quote:

i can't understand this hysterical overreaction to unpasteurized milk.  Do you know what kills a hell of a lot more people than unpasteurized milk?  Tobacco, which is legal in all 50 states. Which has killed many more children than unpasteurized milk.   Which is addictive and causes all kinds of diseases, and yet... the government has decided that a person has the right to choose to smoke it, even to choose to expose their 2 year old children to its smoke.


I couldn't find any stats on raw milk lobby expenditures.

Total dairy for 2010: $5,655,885

The Maine Dairy Industry Association does support raw milk and is listed as spending $0.00 lobbying dollars last year.

Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death.

In the United States, tobacco use is responsible for about one in five deaths annually (i.e., about 443,000 deaths per year, and an estimated 49,000 of these tobacco-related deaths are the result of secondhand smoke exposure).1

On average, smokers die 13 to 14 years earlier than nonsmokers.

Costs and Expenditures

The cigarette industry spends billions each year on advertising and promotions.5
$12.5 billion total spent in 2006
$34 million spent a day in 2006









< Message edited by kalikshama -- 11/26/2011 6:25:22 AM >

(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: Food safety ? - 11/26/2011 6:15:03 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Does your restaurant not serve seafood? If you don't preserve the tags for 60 days you are looking at big fines if you ever have an outbreak tracked back to you.


If there was an outbreak.

That's different than if the Health Department just walked in saying, show us your tags (which they have every right to do), and then made us dump everything that we couldn't trace to an exact tag.  In all my years cooking, i have never seen that happen, and yet that's exactly what seemed to have happened at the event the OP was speaking of.

Hence, the double standard.

pam


Wasn't the real issue in the OP that a non commercial kitchen was being used for a commercial purpose and couldn't prove the HAACP handling of their food? Don't you only buy food only from wholesalers, commercial farms and farmer's markets that, being licensed themselves, are expected to be HAACP compliant already?

(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: Food safety ? - 11/26/2011 6:27:45 AM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline 		http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/quail-hollow-farm-dinner.htm

In order to overcome any trouble with the Health Department of cooking on the premises, most of the food was prepared in a certified kitchen in Las Vegas; and to further remove any doubt, we rented a certified kitchen trailer to be here on the farm for the preparation of the meals.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: Food safety ? - 11/26/2011 6:32:39 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

quote:

ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha
Watch out, it was the defendants that moved for summary judgment, not the plaintiffs. The judge moved in favor of the motion, so the plaintiffs lost. There will be no trial (though there could be an appeal).


Why no trial?  i thought he didn't dismiss the case altogether, just denied them a summary judgement.

pam


Read the end of the order. The judge clearly granted summary judgement to the defendants.

Doing some googling this all seems to have started with people getting campolbacter from the milk being sold illegally
http://thefoodsafetylawyer.com/2009/09/wisconsin-raw-milk-sickens-35-campylobacter-food-poisoning/
Then the farm owners sued the state agency that fined them for selling the raw milk in the first place.
http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/litigation-wi_zinniker.htm
The case is now being appealed but summary judgements are pretty rarely overturned.

(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: Food safety ? - 11/26/2011 6:36:38 AM   
gungadin09


Posts: 3232
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Wasn't the real issue in the OP that a non commercial kitchen was being used for a commercial purpose and couldn't prove the HAACP handling of their food?


No. Apparently they hired a commercial kitchen for that very purpose. The issue was their food was not up to the correct temp (because they were in the process of heating it), they could not provide receipts to prove where it came from, and that the produce such as tomatoes, which were out of their packaging and cut, could not have been traced anyway.

quote:


Don't you only buy food only from wholesalers, commercial farms and farmer's markets that, being licensed themselves, are expected to be HAACP compliant already?


No, we also buy from foragers. No restaurant has ever been ordered to prove where their food came from while i was working there.

pam


< Message edited by gungadin09 -- 11/26/2011 6:37:42 AM >

_____________________________

[link] www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlvDnbFOkYY [/link]

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: Food safety ? - 11/26/2011 6:41:02 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		keep in mind that we've only got the farms side of the story and even they admit they didn't prepare all the food in a commercial kitchen. It is also unclear if anyone had a sanitation cert.

(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: Food safety ? - 11/26/2011 6:44:01 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Does your restaurant not serve seafood? If you don't preserve the tags for 60 days you are looking at big fines if you ever have an outbreak tracked back to you.


If there was an outbreak.

That's different than if the Health Department just walked in saying, show us your tags (which they have every right to do), and then made us dump everything that we couldn't trace to an exact tag.  In all my years cooking, i have never seen that happen, and yet that's exactly what seemed to have happened at the event the OP was speaking of.

Hence, the double standard.

pam



Oregon Law

quote:

Retailers must keep the tags with the shellstock containers and thereafter retain the tags for 90 days for possible recalls or food-borne illness investigations. Retailers must use a record keeping system to track dates shellstock were served or sold.


http://oregon.gov/ODA/FSD/program_shellfish.shtml

Washington State

quote:

RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS
A SHELLSTOCK tag must remain on the SHELLSTOCK container until the container is
empty and must be retained for 90 calendar days. The record keeping system for
maintaining SHELLSTOCK tags must be an orderly, chronological system that correlates
with the dates of product sale or service and is acceptable to the regulatory authority.


North Carolina

quote:

Individual containers of live shellfish can be received without tags only if they are packed in a master carton by
a certified shellfish dealer and that carton contains a master tag indicating the volume of individual packages
within the carton. The master tag must remain on the master carton until that carton is empty, and then it must
be kept on file for 90 days. A master carton must be maintained intact and be shipped to a single retailer only


http://www.deh.enr.state.nc.us/shellfish/images/Shellfish%20FAQS_DHHS1.pdf

That seems to be the standard.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: Food safety ? - 11/26/2011 6:46:05 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

No, we also buy from foragers. No restaurant has ever been ordered to prove where their food came from while i was working there.


All I know is that with sushi, if a customer asks, and you cant provide and prove origin, they can complain and the Health Department will be in to say hello.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: Food safety ? - 11/26/2011 6:50:43 AM   
gungadin09


Posts: 3232
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Read the end of the order. The judge clearly granted summary judgement to the defendants.


i'll take your word for it. It seemed to me he was dismissing the motion for a summary judgement, not dismissing the case, but i'm clearly not an expert.

pam

_____________________________

[link] www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlvDnbFOkYY [/link]

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: Food safety ? - 11/26/2011 6:54:04 AM   
slavepig1


Posts: 1
Joined: 7/23/2005
Status: offline 		Im seeking a BIG/LARGE mom 40 to 65 y with bigboobs(large/saggy) a widw fat cunt, she must be cruell/sad./extreme to me Im a pig cow-slut....

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: Food safety ? - 11/26/2011 6:54:54 AM   
JstAnotherSub


Posts: 6174
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slavepig1

Im seeking a BIG/LARGE mom 40 to 65 y with bigboobs(large/saggy) a widw fat cunt, she must be cruell/sad./extreme to me Im a pig cow-slut....
Have you been USDA certified?


_____________________________

yep

(in reply to slavepig1)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: Food safety ? - 11/26/2011 6:55:02 AM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline 		I want to clarify that I'm not advocating raw milk from from factory farming but from "traditional methods of pasture farming, enabling humanely treated and healthy cows raised in the open on high-quality pasture grown in vibrant soil to produce safe, nutrient-dense raw milk for healthy and happy consumers."

As opposed to this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jan/31/food-industry-environment

Human arrogance is one thing Salatin strongly warns against. Of course, it's one way of explaining the large-scale upset to the natural order of things. But Salatin also thinks the way you treat animals is a reflection of the way you will go on to treat human beings. One of his more romantic and far-fetched-seeming statements in the documentary is to this effect, and it turns out to be one of the most centrally, shockingly true: the treatment of illegal workers by big food corporations. Films like Food, Inc, Salatin suggests, are finally "exposing the kind of corruption and evil that is the shortcut. What happens when you don't ask: how do we make pigs happy? Well, you view the pig as just a pile of protoplasmic structure to be manipulated however cleverly human hubris can imagine to manipulate it. And when you view life from that kind of mechanistic, arrogant, disrespectful standpoint, you very soon beginto view all of life from a very disrespectful, arrogant, manipulative standpoint. And the fact is, we aren't machines."







< Message edited by kalikshama -- 11/26/2011 7:06:53 AM >

(in reply to kalikshama)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: Food safety ? - 11/26/2011 6:57:25 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		Not sure if this has been brought up... but there was an incident at Racine.

That question took on increased urgency this month after bacteria in raw milk from an unnamed farm sickened at least 16 fourth-graders and family members at a North Cape Elementary School event, resulting in one hospitalization. The June 3 after-school party was designed to celebrate Wisconsin food.

Melissa Werner, 40, drank raw milk at the event with her son, Nathan, 10. Both later suffered from nausea, diarrhea, vomiting and high fever. Werner was ill for two weeks, losing 12 pounds.

“Still, even now, when I eat, I can tell things aren’t 100 percent right,” she says.

Cheryl Mazmanian, a health officer with the Western Racine County Health Department, says while the incident in Raymond illustrates the dangers of raw milk, it violated no state laws.

“It’s not illegal to drink raw milk, it’s not illegal to give it to people, but it is illegal to sell it,” Mazmanian says.

Raw milk can contain disease-causing bacteria that the pasteurization process is designed to kill.


Read more: http://www.journaltimes.com/news/local/article_a5191112-9fa6-11e0-9ab5-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1ep7adQ00

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: Food safety ? - 11/26/2011 6:59:37 AM   
TheFireWithinMe


Posts: 1672
Joined: 10/3/2011
From: The Depths of Hell
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub

quote:

ORIGINAL: slavepig1

Im seeking a BIG/LARGE mom 40 to 65 y with bigboobs(large/saggy) a widw fat cunt, she must be cruell/sad./extreme to me Im a pig cow-slut....
Have you been USDA certified?



Oh boy am I glad I hadn't taken a sip of coffee before reading your post. Clearly caution is necessary.


_____________________________

Charter member: Lance's Fag Hags

There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast. ~Author Unknown

(in reply to JstAnotherSub)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: Food safety ? - 11/26/2011 7:18:34 AM   
gungadin09


Posts: 3232
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Wasn't the real issue in the OP that a non commercial kitchen was being used for a commercial purpose and couldn't prove the HAACP handling of their food? Don't you only buy food only from wholesalers, commercial farms and farmer's markets that, being licensed themselves, are expected to be HAACP compliant already?


Other than the fact that law enforcement acted without a warrant, i have little problem with what happened. The Bledsoes were responsible for following food handling laws, whether they knew it or not. i just think that local restaurants ought to be held to exactly the same standards, and i doubt they are.

pam


_____________________________

[link] www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlvDnbFOkYY [/link]

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: Food safety ? - 11/26/2011 7:32:31 AM   
gungadin09


Posts: 3232
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline 		Why, oh why, can i never remember to stay out of P&R?

pam

_____________________________

[link] www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlvDnbFOkYY [/link]

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: Food safety ? - 11/26/2011 7:34:44 AM   
GreedyTop


Posts: 52100
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Savannah, GA
Status: offline 		pam.. when you've already gone through everything else (even the basement threads.. ) THIS is where ya end up.....

_____________________________

polysnortatious
Supreme Goddess of Snark
CHARTER MEMBER: Lance's Fag Hags!
Waiting for my madman in a Blue Box.

(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Food safety ? Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.141