…a very responsible blog…catavino.net…[it's] refreshing to see such professionalism.
Robert M. Parker Jr.

Wine Labeling Law

Did you know that the US is known in Spain as the “Country of Laws”? And if Spain refers to our country in this way, I would confidently make the assumption that our reputation far extends past the Iberian Peninsula as an obsessively “judicial” country. After the most recent bout with the Food and Drug Administration wanting a warning placed on all wine bottles of possible food allergens from eggs, wheat and fish, I would tend to agree with our international reputation. The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act states that all major food allergens must be labeled in ‘plain, common language’ on any food and drink products that may contain them.

As it stands, the wine industry is already required by law to label bottles both with the use of sulfites and the potential risk of birth defects, driving impairment and unspecific “health problems”. I’m curious how far this need to label everything in minuscule detail will go? Should I be warned that my teeth may turn red if I drink red wine? Maybe that wine may stain my clothing if spilled? When will we put limits as to what is common sense and what is truly valuable information to put on a label?
Personal Thoughts:

1. You’re living in a cave if you honestly don’t know that drinking wine excessively can impair you physically, hurt those around you, and potentially kill anything inside you.

2. What are “unspecific health problems”? Sounds incredibly vague and an ideal way to cover someone’s ass from a legal suit.

3. According to the FDA 1 out of 100 are sensitive to sulfites and approximately 5% of asthmatics have a reaction to wine. If we consider the millions of people who are not sensitive to sulfites, how many blame their negative reaction to a particular wine on sulfites? Many. How many people actually know what sulfites are? Few.

4. Are more people sensitive to red wine than white wine? Yes. Red wines have a larger amount of histamines than white wines. Histamine is a naturally (notice the word “natural”) occurring amine released by the body during allergic reactions generated by bacteria and yeast in the alcohol. There is a tiny amount produced by alcohol and even less of this amount is absorbed by the body if ingested. Obviously, if you drink too much, the level of histamines will increase producing allergy like symptoms. Here’s the big catch, histamines can ALSO be found in cheese, tuna and meat! Once again, how many people know what histamines are? Few. How many will blame their negative experience of a wine on histamines because they heard red wine has it? Many.

Taken from the American Academy of Allergies Asthma and Immunology (AAAI):

What is a Food Allergy

  • Food allergy is a group of disorders distinguished by the way the body’s immune system responds to specific food proteins.
  • In children, the following six foods cause the majority of food allergy reactions: milk, egg, peanuts, wheat, soy, and tree nuts (ex: walnuts and pecans). Children will often outgrow an allergy to eggs, milk, wheat and soy.
  • In adults, four foods cause the majority of allergic reactions: peanuts, tree nuts, fish and shellfish.
  • Symptoms of food allergies range from a tingling sensation in the mouth, swelling of the tongue and the throat, difficulty breathing, hives, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, drop in blood pressure, loss of consciousness, to death. Symptoms typically appear within minutes to two hours after the person has eaten the food to which he or she is allergic.
  • Individuals with food allergy and asthma appear to be at an increased risk for severe or fatal allergic reactions.

Food Allergies to Wine

The current draft legislation is based on claims by people who have reported that they suffer from allergens used in making wine. What ingredients are they referring to? Egg whites, a milk protein called casein, and isinglass – a substance derived from fish guts. All three ingredients are typically used as an agent to clarify wine by naturally bonding with yeast, bacteria and excess tannins and forming a larger and heavier molecule that will sink to the bottom of the barrel and later be filtered out before bottling. What remains is clear unadulterated wine.

According to the statistic by the AAAI, the majority ADULTS are primarily affected by one particular agent in the process of wine making, isinglass, or fish guts. Even if one makes the argument that there could be some remnants of isinglass after bottling, there still haven’t been any studies done that have concluded without a doubt that the percentage remaining is significant enough to stimulate an allergic reaction! Therefore, by approving a legislation like this, we are encouraging consumer ignorance by labeling wines with inconclusive research.

Climbing on My Soapbox

Why am I frustrated? I’m angry because time and time again, wine is considered the bad guy. I am tired of constantly explaining to Europeans that we have to put a warning on everything from coffee cups – warning the consumer that the coffee inside is HOT – to telling people that they can’t drive if they drink too much. Who doesn’t know this information?! To require that all wine labels now warn people that they may have an allergic reaction if they drink wine is over-the-top and incredibly costly to the wine industry. In no way am I condoning a product if it can severally harm a population like the tobacco industry has, as a result of the hazardous chemicals they have so discreetly placed in cigarettes to increase addiction, but wine doesn’t fall in this category. In addition, how many people actually care what the label says? Do you think the people who lack the ability to think critically or have common sense even look at the label? No! If someone wants to harm themselves or someone else, they will do so despite what the back of a bottle says.

Potential Solution

What will, however, make a difference is education. By providing children a holistic education, you are giving them the tools to think critically. Critical thinking is the ability to take any subject and analyze it from several different angles and sources. The fact that we have to label bleach as a substance that cannot be drank tells me that we need to focus our attention on this particular skill.

What am I proposing? I am proposing that we all take a moment to stand up for positive education, critical thinking and personal responsibility. Wine is a beautiful substance that ought to be celebrated. As mentioned in our article about teaching children about wine, there are also several ways to aid children to think critically about what they interact with on a moment by moment bases in order to promote both intellectual and emotional learning. To continually harp on everything negative about wine will only create more fear and more ignorance. By thinking critically, we are providing one another the advantage of not only taking responsibility for how WE PERSONALLY interact with our surroundings, but we are also using logic as a tool. Instead of saying that the wine made you sick, why not take responsibility for your personal illness by considering whether your illness is a result of the wine, a food you ate, or something else entirely. It is not to say that you may not have a food allergy, but let’s take a moment to consider the big picture first.

Labels are a wonderful tool. Let’s find ways to use them not only effectively and practically, but also in a positive and informative manner.

Gabriella

  • Pingback: Food and drinkWeblog

  • Benjamin Franz

    "Country of Laws" is just part of a phrase: "A Country of Laws, not Men." And that it is generally considered a *good* thing. The opposite, a "Country of Men, not Laws", is one where governance is done not by the rule of law but by 'dictat'. This is where the word 'dictator' comes from. Such as, for example, Francisco Franco, ruler of Spain from the late 1930s through the early 1970s. So, before you criticize the US for being a 'Country of Laws', I suggest you consider the alternative.

  • Benjamin Franz

    “Country of Laws” is just part of a phrase: “A Country of Laws, not Men.” And that it is generally considered a *good* thing.

    The opposite, a “Country of Men, not Laws”, is one where governance is done not by the rule of law but by ‘dictat’. This is where the word ‘dictator’ comes from. Such as, for example, Francisco Franco, ruler of Spain from the late 1930s through the early 1970s.

    So, before you criticize the US for being a ‘Country of Laws’, I suggest you consider the alternative.

  • Wilf Krutzmann

    I also found the article well done and thought provoking. Perhaps it should be a "litigious" country. Its outrageous that someone can sue on their own stupidity. Surely its not too difficult to distinguish between a "hot" cup of coffee and one that will not give you that burning sensation. Perhaps there should be a federal law requiring everyone to take a course on how to read package labels.

  • Romi

    I agree with you regarding the coffee cups, but as far as allergens go, I can't agree. My youngest son is violently allergic to egg white, dairy, and nuts. We cook almost everything from scratch, checking labels very very carefully. When he had an immediate and strong reaction to some chicken cooked in wine, we were perplexed until we found out that egg whites are used in processing. Labelling allergens is a matter of knowing what you are eating and drinking so you can take responsibility and avoid a deadly situation. It enables people who are violently alleric to some foods to stop playing Russian Roulette every time they take a bite. It is not the same as labelling coffee cups. Please do not compare the two.

  • http://wwpress.blogspot.com Wilf Krutzmann

    I also found the article well done and thought provoking. Perhaps it should be a “litigious” country. Its outrageous that someone can sue on their own stupidity. Surely its not too difficult to distinguish between a “hot” cup of coffee and one that will not give you that burning sensation. Perhaps there should be a federal law requiring everyone to take a course on how to read package labels.

  • http://rosemarygoround.blogspot.com Romi

    I agree with you regarding the coffee cups, but as far as allergens go, I can’t agree. My youngest son is violently allergic to egg white, dairy, and nuts. We cook almost everything from scratch, checking labels very very carefully. When he had an immediate and strong reaction to some chicken cooked in wine, we were perplexed until we found out that egg whites are used in processing. Labelling allergens is a matter of knowing what you are eating and drinking so you can take responsibility and avoid a deadly situation. It enables people who are violently alleric to some foods to stop playing Russian Roulette every time they take a bite. It is not the same as labelling coffee cups. Please do not compare the two.

  • Gabriella

    Romi- In no way would I ever want your son to be harmed, that was far from my intention. I am in awe of parents like you who have to go out of their way to find safe foods for your child to eat, and as you say, play Russian Roulette. Therefore, it is not to say that we shouldn't have this information on the bottle, but it is to say that we also tend to put information on products purely to protect the producer from a lawsuit. All I am proposing is that we as a culture decide where we draw the line between information that is justifiably important and information that can better be taught elsewhere.

  • http://www.catavino.net Gabriella

    Romi- In no way would I ever want your son to be harmed, that was far from my intention. I am in awe of parents like you who have to go out of their way to find safe foods for your child to eat, and as you say, play Russian Roulette. Therefore, it is not to say that we shouldn’t have this information on the bottle, but it is to say that we also tend to put information on products purely to protect the producer from a lawsuit. All I am proposing is that we as a culture decide where we draw the line between information that is justifiably important and information that can better be taught elsewhere.

  • Jack

    The thing about all of the big government agencies, whether its the FDA or whomever, is the people running them ALL come from big food and big ag. And that's who they cater to. Little guys have no say and real common sense goes out the window. So you have tastelss UHP milk rather than raw milk. So you have idiotic warning labels (like sulphites in wine; they're in lots of foods but only wine has a warning on the label). Nor is there any proof that drinking wine causes birth defects. Drinking an excessive amount of anything can harm a mother and fetus…but wine is again singled out. I could go on and on and on…

  • http://www.ForkandBottle.com Jack

    The thing about all of the big government agencies, whether its the FDA or whomever, is the people running them ALL come from big food and big ag. And that’s who they cater to. Little guys have no say and real common sense goes out the window. So you have tastelss UHP milk rather than raw milk. So you have idiotic warning labels (like sulphites in wine; they’re in lots of foods but only wine has a warning on the label). Nor is there any proof that drinking wine causes birth defects. Drinking an excessive amount of anything can harm a mother and fetus…but wine is again singled out. I could go on and on and on…

  • Ryan

    Benjiman, I don't think she was criticizing the idea of a "Country of Laws" but rather the idea that a country of laws needs to balance itself a bit better. Laws make the USA great, but it's when we follow them blindly that we find ourselves in trouble. Also over regulation or excess laws can lead to less freedoms and an overly powerful government where personal responsibility is not acknowledged. Romi, I have to disagree, the coffee and the food labels do have a lot in common. I sympathize with your son and your efforts to deal with his condition. Your issue is one that needs addressing and there needs to be a way to get people in your situation the right information to deal with the problem. On the other hand everything cannot be labeled, and the minute we say "ok we have all the allergies covered" up will pop a new one. As much as this problem is central to your life, the truth is this issue does not affect very many people. Your doctor should be responsible for advising you of possible problems, and if they are not doing it then maybe a grassroots effort could help. More government labeling will only throw money at the wrong solutions. Jack, thanks for going on and on…It's a crazy issue and crazy world, where the government has to tell you what you should or should not do.

  • http://www.catavino.net Ryan

    Benjiman, I don’t think she was criticizing the idea of a “Country of Laws” but rather the idea that a country of laws needs to balance itself a bit better. Laws make the USA great, but it’s when we follow them blindly that we find ourselves in trouble. Also over regulation or excess laws can lead to less freedoms and an overly powerful government where personal responsibility is not acknowledged.

    Romi, I have to disagree, the coffee and the food labels do have a lot in common. I sympathize with your son and your efforts to deal with his condition. Your issue is one that needs addressing and there needs to be a way to get people in your situation the right information to deal with the problem. On the other hand everything cannot be labeled, and the minute we say “ok we have all the allergies covered” up will pop a new one. As much as this problem is central to your life, the truth is this issue does not affect very many people. Your doctor should be responsible for advising you of possible problems, and if they are not doing it then maybe a grassroots effort could help. More government labeling will only throw money at the wrong solutions.

    Jack, thanks for going on and on…It’s a crazy issue and crazy world, where the government has to tell you what you should or should not do.

  • Benjamin Franz

    Ryan, I understand that she was trying to criticize over-regulation, but her lead-in sentence did so by conflating the rule of law with it. It is poor form to mis-apply a convenient quote. As for the question of over-regulation in the US, I simply disagree. If anything, the US is massively _under_-regulated in the area of food safety. I always hate it when people trot out coffee because you know they are referring to the infamous McDonalds incident. And that they know almost nothing about it. If they did know anything about it, they wouldn't trot it out. Because rather than being an example of out-of-control litigation, it is a textbook example of corporate irresponsibility, spin control, urban legend, and blaming the victim. If you are *really* interested in why I say that, read up on it at <a href="http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/Mcd…“><a href="http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/friv…” target=”_blank”>http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/Mcd

  • Benjamin Franz

    Ryan, I understand that she was trying to criticize over-regulation, but her lead-in sentence did so by conflating the rule of law with it. It is poor form to mis-apply a convenient quote. As for the question of over-regulation in the US, I simply disagree. If anything, the US is massively _under_-regulated in the area of food safety. I always hate it when people trot out coffee because you know they are referring to the infamous McDonalds incident. And that they know almost nothing about it. If they did know anything about it, they wouldn't trot it out. Because rather than being an example of out-of-control litigation, it is a textbook example of corporate irresponsibility, spin control, urban legend, and blaming the victim. If you are *really* interested in why I say that, read up on it at <a href="http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/Mcd…“><a href="http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/friv…” target=”_blank”>http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/Mcd

  • Benjamin Franz

    Ryan, I understand that she was trying to criticize over-regulation, but her lead-in sentence did so by conflating the rule of law with it. It is poor form to mis-apply a convenient quote. As for the question of over-regulation in the US, I simply disagree. If anything, the US is massively _under_-regulated in the area of food safety. I always hate it when people trot out coffee because you know they are referring to the infamous McDonalds incident. And that they know almost nothing about it. If they did know anything about it, they wouldn't trot it out. Because rather than being an example of out-of-control litigation, it is a textbook example of corporate irresponsibility, spin control, urban legend, and blaming the victim. If you are *really* interested in why I say that, read up on it at <a href="http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/Mcd…“><a href="http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/friv…” target=”_blank”>http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/Mcd

  • Benjamin Franz

    Ryan, I understand that she was trying to criticize over-regulation, but her lead-in sentence did so by conflating the rule of law with it. It is poor form to mis-apply a convenient quote.

    As for the question of over-regulation in the US, I simply disagree. If anything, the US is massively _under_-regulated in the area of food safety. I always hate it when people trot out coffee because you know they are referring to the infamous McDonalds incident. And that they know almost nothing about it. If they did know anything about it, they wouldn’t trot it out. Because rather than being an example of out-of-control litigation, it is a textbook example of corporate irresponsibility, spin control, urban legend, and blaming the victim. If you are *really* interested in why I say that, read up on it at http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx

  • Ryan

    Benjamin, we'll have to agree to disagree. I am familiar with the coffee case, infact I've read what you sent and I still feel like the whole lawsuit was more of a joke than anything. What I heard from a lawyer friend of mine was that the lady who was burned did not sue the company, but rather the children did. Supposedly she argued for not suing, as she admitted that the dumb idea of opening it between her legs was her idea, not McDonalds. Yes they made their coffee too hot, but no one can blame someone for opening and then spilling the coffee on themselves on the people who sold them the coffee. Not sure this is true, but I wouldn't say it's not possible, and it makes me smile to hope it is. As to the under regulation that you speak of in the food safety world, I can tell you that this is not an issue. I've taken food safety courses as part of the running of a kitchen, and the rules there make the coffee thing look sane. Yes the majority have been put in place for good reason, but over time these rules seem to be extending to some really silly over protections. Currently we are one of, if not the only country, to not allow raw milk cheese for sale. Seems odd that at least here in Europe we enjoy this precious treat daily and seem to be in good shape. Also Jamon Iberico one of if not the greatest cured meat from Spain has just now been granted the right to be sold in the US after the FDA came over and "approved" one facility. We love this stuff, and we don't have deaths, or illness hitting the populations everyday, and they have been eating here for much longer than the FDA has been around. I want to make one more point though away from food, but to the "responsibility" issue. I remember once being in Brazil with some friends, mixed group of Americans, Brazilians and Austrailians. We were at an outdoor sidewalk cafe when we noticed a person sit down in a chair nearby. As they began to put their whole weight on it the chair suddenly collapsed, sending the person to the ground. Almost in unison, the American's in the group shouted, "Lawsuit", too which the rest of the group gave a smirk. Turning back we asked them what they were thinking, one person explained, "We're confused why you shouted lawsuit, you're joking right?" We then explained that most likely in the States the person could sue the restaurant, or chairmaker for faulty equipment or maybe endangerment of some sort. This was given another smirk to which they replied, "don't you have accidents?" It made me think. I love the fact we do have laws that helped to wipe out the food horror stories that are retold in books like "<a href="The ” target=”_blank”>http://www.amazon.com/Jungle-Uncensored-Original-Upton-Sinclair/dp/1884365302/sr=8-1/qid=1170192038/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-7998544-1144744?ie=UTF8&s=books“>The Jungle". But even the most well intentioned ideas sometimes go too far, leaving us with more laws than reason.

  • Ryan

    Benjamin, we'll have to agree to disagree. I am familiar with the coffee case, infact I've read what you sent and I still feel like the whole lawsuit was more of a joke than anything. What I heard from a lawyer friend of mine was that the lady who was burned did not sue the company, but rather the children did. Supposedly she argued for not suing, as she admitted that the dumb idea of opening it between her legs was her idea, not McDonalds. Yes they made their coffee too hot, but no one can blame someone for opening and then spilling the coffee on themselves on the people who sold them the coffee. Not sure this is true, but I wouldn't say it's not possible, and it makes me smile to hope it is. As to the under regulation that you speak of in the food safety world, I can tell you that this is not an issue. I've taken food safety courses as part of the running of a kitchen, and the rules there make the coffee thing look sane. Yes the majority have been put in place for good reason, but over time these rules seem to be extending to some really silly over protections. Currently we are one of, if not the only country, to not allow raw milk cheese for sale. Seems odd that at least here in Europe we enjoy this precious treat daily and seem to be in good shape. Also Jamon Iberico one of if not the greatest cured meat from Spain has just now been granted the right to be sold in the US after the FDA came over and "approved" one facility. We love this stuff, and we don't have deaths, or illness hitting the populations everyday, and they have been eating here for much longer than the FDA has been around. I want to make one more point though away from food, but to the "responsibility" issue. I remember once being in Brazil with some friends, mixed group of Americans, Brazilians and Austrailians. We were at an outdoor sidewalk cafe when we noticed a person sit down in a chair nearby. As they began to put their whole weight on it the chair suddenly collapsed, sending the person to the ground. Almost in unison, the American's in the group shouted, "Lawsuit", too which the rest of the group gave a smirk. Turning back we asked them what they were thinking, one person explained, "We're confused why you shouted lawsuit, you're joking right?" We then explained that most likely in the States the person could sue the restaurant, or chairmaker for faulty equipment or maybe endangerment of some sort. This was given another smirk to which they replied, "don't you have accidents?" It made me think. I love the fact we do have laws that helped to wipe out the food horror stories that are retold in books like "<a href="The ” target=”_blank”>http://www.amazon.com/Jungle-Uncensored-Original-Upton-Sinclair/dp/1884365302/sr=8-1/qid=1170192038/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-7998544-1144744?ie=UTF8&s=books“>The Jungle". But even the most well intentioned ideas sometimes go too far, leaving us with more laws than reason.

  • Ryan

    Benjamin, we'll have to agree to disagree. I am familiar with the coffee case, infact I've read what you sent and I still feel like the whole lawsuit was more of a joke than anything. What I heard from a lawyer friend of mine was that the lady who was burned did not sue the company, but rather the children did. Supposedly she argued for not suing, as she admitted that the dumb idea of opening it between her legs was her idea, not McDonalds. Yes they made their coffee too hot, but no one can blame someone for opening and then spilling the coffee on themselves on the people who sold them the coffee. Not sure this is true, but I wouldn't say it's not possible, and it makes me smile to hope it is. As to the under regulation that you speak of in the food safety world, I can tell you that this is not an issue. I've taken food safety courses as part of the running of a kitchen, and the rules there make the coffee thing look sane. Yes the majority have been put in place for good reason, but over time these rules seem to be extending to some really silly over protections. Currently we are one of, if not the only country, to not allow raw milk cheese for sale. Seems odd that at least here in Europe we enjoy this precious treat daily and seem to be in good shape. Also Jamon Iberico one of if not the greatest cured meat from Spain has just now been granted the right to be sold in the US after the FDA came over and "approved" one facility. We love this stuff, and we don't have deaths, or illness hitting the populations everyday, and they have been eating here for much longer than the FDA has been around. I want to make one more point though away from food, but to the "responsibility" issue. I remember once being in Brazil with some friends, mixed group of Americans, Brazilians and Austrailians. We were at an outdoor sidewalk cafe when we noticed a person sit down in a chair nearby. As they began to put their whole weight on it the chair suddenly collapsed, sending the person to the ground. Almost in unison, the American's in the group shouted, "Lawsuit", too which the rest of the group gave a smirk. Turning back we asked them what they were thinking, one person explained, "We're confused why you shouted lawsuit, you're joking right?" We then explained that most likely in the States the person could sue the restaurant, or chairmaker for faulty equipment or maybe endangerment of some sort. This was given another smirk to which they replied, "don't you have accidents?" It made me think. I love the fact we do have laws that helped to wipe out the food horror stories that are retold in books like "<a href="The ” target=”_blank”>http://www.amazon.com/Jungle-Uncensored-Original-Upton-Sinclair/dp/1884365302/sr=8-1/qid=1170192038/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-7998544-1144744?ie=UTF8&s=books“>The Jungle". But even the most well intentioned ideas sometimes go too far, leaving us with more laws than reason.

  • http://www.catavino.net Ryan

    Benjamin, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I am familiar with the coffee case, infact I’ve read what you sent and I still feel like the whole lawsuit was more of a joke than anything. What I heard from a lawyer friend of mine was that the lady who was burned did not sue the company, but rather the children did. Supposedly she argued for not suing, as she admitted that the dumb idea of opening it between her legs was her idea, not McDonalds. Yes they made their coffee too hot, but no one can blame someone for opening and then spilling the coffee on themselves on the people who sold them the coffee. Not sure this is true, but I wouldn’t say it’s not possible, and it makes me smile to hope it is.

    As to the under regulation that you speak of in the food safety world, I can tell you that this is not an issue. I’ve taken food safety courses as part of the running of a kitchen, and the rules there make the coffee thing look sane. Yes the majority have been put in place for good reason, but over time these rules seem to be extending to some really silly over protections. Currently we are one of, if not the only country, to not allow raw milk cheese for sale. Seems odd that at least here in Europe we enjoy this precious treat daily and seem to be in good shape. Also Jamon Iberico one of if not the greatest cured meat from Spain has just now been granted the right to be sold in the US after the FDA came over and “approved” one facility. We love this stuff, and we don’t have deaths, or illness hitting the populations everyday, and they have been eating here for much longer than the FDA has been around.

    I want to make one more point though away from food, but to the “responsibility” issue. I remember once being in Brazil with some friends, mixed group of Americans, Brazilians and Austrailians. We were at an outdoor sidewalk cafe when we noticed a person sit down in a chair nearby. As they began to put their whole weight on it the chair suddenly collapsed, sending the person to the ground. Almost in unison, the American’s in the group shouted, “Lawsuit”, too which the rest of the group gave a smirk. Turning back we asked them what they were thinking, one person explained, “We’re confused why you shouted lawsuit, you’re joking right?” We then explained that most likely in the States the person could sue the restaurant, or chairmaker for faulty equipment or maybe endangerment of some sort. This was given another smirk to which they replied, “don’t you have accidents?”

    It made me think. I love the fact we do have laws that helped to wipe out the food horror stories that are retold in books like “The Jungle“. But even the most well intentioned ideas sometimes go too far, leaving us with more laws than reason.

  • Jack

    Benjamin: The US is under-regulated with regards to INDUSTRIAL food safety – you just have to look at how Smithfield handles Hog pollution to understand this. Conversely, the US is over-regulated with regards to small farmers and producers, and in fact, treats everyone and everything like it's a mega-industrial producer.

  • http://www.ForkandBottle.com Jack

    Benjamin: The US is under-regulated with regards to INDUSTRIAL food safety – you just have to look at how Smithfield handles Hog pollution to understand this. Conversely, the US is over-regulated with regards to small farmers and producers, and in fact, treats everyone and everything like it’s a mega-industrial producer.

  • Pingback: Catavino’s Most Popular Articles in 2007