FDA to ban sale of raw Gulf oysters

I have nothing but respect for people who run their own businesses.  While I have never done so personally, members of my immediate family have.  There are plenty of small business owners everywhere on the political spectrum.  While it seems that only those on the right choose to periodically violate the Roadfood posting rules, when they go ahead and do so they should not get all bent out of shape when those views are challenged.

Why do I bother popping up when political posting rules are violated?  Because I believe it's bad for the site when it's used as a platform for a political point of view.  That's why political discussions are banned. 

I post from time to time about food subjects (I posted about cooking bacon in the oven a couple of days ago), but my role here as writer/restaurant reviewer/editor takes up most of the time I have to devote to the site.  And if I feel I have something interesting to say it's more likely to end up on the Roadfood Digest or a restaurant review than in the Forums.

I am 71 and counting and, being a Type 2 diabetic, a member of at least one risk group.  When I have the opportunity I shall continue to visit the sushi bar and the raw bar.  I worked for a very highly regulated industry for more than fifty years and agree as a regards the match between additional rule making and the hiring of more government inspectors.  
 
I don't believe that there has never been any  requirement that the government inspector be reasonable or intelligent.

Although I do question the logic of banning totally a product that causes, at most, 15 deaths a year in the US while pretty well ignoring many other products which cause far more deaths, I find it difficult to understand why some people are getting all upset over the possibility of the FDA hiring more inspectors. 
 
As evidenced by the number of major recalls over the last few years due to the fact that the food industry was not inspected often enough and/or thoroughly enough to catch potential problems, I would say the FDA (and the FSIS) need many more inspectors, just so a single inspector won't have thousands of locations to inspect in a single year. 
 
(Since I am the person who has posted all the food recalls on Roadfood for quite a while and has followed the major outbreaks in detail of Salmonella and E. coli from start to finish during that tume, I feel I am pretty well qualified to come to this conclusion.  And no, I don't work now and never have worked for any branch or any level of the government.)

There is more to the story beyond death. Renal failure and hepatitis are conditions which result when focus is simply on keeping say on an individual basis without safety regulations. These are risks many will say they are willing to take...but being on dialysis and living with hepatitis are serious consequences that most would not wish on their worst enemy never mind themselves.

Bruce Bilmes and Sue Boyle


I have nothing but respect for people who run their own businesses.  While I have never done so personally, members of my immediate family have.  There are plenty of small business owners everywhere on the political spectrum.  While it seems that only those on the right choose to periodically violate the Roadfood posting rules, when they go ahead and do so they should not get all bent out of shape when those views are challenged.

Why do I bother popping up when political posting rules are violated?  Because I believe it's bad for the site when it's used as a platform for a political point of view.  That's why political discussions are banned. 

I post from time to time about food subjects (I posted about cooking bacon in the oven a couple of days ago), but my role here as writer/restaurant reviewer/editor takes up most of the time I have to devote to the site.  And if I feel I have something interesting to say it's more likely to end up on the Roadfood Digest or a restaurant review than in the Forums.

Bruce,
Government regulation and proposed regulation as it relates to the food industry is very relevant in this forum.  I moderate the forum in a way that I beleive promotes growth.  These issues are discussed in other restaurant professional forums on the internet.  My opinion is that if it doesn't get out of control, I would much rather have the issues discussed here than on some other forum on another site. And it usually doesn't get out of control until you show up.  Right or wrong, that's the way it is.  If you have a problem with it, you know who to talk to.

PopsDogHouse
it usually doesn't get out of control until you show up.

That's because only one side is presented until I show up!  Sure, everything seems hunky-dory when everyone piles on with the same opinions.  You only seem to have a problem when someone presents an opposing view.
 
Why is it that we have set up rules for the good of this website, but you seem to think that you, and only you, can choose to ignore those rules on "your" forum?  It's a disgrace.

Bruce, with all due respect, since Steve became the moderator on this forum we have made giant strides in what I think most would say are the right direction.

This is in my mind the most interesting food forum on the internet, and to smother it would be a terrible mistake.

You get your licks in but like many liberals you don't want the other side discussed, and that's a shame.

Why not let both sides air their thoughts and let everyone that reads the post  make up their respective mind. That's the American way.

Sure some ruffled feathers are going to come about from time to time but in the long run things will work out.

Jack

PopsDogHouse


So here is the way things look to me:
If you eat chicken, you may be at risk of salmonella poisoning.
Eating red meat can cause cancer and heart trouble.
Fish may contain mercury.
Oysters may be infected with vibrio vulnificus.
Eating shellfish causes you to ingest the toxins that they clean out of the water.
Pork contains parasites that aren’t killed by cooking, leading to Cirrhosis.
Drinking alcohol may lead to alcoholism, gambling addiction, sexual addiction, violence, oh yeah, and Cirrhosis.
Hot dogs contain Sodium Nitrite which is a carcinogen.
Vegetables need to be watched carefully because they are protected in the field with pesticides.
Smoking causes cancer.
 
Maybe we should just allow restaurants to serve bread and water?  Nah, we can’t do that.  They wouldn’t survive because nowadays everybody is either wheat or gluten intolerant.  And of course, water contains chlorine and fluoride (both have their own issues).  Well, we could serve bottled water.  Nope, can’t have the plastic in the landfills.  Ok, let’s close the restaurants; put millions out of work, and stay locked up in the house eating nuts and berries.  Nope!  If you do that, you have to be concerned with indoor air pollution, lack of vitamin D, and adult onset asthma. 
 
How about this:  Take personal responsibility!  And for those that feel they need big brother to save them from themselves: Move somewhere else! Leave those alone who want to enjoy themselves during this one life we’ve been given.

This one sums it up better than I ever could have said it myself.  Thank you Pops.  Why is that everybody expects the government to take care of them when it comes to every little thing in life?  If you have issues with eating raw oysters, don't do it!  Its that simple.  I could go on and on but people who expect the government to wipe their a**es for them will just argue with me. 

By the way, I just hit the Indian Pass Raw Bar in Apalachicola FLA right on the gulf a week and a half ago.  I downed a couple of dozen of my beloved beauties....I walked away and am still walking now.

Yes, I have gotten sick from things I have eaten in the past but it had nothing to do with government regulations or policy and the government never would have saved me.  Hey, there are inherent risks to every thing you do in life. Driving a car, flying in a plane, living where there are mudslides, huuricanes, tornados, undercooked raw food at cookouts such as eating mayonnaise potato salad that sat out in the sun etc etc.....  I am an ironman triathlete.  Should I sue the government if I have a heart attack due to the sausage pasta I carb loaded on before a race?  What about the nitrates in that pasta?  Have we become a nation of mambie pambies?  So whats next?  Do we shut down all the wonderful food cart vendors that post on this site because I run the risk of a heart attack?  Come on people!!!

Dr of BBQ

Why not let both sides air their thoughts and let everyone that reads the post  make up their respective mind.

Because we've been down that road already, and we've determined that it is counterproductive to the mission of Roadfood.com.  The matter has already been settled.  It's only PopsDogHouse that seems to think it isn't.

Perhaps if the Restaurant Professionals Forum was a stand-alone website it would be able to operate differently.  But for now, at least, it operates as part of Roadfood.com.  Current topics show up on our front page for all to see, and all are welcomed to participate in the discussions, not just restaurant professionals.  And what happens on this forum reflects on Roadfood.com as a whole.  There can't be one set of rules for you guys and another set for the rest of the site.

I'm not saying that the subject of raw Gulf oysters isn't a worthy topic for discussion.  It is, and many productive posts were made on the subject.  But then someone decided to use the subject as a springboard to go on an unrelated rant (USING ALL CAPS) about the government and taxes (once again for the umpteenth time).  That was counterproductive and argumentative and detracted from the discussion.  And if you permit that then you have to permit rants from the other side too.  Everything devolves from there.

Bruce Bilmes and Sue Boyle

Dr of BBQ

Why not let both sides air their thoughts and let everyone that reads the post  make up their respective mind.

Because we've been down that road already, and we've determined that it is counterproductive to the mission of Roadfood.com.  The matter has already been settled.  It's only PopsDogHouse that seems to think it isn't.

Perhaps if the Restaurant Professionals Forum was a stand-alone website it would be able to operate differently.  But for now, at least, it operates as part of Roadfood.com.  Current topics show up on our front page for all to see, and all are welcomed to participate in the discussions, not just restaurant professionals.  And what happens on this forum reflects on Roadfood.com as a whole.  There can't be one set of rules for you guys and another set for the rest of the site.

I'm not saying that the subject of raw Gulf oysters isn't a worthy topic for discussion.  It is, and many productive posts were made on the subject.  But then someone decided to use the subject as a springboard to go on an unrelated rant (USING ALL CAPS) about the government and taxes (once again for the umpteenth time).  That was counterproductive and argumentative and detracted from the discussion.  And if you permit that then you have to permit rants from the other side too.  Everything devolves from there.

How is asking the government to stay out of peoples lives considered political?  I did not see anyone mention any sort of political party or any sort of affiliation.  Please enlighten me.

Well Bruce there is nothing going to incite a reaction faster than name calling, and no one called anyone names until you got involved.

Your post as follows:
"Why does the lunatic fringe find it so hard to obey Roadfood.com's simple posting rules?

Politics does not only relate to Democrats and Republicans and political parties.

What is that supposed to mean? What are the parameters of a political discussion?

Is it just any time you cry foul ball? LMAO

Bruce, that was crossing the line.

Bruce Bilmes and Sue Boyle

PopsDogHouse
it usually doesn't get out of control until you show up.

That's because only one side is presented until I show up!  Sure, everything seems hunky-dory when everyone piles on with the same opinions.  You only seem to have a problem when someone presents an opposing view.
 
Why is it that we have set up rules for the good of this website, but you seem to think that you, and only you, can choose to ignore those rules on "your" forum?  It's a disgrace.

 
 
 
Bruce & Sue,
 
You don't seem to get it. Many THINKING Americans are outraged at the level of Government control of their lives and rthe Waste of their money
. They're outraged at the COST of government control and it's related exenses! They're outraged with the fact that they can't control the expansion of and the COST of Government Control.
 
In this case, If the  FDA creates a " Dept of Oyster Safety" and creates 20 new jobs with an Average salary of $50,000.00, That's $1,000,000.00 Annually--Add 30% for benefits, that's $30,000.00. Then we need to equip their offices with Desks, Chairs, other Amenities like a Lunch Room,  Computers, Phones, Copy Machines, Etc. Admin Staff and their benefits,--------------Pretty soon we're talking serious money!!! Maybe $10,000,000.00 ANNUALLY!!!!!! 
Now you can argue that spending $10 MILLON DOLLARS/ PER YEAR +   ( Because once a piece of the Bureauracy is put in place, it NEVER, EVER goes away!) is worth saving a couple lives a year.
 
 I SUBMIT-- that $10 Million could be better spent on other projects with a HIGHER RETURN VALUE like Cancer Research or other projects that affect more than 15 people a year!

Bruce Bilmes and Sue Boyle

PopsDogHouse
it usually doesn't get out of control until you show up.

That's because only one side is presented until I show up!  Sure, everything seems hunky-dory when everyone piles on with the same opinions.  You only seem to have a problem when someone presents an opposing view.
 
Why is it that we have set up rules for the good of this website, but you seem to think that you, and only you, can choose to ignore those rules on "your" forum?  It's a disgrace.

 
You don't present an opposing point of view Bruce. You don't have anything of value to contribute here.  You just come over and cry foul.  This isn't the Miscellaneous forum, and you don't see political discussion here just for the sake of political discussion.  I delete that crap.  But, you do see dialogue from time to time about government regulation and its impact on the food industry.  If good, relevant discussion is censored here, people will leave for a more open venue.  I am not referring to those who want to discuss politics.  I'm referring to those who want to discuss business.  And I can promise you that government involvement in business is a big issue for anyone in business.  And everyone here is not of the same opinion.  However, because most of these folks are entrepreneurs, you will find that many, not all, would probably hold to the belief system of a rugged individualist. 
 
I'm sorry that you find me and/or the forum to be a disgrace.  Does this mean you'll go away now?

Ok so there cannot be cherrypicking when it comes to these matters. The system had flaws...like all systems. With no system the focus will be square on the source of any tainted products served....and without a system there is no going to the root...it will go to the restaurants serving the tainted food. No investigaton of the peanut factory slaughterhouse etc. Now you are named in countless lawsuits as the defendant. You got it from this source that source handled it properly and there are issues without any way of you knowing. 
 
This is what happens when a restaurant is the focus...
 
 http://www.nrn.com/breakingNews.aspx?menu_id=1368&id=373782
 
Here is a portion of the article...
 
  "Until the 1960s, raw oysters were rarely eaten in the summertime. (The old adage was never eat oysters in the months without an R in them.) But changes in harvest patterns and advances in refrigeration and post-harvest treatment have made the industry a year-round business. About three-fifths of the Gulf's oysters are harvested during the warm months."
 
Maybe the advances are just not enough and this is the outcome of turning the industry into a year-round business. Something it was not for generations before the 60s.

CC-If the restaurant in the article was using a private, unapproved well that was tainted, they should be the focus.

And concerning the advances in technology not being enough, maybe they aren't.  Personally, I can't make that leap.  I don't believe that 15 deaths annually that occur in an "at risk" population indicates a systemic problem with technology.  While I certainly don't want to see anyone lose their life, especially from food, there are tens of thousands of deaths attributed to foodborne illness and disease.  The government can double or triple their payroll, and we'll have another problem.  They can't protect us from everything.

PopsDogHouse

You don't present an opposing point of view Bruce. You don't have anything of value to contribute here.  You just come over and cry foul.  This isn't the Miscellaneous forum, and you don't see political discussion here just for the sake of political discussion.  I delete that crap.  But, you do see dialogue from time to time about government regulation and its impact on the food industry.  If good, relevant discussion is censored here, people will leave for a more open venue.  I am not referring to those who want to discuss politics.  I'm referring to those who want to discuss business.  And I can promise you that government involvement in business is a big issue for anyone in business.  And everyone here is not of the same opinion.  However, because most of these folks are entrepreneurs, you will find that many, not all, would probably hold to the belief system of a rugged individualist. 
 
I'm sorry that you find me and/or the forum to be a disgrace.  Does this mean you'll go away now?

You can rationalize it all you want but it doesn't change the fact that this board is a part of Roadfood.  We have rules here.  You think you can make your own rules.

Who approves the well? I am sure there are people somewhere screaming "leave my well alone...my Grandpa and his Grandpa..."
 
Medical advancement means less people may die...but more people get really sick (and it does not take much).  If this was myself or one of my children on dialysis three times a week for life...and I assume nobody would say oh well such is life at that point.
 
Going against that old adage means people feel "safe" to eat the oysters during the warmer months....but I bet there are also those who break those rules constantly...intentionally or not. Then it is like the Girl Scouts selling hot dogs in front of Walmart or a vendor with a crockpot when you are following the rules. Go get those little girls...and these little girls and these little girls!!! At some point the focus on little girl chasing prompts a response that effects those that do follow the rules to the letter. But the oyster is already out of the shell because people feel safe to eat oysters in June! Then  the other loud voices screaming where was the govt. when they hear the latest news story about an outbreak of illness from this or that. Then back to the voices screaming how people qualify straight for Medicare when they go on dialysis no matter what...and that treatment costs thousands of dollars in taxpayer money a week per patient...for life.   
 

CCinNJ


Who approves the well? I am sure there are people somewhere screaming "leave my well alone...my Grandpa and his Grandpa..." 
  
 

 
I can't speak for all areas, only mine.  If you are going to use a well as your water source in a food service establishment, it has to be tested and approved by the Dept. of Environmental Services.  The government tests my well water.  I take it to them once a year.  I have no problem with that.  Now, let them try to come put a meter on it so that they can tax me on my water usage, and that will be a different story.
 
I think most people who eat oysters know the risks and choose to eat them anyway.  It's just like people who smoke, drink, skydive, fly, bungee jump etc......

Bruce Bilmes and Sue Boyle

PopsDogHouse

You don't present an opposing point of view Bruce. You don't have anything of value to contribute here.  You just come over and cry foul.  This isn't the Miscellaneous forum, and you don't see political discussion here just for the sake of political discussion.  I delete that crap.  But, you do see dialogue from time to time about government regulation and its impact on the food industry.  If good, relevant discussion is censored here, people will leave for a more open venue.  I am not referring to those who want to discuss politics.  I'm referring to those who want to discuss business.  And I can promise you that government involvement in business is a big issue for anyone in business.  And everyone here is not of the same opinion.  However, because most of these folks are entrepreneurs, you will find that many, not all, would probably hold to the belief system of a rugged individualist. 

I'm sorry that you find me and/or the forum to be a disgrace.  Does this mean you'll go away now?

You can rationalize it all you want but it doesn't change the fact that this board is a part of Roadfood.  We have rules here.  You think you can make your own rules.

I live in a black, white, and gray world.  I spend alot of time in the gray because I find more creativity, and many more interesting people there.  Anymore problems Bruce, please send them via PM.  Our discussion is over.

Sometimes people who don't smoke and eat oysters feel like cigarettes should be outlawed or cost $1000 a pack but leave the oysters alone. Go get those little girls that smoke. Uh oh.

Pops, Just in case you aren't aware. The rest of the moderators appreciate your efforts with this forum. We make no claim at having the knowledge of the business, so dealing with the law in relation to the food service industry would be an exercise in futility.
 Your 'steering' the discussions has been a good addition to the overall operation of the forums.

 We have faced some of the personality issues you are confronting now. Perhaps Management will intervene this time to resolve some of problems they seem to have within the administration.

Thank you Al.  Your comments are very much appreciated.

Wow......

Ever regret posting a simple comment???

The subject of the proposed regulations on the sale of raw oysters is a good one.  I happen to think these new regulations are a lousy idea.

Perhaps the solution should be that the restaurant agrees to be held responsible if they serve a tainted product?

Which they would be anyway, right?  I mean, the way the laws are right now, if someone eats a bad oyster at a restaurant and she dies, the restaurant is liable, isn't it?  And still 15 people a year die.  So you have to choose your level of death.

If an additive was available to restaurants that made food taste unbelievably delicious, but half the people who ate it died, I think most people would be in favor of banning it.  If something killed one person every century, I think practically nobody would ban it.

So everyone agrees that some things should be outlawed in food and we should assume the risk for other things.  The people who want this law enacted feel the benefits of those 15 lives a year outweigh the costs to oyster eaters and producers.  I think it goes overboard but I can see how some people might not agree with that.

Mil Food LVR- Isn't that how the law works now? The Jack in the Box disaster from some years back comes to mind??? The details are foggy to me as to how that was finally settled...Was JIB the final 'guilty party or was it the meat supplier????

In the Oyster case, I am sure the restaurant/ final seller would be partially accountable, but how about the others in the food supply chain?   Where does accountablity start, and how far does each level go??

This is a very complex issue, But somehow the consumer does need some 'insurance' that the final product is safe.