Paternalistic institution?

[Cartman]

CBC Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:21:24 EDT

The number of E. coli cases in Calgary has hit 29 in less than a week. Health officials say the likely source is ground beef.

The Calgary Health Region says 17 of the cases can be traced back to food containing ground beef at five city restaurants, whose names aren't being released. The restaurants are still open for business.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...ary_040922.html

I think that this is really irresponsible behavioiur on the part of this fed/prov. institution. Canadians have the right to know which restaurants have spread this bacteria. Not knowing leads people to question what they have eaten in the past week raising fears of infection. I suspect many will go to the hospital for minor stomach aches raising taxpayer costs. Why do you think they do not release the names of the restaurants?

[August1991]

This is the nightmare scenario of every strongly risk-averse bureaucrat. They go public with the information because they fear accusations of a cover-up. But they don't name names because they fear liability claims if the specific information is false.

This is the proverbial hot potato no one wants to touch.

"I wasn't there; I didn't do it. That's my line; and I'm sticking to it."

[Cartman]

I think you are right August. Kind of ironic that these bureaucrats who are paid to disseminate "information" on risk-taking are so risk adverse to do so. But then again, I suppose it makes sense.

[maplesyrup]

CBC Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:21:24 EDT

The number of E. coli cases in Calgary has hit 29 in less than a week. Health officials say the likely source is ground beef.

The Calgary Health Region says 17 of the cases can be traced back to food containing ground beef at five city restaurants, whose names aren't being released. The restaurants are still open for business.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...ary_040922.html

I think that this is really irresponsible behavioiur on the part of this fed/prov. institution. Canadians have the right to know which restaurants have spread this bacteria. Not knowing leads people to question what they have eaten in the past week raising fears of infection. I suspect many will go to the hospital for minor stomach aches raising taxpayer costs. Why do you think they do not release the names of the restaurants?

Another cover-up by the capitalists to protect their ill gotten gains.

Imagine, they are so worried about profits that they put peoples' lives at risk.

I think we would release the names and locations if it were in Vancouver. But then again that is the difference between a progresssive government and one that is just there to represent the business interests.

[kimmy]

Why do you think they do not release the names of the restaurants?

...because naming the restaurants would unfairly punish them, when the fault appears to lie with the meat supplier.

-kimmy

[August1991]

...because naming the restaurants would unfairly punish them, when the fault appears to lie with the meat supplier.

The restaurant owner should ensure that the meat served is safe.

When I buy an airplane ticket, I also buy the airline's ability (reputation) to check the plane.

[caesar]

because naming the restaurants would unfairly punish them, when the fault appears to lie with the meat supplier.

I think Kimmy is right. We just had a recall of ground beef about a month ago from a Calgary meat supplier to Super Store.

[August1991]

I think Kimmy is right.

I think Kimmy is wrong.

I recall once buying meat in a small shop in France. The butcher was able to show me the precise origin of the cow and its various travels. The papers were meaningless to me, they could have been forged, but they were displayed publicly.

Who is best placed (that is, who has the strongest incentive and can check at lowest cost) to verify the quality of food: the dining customer, the restaurant owner, the meat packer or a city food inspector?

Another cover-up by the capitalists to protect their ill gotten gains.

The government is doing the covering-up apparently.

Imagine, they are so worried about profits that they put peoples' lives at risk.

Some capitalists are going to lose a lot of future profits from this. I can't believe they would go for a quick small buck and sacrifice larger profits in the future. They may not even have a business to sell.

Interesting case.

[takeanumber]

It's simple really.

If you live in Calgary:

Don't eat beef for the next 2-4 weeks.

Just don't do it.

Penalize the whole industry.

Continue to penalize the bastards until they stop feeding animals to other animals, and start demanding that every single damned cow is tested.

Punish them all, from the farmer to the middleman, from the slaughterhouse to the packer to the retailer.

It's the only way to do it.

[kimmy]

Continue to penalize the bastards until they stop feeding animals to other animals, and start demanding that every single damned cow is tested.

uh, you realize that the issue in this instance is E. Coli bacteria, and not BSE? It arises from unsafe storage, unsafe preparation, or unsafe processing of meat.

There is nothing the farmers can do to prevent it, and no amount of testing on the animals before they're slaughtered can assure the safe handling of meat afterward.

I recall once buying meat in a small shop in France. The butcher was able to show me the precise origin of the cow and its various travels. The papers were meaningless to me, they could have been forged, but they were displayed publicly.

Who is best placed (that is, who has the strongest incentive and can check at lowest cost) to verify the quality of food: the dining customer, the restaurant owner, the meat packer or a city food inspector?

So, should each restaurant have a qualified meat inspector in the kitchen at all times? Should each restaurant have a representative on duty at their meat-supplier of choice to ensure that the equipment used in grinding the meat is sterilized frequently?

Who has the strongest incentive to verify the quality of the food? The customer, quite obviously; they're the ones eating it. But you're not going to suggest each customer should also be a qualified meat inspector, or be present in the kitchen to ensure that safe handling procedures are followed, right?

Who is best placed to ensure safety? The restaurants are best placed to ensure safe handling procedures are followed during preparation. But the meat supplier is best placed to ensure that the ground beef on its way to the restaurant has been processed safely.

-kimmy

[playfullfellow]

uh, you realize that the issue in this instance is E. Coli bacteria, and not BSE? It arises from unsafe storage, unsafe preparation, or unsafe processing of meat.

This is very true Kimmy, you forgot that the final step is properly cooking the meat, I guess this could fall under processing in a long about way. Meat has to be cooked thouroughly to kill bacteria in the meat. There are plenty of rules and regulations the whole way through the system to try to ensure that there is no contamination, even all the way back to the farm. Food processing has come a long way in the last 10 years. With new tests and technologies, most instances of e coli are caught before they hit the shelves. Of course no system is fool proof.

Personally, I figure that naming the restaurants is for the better of the public. Then if people who had been there are feeling a bit funky, they can get it looked after. But then again, if more people stayed at home and had a family meal, then the pressure would be off the cooks in restaurants and they could prepare meals properly for people do eat out.

[August1991]

Who is best placed to ensure safety? The restaurants are best placed to ensure safe handling procedures are followed during preparation. But the meat supplier is best placed to ensure that the ground beef on its way to the restaurant has been processed safely.

Kimmy discovers the real world.

I don't mean the "jungle-strongest wins" guy world.

I mean the "right best-for-us" chick world.

Unfortunately, Kimmy doesn't get it.

[Stoker]

Kimmy discovers the real world.

I don't mean the "jungle-strongest wins" guy world.

I mean the "right best-for-us" chick world.

Unfortunately, Kimmy doesn't get it.

I don't get it either. Care to dumb it down a tad?

[August1991]

I don't get it either.  Care to dumb it down a tad?

You can choose by your instincts and the best number, or you can choose solely by your instincts.

Do the numbers help you to choose at all? (40 gb and 80 gb? Or, 800$ and 1200$?)

The critical difference is in the price difference, not the memory measure.

The second seller's decision to go to 800 from 1200 hurts the first seller but still benefits the second seller. It certainly benefits you, the buyer. There's an overall benefit, easy to find.

Do you get it? I'll try again if necessary with a better example.

That is, send me 800$ for the truth. Or, how much hassle is involved to figure out what the hell is going on. We're not talking government healthcare here. We're talking my 14 year old son may have a rare cancer but the test costs $8,000 in the States. His doctors say that I shouldn't worry. But they give me a funny look.

What to do?

[Cartman]

...because naming the restaurants would unfairly punish them, when the fault appears to lie with the meat supplier.

I think that PFF has already said that the restaurant must cook the meat to eradicate the bacteria. For most restaurants, this is the main service they trade. I say release the names of the culprits and let informed people make their decision to go there or not. As it stands, I am just avoiding eating out altogether and I do not see why restaurants who work hard to ensure the safety of their customers and their reputation should be penalized for the mistakes made by others. And it looks like the gov't expects things to get worse.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...gary040924.html

According to the Sun (yeah I read a Sun for the second time in my life), two restaurants have voluntarily closed their doors for a bit.

I hate bureaucrats. :angry:

[playfullfellow]

In todays society of being run by lawyers, unfortunately, we see a situation where when the names of the said restaurants are released, they may be able to sue for loss of business even though I am sure that all the people who got sick told all of their family and friends who in turn will not go the place anyways. Ultimately, the responsibility falls on the restaurant to ensure their food is safe and cooked properly. We do not eat out often but when we do, I always ask for my meat well done. Same thing at home, our food is thoroughly cooked.

[Cartman]

CBC Last Updated Sat, 25 Sep 2004

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...coli040925.html

Officials fear that the situation may be more serious than initially believed.

On Friday officials said there was no need to shut down suspect restaurants, but on Saturday a few of the city's restaurants were closed to customers.

Throughout this ordeal government and health officials have refused to publicly name the restaurants or suppliers being investigated, a move criticized by some of the high school students who fell ill.

If any law suits come out of this, I hope the health authorities are included.

[kimmy]

Kimmy discovers the real world.

I don't mean the "jungle-strongest wins" guy world.

I mean the "right best-for-us" chick world.

Unfortunately, Kimmy doesn't get it.

You can choose by your instincts and the best number, or you can choose solely by your instincts.

Do the numbers help you to choose at all? (40 gb and 80 gb? Or, 800$ and 1200$?)

The critical difference is in the price difference, not the memory measure.

The second seller's decision to go to 800 from 1200 hurts the first seller but still benefits the second seller. It certainly benefits you, the buyer. There's an overall benefit, easy to find.

Do you get it? I'll try again if necessary with a better example.

That is, send me 800$ for the truth. Or, how much hassle is involved to figure out what the hell is going on. We're not talking government healthcare here. We're talking my 14 year old son may have a rare cancer but the test costs $8,000 in the States. His doctors say that I shouldn't worry. But they give me a funny look.

What to do?

-kimmy

[maplesyrup]

Shit happens!

Being part of the human species, mistakes are made all the time.

I remember when Capers, a high end primarily organic speciality food store has some trouble in their produce section.

People were lined up at the health clinics to get shots if I remember correectly.

But the important thing is that Capers did not try to deny it, adjusted what they wetre doing, and took full responsibility for the problem. As a result they survived.

[Cartman]

CBC Tue, 28 Sep 2004

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...oli_040928.html

Finally! The three restaurants are finally named. I wonder how many people ate at these places when the Board knew something was wrong here?

I did not realize this. Maybe it never was the meat.

"We know from other outbreaks that have been reported in North America that lettuce has been watered with water that may have been contaminated with E. coli and that has been a source of E. coli outbreaks in the past," said MacDonald.

[August1991]

-kimmy

I don't quite understand these faces.

Trees growing in a forest reach for sunlight. Call this a competitive reach for the top. Whether all trees achieve 5 meters or 10 meters, they'll get the same light. So, it's the proverbial race to the bottom, or the sky. The trees kill each other to win.

Now, consider a race where a third party benefits. That's what happens in a price race. In French, it's no longer la compétition. It's la concurrence. (In English, there is "competition" and "price competition".)

Now, in the tree story - like competion in general - it helps to threaten others. "Don't even try to grow as tall as me, loser."

But in the price story, it helps if the third party knows what the price competition is all about.

Restaurants compete on price but they want to identify who they are. They don't signal to threaten.

Clear?

[kimmy]

-kimmy

I don't quite understand these faces.

"Confused" and "I knew I should have stayed at the Rinkratz Chat Forum", respectively.

Trees growing in a forest reach for sunlight.  Call this a competitive reach for the top.  Whether all trees achieve 5 meters or 10 meters, they'll get the same light.  So, it's the proverbial race to the bottom, or the sky. The trees kill each other to win.

Now, consider a race where a third party benefits.  That's what happens in a price race.  In French, it's no longer la compétition.  It's la concurrence.  (In English, there is "competition" and "price competition".) 

Now, in the tree story - like competion in general - it helps to threaten others.  "Don't even try to grow as tall as me, loser."

But in the price story, it helps if the third party knows what the price competition is all about.

Restaurants compete on price but they want to identify who they are.  They don't signal to threaten.

Clear?

... uh...

I'm just not following the connection to the issues of liability and responsibility that we were talking about in this thread.

So yes... I guess "Kimmy still doesn't get it."

-kimmy

[August1991]

Rinkratz Chat Forum

Got me there. Let me go figure.

[August1991]

I'm just not following the connection to the issues of liability and responsibility that we were talking about in this thread.

Figures later. ['Kimmy's right,' says the Red Queen. I answer, 'No, she still doesn't get it.']

Forget the Red Queen. Let's start with liability and responsibility.

You buy a house on a quiet street. After a few months, the quiet pub next door becomes a noisy club playing loud music until late with noisy patrons. Irritated, you go to a city complaint bureau to have the club shut down - or at least returned to its Olde English Style.

What does the city zoning inspector decide?

At issue here is: who owns the "atmosphere" on your street?

What's the connection of this case and the tainted restaurant food?

Well, you go into a restaurant and buy a meal. Later, you are sick. You decide to go to court to sue the restaurant.

What does the judge decide?

At issue here is: what did you buy exactly? (What did the restaurant sell you?)

Hugo, inventing a new world order, glosses over the problem of property rights - and manages to conclude that governments are otiose. I disagree.

But getting back to the issue of responsibility and liability, what does the city official or judge decide?

[playfullfellow]

But getting back to the issue of responsibility and liability, what does the city official or judge decide?

Thats a very interesting question. It would probably boil down to who is at fault and if anyone was negligent. In the case of the noisy club, there are always public meetings before a new permit is issued when a company changes what it does. The thin line would be whether the pub has a right to become a club without getting a new permit. If there was indeed a public meeting, then this is where you have to show your opposition. It may also boil down to who was there first, you or the pub. A lot of cities also have noise bylaws now and these may be pertinent to a final decision too.

In the case of you getting sick, it would boil down to whether the restaurant followed the health code to prepare your food. Chances are if they did, you should not get sick unless of course you ordered a blue rare steak. If this is the case, then you should be more or less responsible for your own actions because you ordered the chef to bypass recommended cooking methods. Chances are though when so many people get sick, then there is a problem with the preparation of the food in the first place. So all the sick people sue the restaurant, the restaurant sues the supplier and the supplier sues the packing plant. In the end though, it is only the lawyers that benefit from all of this crap.

Another way to look at whether the names of the restaurant should be publicized or not. If you have been eating at the same restaurant for the past 5 years and never had a problem but all of a sudden, several people get sick. Chances are you will avoid the place for a while but eventually you will go back when it does not make the front page anymore. As for people who have never tried the place, well they will avoid going there but eventually they will forget all about what they read in the papers and might pop in there for a meal in the future. If the restaurant offers good food, good service at a reasonable cost, then people will go there as long as no one else gets sick. The bottom line is that the restaurant is ultimately responsible for ensuring the food they serve is safe. If they fail to do so, then we should be informed of such.