US senator questions forcing food workers to wash hands.

[Thanatos]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31127704

A US senator has suggested that restaurants should not have to make their employees wash their hands after toilet visits.

Senator Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, made the comments on Monday during a speech criticising business regulations.

"Let them decide" such issues, the newly elected lawmaker said.

His argument was that restaurants which did not require workers to wash their hands would quickly go out of business. "But I think it's good to illustrate the point, that that's the sort of mentality we need to have to reduce the regulatory burden on this country," Mr Tillis said. He suggested that restaurants that did not require hand washing would have to alert customers with prominently displayed signs - itself a regulation. Mr Tillis stood by his comments when interviewed later at the US Capitol.

"Sometimes there are regulations that maybe we want to set a direction, but then let those who are regulated decide whether or not it makes sense," Mr Tillis told the Associated Press news agency. "They might pay a huge price," he said, but "they get to make that decision versus government." The comments come as some Republican presidential hopefuls have questioned vaccine regulations amid a measles outbreak. At least two hopefuls have said parents are justified in sometimes having their children avoid vaccinations generally required for attending school.

Nobody is surprised when conservative pundits or political candidates argue against governmental regulation, especially that from the federal government, but this is in my opinion finally starting to take a turn for the absolutely sophomoric. If it weren't for Hanlon's razor, I would have honestly thought there was some kind of plan to try to get as many people sick at once.

I am not sure how anyone could really complain against federal regulation on such a small and, honestly, cost-negligible level, especially when the benefits are non-debatable. A clean society is a generally healthier society. A healthier society is a generally productive society. I would ask if Mr. Tillis would subsequently be in favor of a bill that would require businesses that "decide" to forego these health requirements to notify potential customers, but I somehow get the feeling that's not alright with him.

[Sphere]

I actually agree with the Senator's conclusion if not his reasoning.

This regulation basically amounts to the ubiquitous "Employees Must Wash Hands" signs, which I doubt are effective at doing anything other than lengthening an health inspectors checklist. It's an unenforceable regulation.

[sumskilz]

This regulation basically amounts to the ubiquitous "Employees Must Wash Hands" signs, which I doubt are effective at doing anything other than lengthening an health inspectors checklist. It's an unenforceable regulation.

Wait, that doesn't make sense. Why would they not wash their hands if they saw the sign? And also, how would they know to wash their hands if there isn't a sign?

[Aikanár]

Wait, that doesn't make sense. Why would they not wash their hands if they saw the sign? And also, how would they know to wash their hands if there isn't a sign?

How about by common sense and education? on a second thought, I don't know what just came over me, forget what I just said, better trust the signs.

[TASS07]

I actually agree with the Senator's conclusion if not his reasoning.

This regulation basically amounts to the ubiquitous "Employees Must Wash Hands" signs, which I doubt are effective at doing anything other than lengthening an health inspectors checklist. It's an unenforceable regulation.

It doesn't amount to the "Employess Must Wash Hands" signs, it amounts to hygene being a basic requirement for the food industry. It's a requirement for public health and all our own very private health, nothing else and it achieves that by making shop owners etc. _legally_ responsible for the conditions in their kitchens.

Paleologos' post quite nicely demonstrates how calling to get rid of that achievement of legislation can only mean a form of post-post-modern decadence.

[sumskilz]

It doesn't amount to the "Employess Must Wash Hands" signs, it amounts to hygene being a basic requirement for the food industry.

You're awfully confident for not actually knowing how our system works. Sphere is correct, it's a mark on the health inspectors checklist when he visits (which is twice a year under typical circumstances). They don't set up 24/7 cameras to monitor the sink. Either way, a restaurant is still liable if someone gets food poisoning there.

[Hekko]

Having worked in food service, I got bad news for you if you think food workers wash their hands because they have to. There is no enforcement of this, at all, ever.

I didn't work at a mom and pop store but for a MAJOR corporation which if anything I would expect to be more strict being they have deeper pockets to sue.

Basically if someone was the type to care, they washed their hands, if not, nope.

One would hope that most people care enough to wash their hands, sign or no sign.

You're awfully confident for not actually knowing how our system works. Sphere is correct, it's a mark on the health inspectors checklist when he visits (which is twice a year under typical circumstances). They don't set up 24/7 cameras to monitor the sink. Either way, a restaurant is still liable if someone gets food poisoning there.

Proving food poisoning is quite tricky though. I have worked with customer feedback and I got the odd complaint about food poisoning every now and then, and really, it's just a case of stating that one could become ill anywhere, recommend good hand hygiene and sending them a breakfast voucher as a goodwill gesture.

Obviously there are the regrettable incidents where you get a number of complaints from the same venue for the same day, but I never had an incident like that personally.

[sumskilz]

Proving food poisoning is quite tricky though.

I would think so, but still probably easier than knowing if everyone is washing their hands.

EDIT:

Agreed, but does one have to be right and the other wrong?
The health inspector is a bureaucrat, he is compelled by law and job description to go through a list.
Diligence is indeed a personal quality and the protection of the clientele's health is not just a duty for whose failure the establishment is liable, it is just plain good business.

It's sort of a non-issue for me, because I doubt the health inspector is making a difference when it comes to hand-washing, but he still has to visit for other reasons so I doubt it's wasting much either.

What may be valid, is if there are a number of well-meaning but ineffectual regulations that collectively add up to being a waste of tax-payers' money and business owners' time.

[Mangalore]

I actually agree with the Senator's conclusion if not his reasoning.

This regulation basically amounts to the ubiquitous "Employees Must Wash Hands" signs, which I doubt are effective at doing anything other than lengthening an health inspectors checklist. It's an unenforceable regulation.

The main way of enforcement of those regulations is not via inspection of those procedures being upheld but via liability. Everyone can easily evade the regulations but has to take the risk of being found out and put out of business easily. I would guess the net effect of such health regulations hanging over businesses' head overall increases the average cleanliness of such places and doesn't enforce an absolute measure of cleanliness. In short it probably would be far worse without that psychological nagging.

Otherwise the argument essentially is that consumers have to take the risk of food poisoning and then should weed out the culprits instead of installing standards allowing culprits to get slammed before you have a whole restaurant go down with salmonella. It's just a milder variant of "Let's people find out about car safety themselves! The unsafe manufacturers won't survive for long!"

[paleologos]

I am not surprised.
Republican politicians that originate from "flyover country", as Mike Huckabee calls it in his recent book God, Guns, Grits, and Gravy, tend to have such opinions.
Funny how himself is asking (in his book) “Have I been taken to a different planet than the one on which I grew up?”

[paleologos]

I tried to find some of the really old posters that could be seen almost everywhere in the US about a hundred years ago.
I could not find any in short notice.
Are we to suspect that senator Huckabee's "flyover country" has regressed so much as to need another such campaign?

[Cyclops]

Caveat Emptor is soooooo 19th century. Does this guy really want snails in our ginger beer?

Knucklehead political sloganeering over non-issues is what it is. Meanwhile basic health regulations have cut infant mortality by 93% (says wiki). This dickhead wants to score a Murdoch point in the dumb states with some stupid rhetoric.

[paleologos]

Ok people, I think I found something very close to what I was looking for originally.

First, the poster below:

This poster was titled: "At The Gates. Our safety depends upon official vigilance"
from Harper's Weekly. v. 29, p. 592. New York, Harper & Brothers, Sept. 5, 1885

I found it in a web page by the US National Library of Medicine as part of an exhibition titled: Visual Culture and Public Health Posters
Caption:

This photoprint of a wood engraving from Harper's Weekly in 1885 illustrates another forum for public health images provided by the creation of the magazine as a form of mass media in the late-nineteenth century. The image demonstrates disease in metaphorical terms, a technique commonly used by later poster artists. In this case, the shrouded and skeletal specters representing cholera, yellow fever, and smallpox recoil in fear as an angel holding a sword and shield emblazoned with the word "cleanliness" blocks their way through the quarantine barrier at the Port of New York. Over the years serpents, skulls, monsters, thieves, and even extraterrestrial figures have been used as representations of disease. The discoveries by microbiologists inspired new visual metaphors for disease in the 19th century, such as anthropomorphic germs and grotesque bacteria.

The second pic, circa 1905, is more relevant:

The websit caption reads:

...The development of antibiotics in the 1940s further revolutionized the treatment of infectious bacterial disease. Still, diseases like typhoid fever, identified in the quarantine poster to the left, remain very common worldwide over 60 years after the development of the first antibiotics. This poster illustrates the seriousness of its message in both style and content. The headline names the disease in large, distinctive font and the accompanying message informs the viewer that removal of the notice is punishable by a fine.

Link

So, we see is that although typhoid fever (caused by salmonella Typhi) has not yet been eradicated there are people today who underestimate the dangers that have been known to be serious since the early 20th century.

I suspect that the senator in question will be claiming the Republican nomination on the grounds that he is more pro-business than his rivals.
And he may even get a few votes.

[Phier]

Having worked in food service, I got bad news for you if you think food workers wash their hands because they have to. There is no enforcement of this, at all, ever.

I didn't work at a mom and pop store but for a MAJOR corporation which if anything I would expect to be more strict being they have deeper pockets to sue.

Basically if someone was the type to care, they washed their hands, if not, nope.

[paleologos]

Having worked in food service, I got bad news for you if you think food workers wash their hands because they have to. There is no enforcement of this, at all, ever.

I didn't work at a mom and pop store but for a MAJOR corporation which if anything I would expect to be more strict being they have deeper pockets to sue.

Basically if someone was the type to care, they washed their hands, if not, nope.

I know, I've seen it too.
And if you ever find yourself in Greece, never-ever be rude to a waiter, there is no telling what you will get(catch) for rudeness.

But my point was not the enforcement of the rule/law by the sign.
My point is that more than a hundred years ago people were more serious than today (at some places) about infectious diseases and about the role of their governments in protecting public health.
Today, I find many "Amurcans" to be exceedingly gullible when their government tells them to go half way around the world and risk their lives, limbs and/or sanity in a fight they don't understand but the same people are equally exceedingly recalcitrant when their government is trying to protect them at home.

...it's a mark on the health inspectors checklist when he visits (which is twice a year under typical circumstances). They don't set up 24/7 cameras to monitor the sink. Either way, a restaurant is still liable if someone gets food poisoning there.

Agreed, but does one have to be right and the other wrong?
The health inspector is a bureaucrat, he is compelled by law and job description to go through a list.
Diligence is indeed a personal quality and the protection of the clientele's health is not just a duty for whose failure the establishment is liable, it is just plain good business.

[Cyclops]

Having worked in food service, I got bad news for you if you think food workers wash their hands because they have to. There is no enforcement of this, at all, ever.

I didn't work at a mom and pop store but for a MAJOR corporation which if anything I would expect to be more strict being they have deeper pockets to sue.

Basically if someone was the type to care, they washed their hands, if not, nope.

I've worked in food service in Australia and the UK and we were "trained" =told and supervised to wash hands frequently. There were no signs IIRC, just worried bosses.

Weird thing was in the UK pub the boss had a bath once a month, I kid you not.

[Lortano]

Weird thing was in the UK pub the boss had a bath once a month, I kid you not.

As long as he kept his hands clean I suppose....each to his own ways of cleanliness.

On the actual issue at hand, I think it's slightly absurd to suggest de-regulating mandatory signs that say 'Wash your hands'. It actually gives the consumer a helping hand really, if one gets food poisoning at a restaurant with the compulsory 'Wash your hands' sign, they can sue and have a much better argument for getting something out of it. If they are not compulsory, companies cannot be sued as easily for giving food poisoning, under the senator's idea the company could say 'Well, they knew the risks'

So I'd say to keep the signs, as the threat of being sued by a customer and investigated by all manner of federal and state bureaus will likely keep restaurants on their toes and in the end provide a better service for the consumer.

[Cyclops]

As long as he kept his hands clean I suppose....each to his own ways of cleanliness....

She was a tiny little vegetarian woman, and she was clean and well groomed AFAIK at all times. She did wash her hands whenever she was working the kitchen but when she noticed I as showering twice a day (ditto the South African chef and the other NZ staff members) she became exasperated and said the immortal words "I have a bath once a month whether I need it or not".

[Simon Cashmere]

Having worked in food service, I got bad news for you if you think food workers wash their hands because they have to. There is no enforcement of this, at all, ever.

I didn't work at a mom and pop store but for a MAJOR corporation which if anything I would expect to be more strict being they have deeper pockets to sue.

Basically if someone was the type to care, they washed their hands, if not, nope.

I hate to say it - but doctors are terrible at washing their hands too. Doctors have to be ripped on and micromanaged to get them to scrub up properly.

STAFF in almost 20 per cent of Australia's public hospitals are not washing their hands enough, with six NSW hospitals rating in the bottom 20.

The national benchmark for hand hygiene is 70 per cent but Gosford, Lismore, Ryde, Griffith, Prince of Wales and Orange hospitals rated poorly.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/hospitals-failing-to-scrub-up-caught-in-hand-hygiene-test/story-e6freuzi-1226291194178

[Phier]

I hate to say it - but doctors are terrible at washing their hands too. Doctors have to be ripped on and micromanaged to get them to scrub up properly.

True, though its far less of an issue on the surgery side.