# Critical Sarcasm for the knees

# Old Ass Sudotask

Go Home Old Site

## Should Cooks Wash Their Hands? A Prefered Indifferent.

Discovered via this google+ post, senator Thom Tillis is questioning whether government should regulate food service hand washing policies.

Most people take one look at this idea and think, "What the fuck is wrong with our government," but we must look deeper into it. Should people wash their hands before serving food? For safety? Yes. Should employers enforce that their employees wash their hands before serving food? To keep customers happy? Of course. However, government shouldn't be forcing the hand. The market should.

Senator Tillis apparently believes that it should be up to the establishment, but they should still post a sign in the case that they choose not to enforce their employees to wash their hands. As Jon Stewart says, if you take away the regulation for hand washing, but then go ahead and enforce regulation to have a sign... That doesn't help the problem of regulation. It is still regulation.

Many establishments will likely continue to have hand washing policies, but some places may choose to relax, or remove, these policies. What is the result? People will likely get sick. Dysentery is a horrible thing to have.

So enough negative, what positive effects could this have? When John gets sick after eating at "The Rusty Bucket", chances are he will tell all his friends to avoid that place like the plague. Market balance.

Companies will likely enforce hand washing policies regardless of regulation. Is this the same result as have regulation in effect? No. The end result perhaps, but at least this way it's taken care of with freedom. Not with the exchange of freedom for the illusion of safety.

Remember the Jack in the box e. coli outbreak of 1993? While they were in compliance with the law, undercooked meat was still responsible for at least four deaths. The response? Many law suits and regulatory change in required temperatures for beef.

Were the regulations necessary? Jack in the Box lost many customers, money in lawsuits, and nearly went bankrupt. However, while the new regulations were first only in Washington state, what did Jack in the Box do? They mandated a new cooking temperature nation wide. Why would they do that? To prepare for future federal regulation? Hell no. They wanted to stay in business.

What if we get rid of the regulations? What about the customers? How many people need to get sick before we give up and go back to regulations?

Freedom should never be given up for safety. As in the Jack in the Box reference, people will boycott companies who get people sick. People will become more aware of what they eat, and who they let prepare it.

Having to worry about whether or not company xyz might get us sick, would at least give us back one level of consciousness. Even better, perhaps more people will go back to eating at home. If people were more aware of what they were doing to themselves, chances are they would eat fast food a lot less often.

So this is a bit of a touchy subject, because people die. Should we regulate to prevent loss of life? Do we exchange freedom for life? I don't think so. Market forces are more than able to take care of any issues that arise. What if I'm wrong? Then the people who choose not to be aware of life around them die. That's part of life. Being aware. If you choose not to do it, you risk yourself and others around you. What do you think about regulation? Are market forces not enough? Comment below.

If you want to see a more raw response from me, feel free to look at the comments of the google plus post introduced at the beginning of this article.