Tag Archives: restaurants

State Mandates Food Cops in Every Restaurant

"I'll be your food protection manager tonight. What can't I serve you?"

"I'll be your food protection manager tonight. What can't I serve you?"

Starting Feb. 1, every restaurant in Mass. will be forced to employ at least one “certified food protection manager.” Among the many duties to be assumed by the state-mandated food cops will be teaching fellow staff about “washing hands with soap and water and not hand sanitizer, and wiping food preparation areas, table tops and highchairs with commercial-strength cleaners.”

The most important task ahead, say proponents of the mandatory food safety initiative, is preventing patrons with food allergies from being poisoned or killed by their meals. The newly enlisted food protection managers will be responsible for personally serving every ‘special needs’ patron while teaching fellow servers and kitchen staff how to avoid contaminating plates with allergens.

“Restaurants are also encouraged to make simpler dishes by avoiding ingredients that hide allergens, like some mollusks and shellfish, barley and rye,” reports Boston’s WCVB-TV. “Currently, federal law does not require ‘minor’ allergens to be clearly listed on food labels.”

Got that? Thanks to the new law, chefs will be “encouraged” to alter their signature recipes that they’ve crafted for the vast majority of patrons who do not have food allergies.

Simply posting warnings on menus about potential food allergens contained in dishes would make too much sense and force those with food allergies to actually pay attention to what they choose to consume. This way, they can not be held responsible for getting sick — it’s the restaurants and chefs who will be blamed and sued for poisoning them. Talk about a ‘Happy Meal’ for trial lawyers!

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Advertisements

Chefs Speak Out on Looming “Salt Crimes”

“Chefs are increasingly worried about government intervention. ‘It’s my career,’ said Michael Ferraro, Executive Chef of The Delicatessen. Jason Hall, Chef de Cuisine of Gotham Bar and Grill, recognizes the threat to culinary freedom advocates of the Bland New World pose. ‘I don’t know how they would police it,’ said Hall. ‘Are they going to come in with salt probes?'”

Video produced by My Food My Choice, “a grassroots coalition of consumers and businesses that promotes the advancement of consumer choice in the marketplace and an environment of economic vitality.”

Kudos to SaltPatriots.com for bringing this video to our attention!

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Texas Bureaucrats Target Responsible Drinkers

"Let's flip to see who's gonna get a DWAI tonight."

"Let's flip to see who's gonna get a DWAI tonight."

Responsible adults in Texas who self-limit their alcohol consumption to 1 drink at restaurants and bars before getting behind the wheel are being targeted by nanny state bureaucrats who say that’s one drink too many. If the proposed offense of “driving with impaired ability” (DWAI) garners enough support, the state will have what is shaping-up to be a zero tolerance policy towards alcohol consumption by responsible drivers.

DWAI would target drivers whose blood-alcohol content is between 0.05 and 0.07, reports the Austin-American Statesman. Currently, motorists are charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) if they meet or exceed a 0.08 level.

Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo said the new DWAI offense, in addition to DWI, “would give prosecutors and judges and juries another tool to use” to implement their agenda that’s endorsed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). Katherine Prescott, former president of MADD is fond of saying, “[T]here is no safe blood alcohol, and for that reason responsible drinking means no drinking and driving.”

Agree or disagree with Texas bureaucrats wanting a companion to the existing DWI law that stands to target responsible adults who’ve consumed a single drink while enjoying a meal at a restaurant?

Share your thoughts with Police Chief Art Acevedo on his Facebook page.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Calif. Law Will Require License to Flip Burgers

"You got a license for that spatula?"

"You got a license for that spatula?"

Anyone seeking low-wage employment as a fry cook or burger flipper at fast food restaurants in Calif. will soon have to pass a state-administered licensing exam to assure they are skilled in their ‘trades.’

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-San Fernando Valley) was the mastermind behind the Food Safety law that stands to bankroll the fiscally irresponsible state with $105 million in “food handler” licensing and training fees in 2011 alone.

“Food handlers” charged with “preparation, storage or service of food” will be required as of June 1, 2011 by S.B. 602 to possess the licenses that will cost “no more than $60.” The training course prior to licensing will tack on another $15.

According to the California Restaurant Association which supported the licensing law, “California is home to more than 1.4 million food industry jobs.” If each of those 1.4 million food workers pay a total of $75 for their required training and licensing, the state will pull in an easy $105 million in 2011 alone. License renewals should ensure a steady flow of free money for years to come.

Does this sound like a big government revenue-generating scheme or an authentic effort by bureaucrats to ensure French fries, hamburgers, filet mignons, deli sandwiches, donuts, ice cream cones, coffee, etc. are properly prepared?

Here’s an even better question, how do you think the state will go about licensing illegal aliens who work ‘in the shadows’ for food service employers? Surely, they won’t be applying for the licenses, but will still be preparing food in kitchens at countless restaurants across the state. Try¬†asking Sen. Padilla how that’s going to work since he’s so concerned about ensuring “food safety.”

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

S.F. Happy Meal Ban Extends to Adult Breakfast Foods

Tired of busybody bureaucrats telling you what you can't eat? Join the Nanny State Liberation Front on Facebook.

Tired of busybody bureaucrats telling you what you can't eat? Join the Nanny State Liberation Front on Facebook.

While all of the media buzz about San Francisco’s assault on fast food restaurants has been focused on toys found in kids’ meals, the Board of Supervisors last week decided to take a shot at regulating “breakfast items” marketed to adults, too.

According to a Sept. 27 amendment to the city’s proposed Happy Meal toy ban ordinance, “a new category of items — breakfast items — are required to contain 0.5 cups of fruit. A Meal must now also contain whole grains where bread is part of the offering.”

The amendment defines “Whole grains” as “Bread, such as a hamburger bun or other sandwhich, that is part of a Meal must be made with at least 50 percent whole wheat.”

Adult customers who prefer plain white bread to whole wheat will have no choice when it comes to ordering their beloved McDonald’s Egg McMuffins and Burger King Croissan’wichs. More importantly, adult customers do not purchase fast food breakfast meals because of toy incentives, leaving one to wonder why the crackdown on breakfast meal breads is even necessary to be included in the city’s proposed Happy Meal toy ban ordinance.

If this doesn’t sit well in your stomach, contact San Francisco’s self-appointed Food Czar Eric Mar:

Mar’s Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/ericmarsf
Email – Eric.L.Mar@sfgov.org
Tel. – (415) 554-7410
Fax – (415) 554-7415
Mailing address:
Supervisor Eric Mar
City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, Ca 94102-4689

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Fascism Is the New San Francisco Treat

It's up to you, America, to turn that frown upside down! Don't let the nanny state get away with dictating to parents how and what their own kids eat.

It's up to you, America, to turn that frown upside down! Don't let the nanny state get away with dictating to parents how and what their own kids eat.

What the heck took San Francisco so long to officially draft a law banning toys in kids’ Happy Meals? As the NSLF reported on July 7, City Supervisor Eric Mar has been plotting against Ronald McDonald since April to kill the incentive for kids to crave his Happy Meals.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the city’s proposed crackdown on Happy Meals could have a “far greater impact” than a similar ban recently enacted by Santa Clara County, Calif.

“The restrictions would pertain to all restaurants but effectively would target the dozens of fast-food establishments in the city, among them McDonald’s, Jack in the Box and Burger King,” the Chronicle reports. “San Francisco’s legislation would not prohibit toy giveaways outright, but limit them to menu items that meet strict nutrition guidelines.”

In plain English, Mar’s law would outlaw any kids’ meal from containing more than 600 calories or 480 milligrams of sodium, effectively eliminating fast-food restaurants from serving hamburgers and french fries to children in Happy Meal-type menu offerings.

“Our legislation will encourage restaurants that offer unhealthy meals marketed toward children and youth to offer healthier food options with incentive items or toys,” Mar said. “It will help protect the public’s health, reduce costs to our health care system and promote healthier eating habits.”

The proposed law also dictates that Happy Meals include fruits and vegetables, though no indication has been given if ketchup, french fries and pickles meet Mar’s standards of approval. The only thing we do know is that Happy Meals “at least a half-cup of fruit and three-quarters of a cup of vegetables” must be included in the boxes that used to contain fun food and toys for kids.

“Toy bans are only proven to disappoint kids, frustrate parents and generate headlines for ambitious politicians,” Daniel Conway, director of public affairs for the California Restaurant Association, told the Chronicle. “The Board of Supervisors needs to stop gorging on political gimmicks and instead focus on creating jobs in their city.”

At the time of this posting, only 3 comments have been made on the Chronicle’s report, all of which oppose the city’s proposed ban on Happy Meals. Be sure to add your two cents and smack the voice of reason in to readers and City Council members who believe it’s big government’s role to tell parents how and what to feed their own children.

Tell City Supervisor Eric Mar to back-off and butt-out of parents’ roles in determining what’s best for their own kids to eat. Here’s his contact information:

Eric Mar’s Facebook page

City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, Ca 94102-4689
(415) 554-7410 – voice
(415) 554-7415 – fax
Eric.L.Mar@sfgov.org

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

State Wants to Deprive Minorities of Fast Food

They're not "lovin' it!"

They're not "lovin' it!"

Let minorities make their own decisions about where they buy their meals and what they choose to consume. Using zoning laws to restrict fast food restaurants won’t curb their appetites for burgers and fries; they’ll just generate more business for the existing burger joints, creating longer lines at drive-thru windows and potentially leading to traffic problems due to parking lot overflows.

Wisconsin’s new 10-year public health plan, released Wednesday, suggests that municipalities use zoning regulations to limit the number and density of fast food restaurants, particularly in low income neighborhoods.

The proposal is among a list of strategies state health officials say can help reduce obesity and other health disparities in Wisconsin, where surveys have found 64 percent of adults are overweight or obese. A recent national report found that the state’s African American residents had the highest rate of obesity in the country.

“It would be an ill-advised public health policy. I say that because 70 percent of meals consumed by Americans are still prepared at home,” Pete Hanson, a lobbyist with the Wisconsin Restaurant Association told The Cap Times. “So is banning fast food restaurants really the thing that will stem obesity in America? Probably not.”

Hanson added that fast food restaurants are increasingly expanding their menu selections to include healthy alternatives to greasy, calorie-laden mainstay items that food cops prefer to ignore when making their case against fast food restaurants.

“You don’t have to have fries with your hamburger at a fast food restaurant,” Hanson says. “You can have a fruit cup. You can order salads. You can have a grilled chicken sandwich instead of fried chicken. There are plenty of healthy choices, but customers have to choose them.”

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine