posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 03:53 PM
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?
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]