No offense, but why should there be public officials making sure that you favorite restaurant doesn`t have a rat problem in the kitchen, neatly hidden from the public it serves?
Well, for one thing, any restaurant that put into its food rat poisoning would be out of business almost immediately. Additionally, anyone who was poisoned and demonstrated that it was intentful use of rat poison would sue the owners into oblivion, and those owners would likely face attempted murder charges.
Otherwise, if they`re allowing rats to run free in the restaurant,
they`d likely have a flea problem, and possibly a plague issue. I
wonder how long the place would stay in business?
Now what about mice droppings and roaches? What about cooks who lose
hair or spit into the food? If you don`t like that, don`t go to
restaurants. Additionally, certain restaurants will have a very high
reputation because over time, someone will have been in the kitchen,
worked at the place, and otherwise brought out that sort of news.
We HAVE countless laws already on the books to handle these kinds of
personal responsibility issues! If you don`t like cigarette smoke, then
don`t patronize establishments that allow smoking. If you don`t like
trans-fatty acids in your food, cook your own, and go to restaurants
that advertise their TFA-free menus!
There already are statutes and limitations, laws and ordinances
regarding the cleanliness of food service establishments. What happens
when the next inane "study" comes out and demands that chairs should be
a certain height because otherwise anyone over 300 lbs. can get leg
embolisms when sitting for longer than 60 minutes?
It`s NOT the government`s job to legislate choice and morality. It
IS a helpful function when that government ensures quality standards in
*global* distribution points, particularly ingestibles. So the FDA is a
valid function. To some extent, although not as it is, the EPA is at
But to force its way into the private ownership of a restaurant or
bar isn`t in any way valid---not in the US, anyway. This is mob rule,
where elected officials are pandering to their polling data for the
sake of their election.
Taking it even further, and making it specific: I never back up my
data--ever. I come to your company, set up a process, then fail (or
choose never) to follow any of your requirements. First, why shouldn`t
I sue your company if I lose all my data? Secondly, why shouldn`t I
start a campaign to "force" you to use certain equipment, redundancies,
and so forth?
Market pressures and customer choice should be the forces working on
your business choices. The government might develop a certification
process, and your company could then *choose* to become certified as a,
say, Level-3 data protection company. But it should be a choice, not a