Thread: An incredible food story

On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 09:37:27 -0700, "gloria.p" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>http://tinyurl.com/7jvehlj


Quite the abuse of power, but this is the problem:
"Here we were with guests who had paid in advance and had come from
long distances away anticipating a wonderful dining experience,
waiting for dinner while we were behind the kitchen curtain throwing
it away!"

I'm sure it was interpreted as a commercial venture and thus, is
covered under the same laws and rules as a restaurant or other
commercial kitchen. They never should have applied for the permit and
instead, just left a "tip jar" for payment at the time of the event.

On 11/12/2011 11:37 AM, gloria.p wrote:
>
>
>
> This is an incredible story about officialdom gone wrong
>
> *http://tinyurl.com/7jvehlj*

That is disturbing ... to put it mildly.

nancy

On Nov 12, 9:41*am, Nancy Young <email@replyto> wrote:

> > This is an incredible story about officialdom gone wrong
>
> That is disturbing ... to put it mildly.

Seems to me the "host" is trying to have it both ways, portraying it
as a private event while in fact the "guests" were paying customers.
If you're going to stage this kind of commercial event then of course
you need permits and inspections. I don't see an abuse of power from
the facts as stated. -aem

On 2011-11-12, gloria.p <[email protected]> wrote:

> This is an incredible story about officialdom gone wrong
>
> *http://tinyurl.com/7jvehlj*

The entire episode sounds bogus. Not one guest at that event had an
attorney?

nb

On 11/12/2011 9:37 AM, gloria.p wrote:
>
>
>
> This is an incredible story about officialdom gone wrong
>
> *http://tinyurl.com/7jvehlj*
>
> gloria p


http://mvprogress.com/2011/10/26/hea...-hollow-farms/

On 11/12/2011 11:10 AM, aem wrote:
> On Nov 12, 9:41 am, Nancy Young<email@replyto> wrote:
>
>>> This is an incredible story about officialdom gone wrong
>>
>> That is disturbing ... to put it mildly.
>
> Seems to me the "host" is trying to have it both ways, portraying it
> as a private event while in fact the "guests" were paying customers.
> If you're going to stage this kind of commercial event then of course
> you need permits and inspections. I don't see an abuse of power from
> the facts as stated. -aem


While the hosts were trying to portray it as a "big picnic" news about
the event spread via word of mouth and it was apparently a commercial
affair. The inspector's actions may seem harsh (since the meal was
already being served), but I can't see where she was not enforcing
existing public safety code and food handling practices. Perhaps the
hosts will act in a more timely manner next year and give the health
department more warning, so that inspection can be completed before the
event is underway.

On 11/12/2011 1:40 PM, Pennyaline wrote:

>
> While the hosts were trying to portray it as a "big picnic" news about
> the event spread via word of mouth and it was apparently a commercial
> affair. The inspector's actions may seem harsh (since the meal was
> already being served), but I can't see where she was not enforcing
> existing public safety code and food handling practices. Perhaps the
> hosts will act in a more timely manner next year and give the health
> department more warning, so that inspection can be completed before the
> event is underway.


From the two articles I read, it appeared that all the inspector
wanted to inspect were the receipts and labels for the food which didn't
have either because it was locally grown. If she had asked to take
temperatures and samples for analysis it might mave seemed more like an
inspection rather than a harassment or witch hunt.

gloria p

On 11/12/2011 1:48 PM, gloria.p wrote:
> On 11/12/2011 1:40 PM, Pennyaline wrote:
>
>>
>> While the hosts were trying to portray it as a "big picnic" news about
>> the event spread via word of mouth and it was apparently a commercial
>> affair. The inspector's actions may seem harsh (since the meal was
>> already being served), but I can't see where she was not enforcing
>> existing public safety code and food handling practices. Perhaps the
>> hosts will act in a more timely manner next year and give the health
>> department more warning, so that inspection can be completed before the
>> event is underway.
>
>
> From the two articles I read, it appeared that all the inspector wanted
> to inspect were the receipts and labels for the food which didn't have
> either because it was locally grown. If she had asked to take
> temperatures and samples for analysis it might mave seemed more like an
> inspection rather than a harassment or witch hunt.

I thought temps were taken, and that's how the inspector knew that items
mentioned in the article were not at appropriate temperature. There was
also not enough time to take samples because the meal was underway; she
couldn't allow service to take place under the circumstances. It still
looks to me as though the inspector acted within regulations, even
though she wasn't behaving the way the hosts wanted her to.

On Nov 12, 10:10*am, aem <aem_ag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 9:41*am, Nancy Young <email@replyto> wrote:
>
> > > This is an incredible story about officialdom gone wrong
>
> > That is disturbing ... to put it mildly.
>
> Seems to me the "host" is trying to have it both ways, portraying it
> as a private event while in fact the "guests" were paying customers.
> If you're going to stage this kind of commercial event then of course
> you need permits and inspections. *I don't see an abuse of power from
> the facts as stated.

The problem is the situation did not fit into the inspector's book of
rules. The safety of the food being served was immaterial. This is the
same Pharisaical mentality that Jesus used to rail against.

On Nov 12, 12:40*pm, Pennyaline <norwegianb...@beatifulplummage.huh>
wrote:
> On 11/12/2011 11:10 AM, aem wrote:
>
> > On Nov 12, 9:41 am, Nancy Young<email@replyto> *wrote:
>
> >>> This is an incredible story about officialdom gone wrong
>
> >> That is disturbing ... to put it mildly.
>
> > Seems to me the "host" is trying to have it both ways, portraying it
> > as a private event while in fact the "guests" were paying customers.
> > If you're going to stage this kind of commercial event then of course
> > you need permits and inspections. *I don't see an abuse of power from
> > the facts as stated. * *-aem
>
> While the hosts were trying to portray it as a "big picnic" news about
> the event spread via word of mouth and it was apparently a commercial
> affair. The inspector's actions may seem harsh (since the meal was
> already being served), but I can't see where she was not enforcing
> existing public safety code and food handling practices. Perhaps the
> hosts will act in a more timely manner next year and give the health
> department more warning, so that inspection can be completed before the
> event is underway.

No USDA stamp on the meat, no meat could be served.

On Nov 12, 1:27*pm, Pennyaline <norwegianb...@beatifulplummage.huh>
wrote:
> On 11/12/2011 1:48 PM, gloria.p wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11/12/2011 1:40 PM, Pennyaline wrote:
>
> >> While the hosts were trying to portray it as a "big picnic" news about
> >> the event spread via word of mouth and it was apparently a commercial
> >> affair. The inspector's actions may seem harsh (since the meal was
> >> already being served), but I can't see where she was not enforcing
> >> existing public safety code and food handling practices. Perhaps the
> >> hosts will act in a more timely manner next year and give the health
> >> department more warning, so that inspection can be completed before the
> >> event is underway.
>
> > *From the two articles I read, it appeared that all the inspector wanted
> > to inspect were the receipts and labels for the food which didn't have
> > either because it was locally grown. If she had asked to take
> > temperatures and samples for analysis it might mave seemed more like an
> > inspection rather than a harassment or witch hunt.
>
> I thought temps were taken, and that's how the inspector knew that items
> mentioned in the article were not at appropriate temperature. There was
> also not enough time to take samples because the meal was underway; she
> couldn't allow service to take place under the circumstances. It still
> looks to me as though the inspector acted within regulations, even
> though she wasn't behaving the way the hosts wanted her to.


When I suggested to the owner of a Cajun style restaurant on the river
that he put out crawdad traps, he said that the Health Department
would never go along. All the food on the premises had to have the
seals showing they had been bought from licensed providers.

On 11/12/2011 2:54 PM, spamtrap1888 wrote:
> On Nov 12, 10:10 am, aem<aem_ag...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 12, 9:41 am, Nancy Young<email@replyto> wrote:
>>
>>>> This is an incredible story about officialdom gone wrong
>>
>>> That is disturbing ... to put it mildly.
>>
>> Seems to me the "host" is trying to have it both ways, portraying it
>> as a private event while in fact the "guests" were paying customers.
>> If you're going to stage this kind of commercial event then of course
>> you need permits and inspections. I don't see an abuse of power from
>> the facts as stated.
>
> The problem is the situation did not fit into the inspector's book of
> rules. The safety of the food being served was immaterial. This is the
> same Pharisaical mentality that Jesus used to rail against.


Perhaps, and maybe the hosts should have allowed more time to get the
rules ironed out (and determine accurately if they had to go through an
inspection process at all) well before the day of the do.

"gloria.p" wrote:
>
> This is an incredible story about officialdom gone wrong

Incredible, indeed. It's on a web site that opposes
fluoridation, pasteurization, and vaccination.
No credibility there!

Nancy Young wrote:
>
> On 11/12/2011 11:37 AM, gloria.p wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > This is an incredible story about officialdom gone wrong
> >
> > *http://tinyurl.com/7jvehlj*
>
> That is disturbing ... to put it mildly.
>
> nancy

Sounds like a bogus made-up story to me.
Ordered to pour bleach on the food? Give me a break@!

Bet it will show up on Snopes eventually as a fake story.

Sqwertz wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 09:37:27 -0700, gloria.p wrote:
>
> > This is an incredible story about officialdom gone wrong
> >
> > *http://tinyurl.com/7jvehlj*
> >
> > gloria p
>
> A health inspector that works on a Friday night?
>
> Buill****. Urban legend.

Damn, Steve. I wrote my response right before reading yours.
Yeah no kidding...someone did a good troll, imo.

On 11/12/2011 10:48 AM, gloria.p wrote:
>
> From the two articles I read, it appeared that all the inspector wanted
> to inspect were the receipts and labels for the food which didn't have
> either because it was locally grown. If she had asked to take
> temperatures and samples for analysis it might mave seemed more like an
> inspection rather than a harassment or witch hunt.
>
> gloria p

The restaurants are scared to death of not achieving proper temperature
so they build in a margin of safety called "overcooking." These days I
can only get a properly cooked hamburger or egg if the cook screws up.
Maybe he's got a hot date and wants to leave or maybe he has to go to
the toilet real bad. Well that's my theory about when I get a burger or
breakfast sandwich that's not overdone.

I once got a hamburger deluxe at a hole in the wall, next to the
University of Hawaii that was almost completely raw. If the cook had
done it regular, I wouldn't find it still memorable some 35 years later. (-:

On 2011-11-12, Gary <[email protected]> wrote:

> Sounds like a bogus made-up story to me.
> Ordered to pour bleach on the food? Give me a break@!

Agreed.

nb

Gary wrote:
>
> Sqwertz wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 09:37:27 -0700, gloria.p wrote:
> >
> > > This is an incredible story about officialdom gone wrong
> > >
> > > *http://tinyurl.com/7jvehlj*
> > >
> > > gloria p
> >
> > A health inspector that works on a Friday night?
> >
> > Buill****. Urban legend.
>
> Damn, Steve. I wrote my response right before reading yours.
> Yeah no kidding...someone did a good troll, imo.

Not really a troll. It's part of a money-making scheme.
The stock-in-trade of the web site is fuelling fears
of fluoridation, vaccination, etc. That's their scam.
Depicting themselves as the victim of the government,
"big business", the AMA, FDA, etc. is all part of that.
They were probably laughing themselves silly as they
concocted this story.

notbob wrote:
>Gary wrote:
>
>> Sounds like a bogus made-up story to me.
>> Ordered to pour bleach on the food? Give me a break@!
>
>Agreed.

What, bleach is the universal antidote for lungers?