Newly elected Sen. Thom Tillis held a Q&A at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington D.C. on Monday where he said that restaurants should be able to opt out of the hand washing safeguards that are in place after an employee uses the bathroom.
“I said, I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as they post a sign that says ‘We don’t require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restrooms.’ The market will take care of that,” Tillis is quoted as saying.
There are a lot of reasons to wash hands when it comes to food prep, but we wondered what the other side of the argument had to say about the idea, as well.
So, we reached out to E. Coli and got this response:
Holy shit! What a great idea from Thom Tillis!
My friends (Salmonella, Clostridium perfringens, Campylobacter and Staphylococcus aureus) and I have been incredibly supportive of this idea for years. After all, what’s a trip to a restaurant without a dehydrating performance by vomiting and diarrhea afterward?
We can only imagine the benefits this can have on the economy and health insurance industry after countless people go to the hospital with food poisoning. Currently, only 1 in 6 people gets food poisoning each year, and I think with Mr. Tillis’ help, we can significantly increase those numbers.
Great idea, Mr. Tillis! We’re so glad you give a shit! (And we mean that literally.)
This article appears in Jan 28 – Feb 3, 2015.
Mr. Hahne,
Your conceit here seems to be that “if there is a law or regulation on the books, then it is a given that everyone naturally follows it.” I dispute that conceit. In fact, there are hundreds of thousands of people in jail that can vouch for my disputing it.
Therefore I ask you to name one person who has been cited for violating this regulation (Section 2-301.14(B) of the N.C. Food Code Manual).
I’d also ask you to identify the enforcement regimes in place to apprehend violators. Surveillance cameras? Bathroom monitors? Poop-sniffing dogs? To paraphrase the great philosopher Nigel Tufnel, you can’t really dust for urine.
Finally I’d ask, if a regulation is in practice impossible to enforce, is it really a regulation at all?
Wow, the commenter used the word ‘conceit’. How 17th century, just like his or her thinking!
Ever notice those numbers at every single food establishment?
When you see low numbers, it can often be related to violations of exactly that code and other handwashing codes. If you look up bad restaurants you will see frequent infractions. So we already have the code, we enforce them, and we penalize businesses with low ratings, publicly publish the findings, and potentially shutdown repeat offenders. I know I won’t eat at a B rated establishment. If you browse here you can find hundreds of restaurants found in handwashing violations, for instance…
For instance: https://public.cdpehs.com/NCENVPBL/INSPECTION_VIOLATION/ShowVIOLATIONTable.aspx?INSPECTION=2308311&ESTABLISHMENT=124859&esttst_cty=60
6 2 Hands clean and properly washed 2-301.15 Where to Wash – PF: Prep sinks shall not be used to wash hands. Observed employee washing hands in prep sink. CDI- instruction and moved to handsink to wash hands.
8 1 Handwashing sinks, supplied and accessible 5-205.11 Using a Handwashing Sink-Operation and Maintenance – PF: Handsinks shall be accessible for use at all times. Observed rear handsink with wrap roll on sink. CDI- sink made accessible.
James R.,
I asked for a violation of 2-301.14(B). So I did a Google search: “”2-301.14″ site:public.cdpehs.com”. I found five – FIVE violations of 2-301.14 across the ENTIRE state of North Carolina, and NONE were for skipping hand washing after a restroom visit.
2-301-15 is not 2-301.14(B). Obviously if an inspector comes into the work area they can observe someone of either gender washing their hands in the prep sink. But restrooms are considered areas where some measure of privacy is expected… Are inspections done by teams of two, one male and one female, and does each inspector observe the restroom of their respective gender? If not, and only the female restroom is observed by a female inspector, isn’t that gender discrimination?
Again: A Google search for violations of 2-301.14(B) comes up with ZERO infractions.
A search for “2-301.15” site:public.cdpehs.com like the violation I listed above has only 1 google result, and it isn’t the one I linked to, and I saw dozens of those infractions when searching manually in my zip code.
It’s a certainty that a dynamic search based index like this is not fully indexed by google. But great finding 5 violations proving the point. They are watching for it, and they are citing for it.
So you’re acknowledging a second time that you cannot find a single citation for 2-301.14(B). Thanks for the confirmation.
Isn’t it an interesting study in human nature that no matter how much some people are abused and how transparent the rationale for the abuse, some people remain fiercely loyal to the abuser?
Was anyone paying attention when he was running the legislature in NC? Did you vote for him anyway, because he was the nominee of YOUR party?
DLP,
I know you have a predilection for distilling every issue down to pure politics. I prefer to operate at a three-digit IQ level, but just for you I’ll make an exception: I voted against Thommy Thilly TWICE last year. Can you say the same? And can you get back on-topic and answer the questions that Mr. Hahne has so far avoided?
Snuggles,
JQP
I’m concerned that Sen. Tillis has lost his right-wing compass in supporting deregulation of hand washing. Clearly he would not want to do anything that could increase the number of E. Coli, Salmonella, Clostridium perfringens, Campylobacter and Staphylococcus aureus – because with names like those they must be illegal aliens! He must be in real conundrum – deregulation vs. illegal aliens. Then what if this leads to Hepatitis A outbreaks? Then you’ve got to address the vaccine or no vaccine problem. Typhoid Tillis is gonna need some help from a good Koch Brother think tank to answer these questions!
JQP:
I think you need to read my post more carefully. Your 3 digit IQ apparently does not include reading comprehension. My post was about people continuing to support people who are abusing them. Your red herring question about whether or not the regulation is being enforced is irrelevant in the public health argument.
DLP,
I quote your post:
“Did you vote for him anyway, because he was the nominee of YOUR party?”
I answered the question you asked. This is what people with 3-digit IQs do. They articulate.
So now that I’ve answered your question, you answer mine:
If the regulation is not being enforced, how is it benefiting public health?
You stated you did not vote for him. Than means the question was not directed to you. It was directed to any teacher who voted for him after what he did to them. It was directed to any unemployed person who voted for him after he ripped the safety net out from under them, claiming he was helping them find jobs by doing it. It was directed at any retired person who voted for him after he raised their income taxes during his great “tax break for everyone”. Etc.
I then speculated that people vote for their party nominee even when their party is abusing them. I did not mention any party by name, though in this particular case it would be the Republican Party. The formation of political parties was the biggest mistake this country ever made. Since you love Google, search for the public comments made by the various presidential hopefuls after Mitt Romney bowed out. They all talked about what it meant for the party and the big campaign donors. They wondered out loud about who would be endorsed and who would inherit his supporters. They speculated about who would be the person most capable of defeating whoever the Democrats eventually nominate. Not one person said a word about what it meant for the people of America. The war between the two largest parties is paralyzing our government.
One week later and Mr. Hahne is too apparently cowardly or ignorant to answer legitimate questions about his article.
John Q. Public –
I am not too “cowardly” to answer your question – I simply have better things to do than argue the quality of health code enforcement.
But since you asked, here you go (as other people have stated):
The “enforcement regime” is called the Department of Health. The enforcement is done through sanitation grades. Countless restaurants receive lower ratings because of employees not washing their hands. Happens all the time.
See Koishi Restaurant, from 2011, for the first example to pop up on Google –
http://www.thecharlotteweekly.com/news/201…
Outside of that, it’s called trust. I trust that employees wash their hands, just as I trust them not to spit in my sandwich. You want to get rid of that regulation too? If you go out to eat, that’s the risk you take.
Maybe one day I will go to the Department of Health and ask them about violations of that specific code — or perhaps you can since you are so fixated on it. I have better things to do…. such as make fun of politicians with ridiculous ideas.
The inherent flaw in Mr. Tillis’ argument is that he wants less government regulation but fails to suggest it. A sign for hand washing is too much regulation, but one saying it’s not required is less regulation? Well done, Thom.
Ha, I love that “John Q. Public” calls Jeff Hahne “cowardly” yet has himself always been absolutely terrified of using his real name in CL’s comments section. Talk about your typical “cowardly” troll…
And exactly how often do you little shits rip “DLP” about anonymity?
Oh, did DLP also cowardly call one of CL’s writers “cowardly” from the safety and anonymity of his pseudonym? Nope, can’t seem to find that comment. Maybe you can locate it for us.
At any rate, like most of our readers, DLP offers thoughtful commentary, sometimes agreeing with us, sometimes disagreeing with us, but always in a respectful and well-reasoned manner. You, on the other hand, are nothing but a rude, time-wasting troll who’s too frightened to even commit to one single pseudonymous moniker!