It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Portland lemonade stand runs into health inspectors, needs $120 license to operate

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


Anyone else notice the fact that this was because she was serving drinks at a fair?


I think that has quite a bit of bearing..




posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
But in a litigious society, what can we expect?


Maybe that's the problem. Too many wanting to hit the legal lottery instead of just living and enjoying it.


There is never a silver bullet, but this is part of our problem.

Something we have forgotten in America is the concept of "Caveat Emptor". If someone would have gotten e-coli, there would have been a lawsuit, guaranteed. Despite the obvious risk of allowing a 7 year old child prepare your food, which fits nicely within the concept of "caveat emptor".

We are far, far to litigious. The American ideal of independance is cast aside in favor of a legal lotto spin.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj
Anyone else notice the fact that this was because she was serving drinks at a fair?
I think that has quite a bit of bearing..


Indeed. As keepureye2thesky etal already said, this was not as simple as a stand set up on the front lawn of a house in which the child/children lived.

Hmmmmm, 50 years ago when I set up my first lemonade stand on my front lawn, with homemade cookies from scratch even, I used real lemons from my backyard tree. I wonder if today's kids even peddle the real stuff or store bought yellow colored sweetened water and packaged cookies....sigh....



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
I'm not sure which way to look at this. My initial thought when I read about this earlier was WTF? That's not right, it's a lemonade stand. If it was in front of her house this would be a different story but it was at a neighborhood public art fair that required permits. I can't help but to think that society is more to blame for this than inspectors doing their job. I can only imagine the public outcry had someone gotten sick from the lemonade stand that was bypassed by the inspectors. Lawsuit anyone?

Here's an Oregon temporary restaurant license application which discusses the health regulations but brings up another question. What do you get for your $120? Does anyone show up and inspect the lemonade or is it just another $120 for the coffers? If there was a permit when the inspector asked for it, most likely it would've been shown and the inspector would have simply moved on, not even spending 50 cents to help her get to the 240 cups she has to sell just to pay for the permit. So is this more about money than actually protecting the public?

reply to post by dolphinfan
 

I agree with your stance regarding the numerous issues of the USDA and FDA but we're talking about two county inspectors here. I'm guessing the only thing the local and federal inspectors share in common is that they both are supposed to protect the public's health. Because one is doing their job and the other isn't doesn't necessarily merit a comparison such as you stated.



We have all been to food stands at carnivals, etc that had "permits" that we took a look at and said "no way" and got a bite to eat some other place. We have all likely eaten at one of these places when it looked healthy and yet was not (we probably eat at places like that all the time), yet they are all "certified" by the government.


I agree fully with you on this also but what question becomes of that statement? Is it that the inspectors aren't doing their job and the permitting fees aren't being spent for enforcement?



I realize that the governments need revenue. At what point does the balance between acquiring that revenue and the restrictions of freedom conflict in such a manner that freedom wins? Seldom


I blame that on society. In today's litigious society I'm sure someone would wonder why the health department didn't do their job and would probably try to sue them for not enforcing the policy. So how does this battle actually get won? It seems that whatever is done is wrong according to whom you ask. Another lose-lose scenario.


Upon edit: And then there's this

[edit on 8/6/2010 by Three_moons]




top topics
 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join