Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Indie Webcasters React to Late... | KUOW »

Thursday, August 23, 2007

“Don’t Hate Me For Obeying the Law.”

posted by on August 23 at 13:30 PM

When P-I food writer Leslie Kelly wrote a review blasting Opal (an expensive restaurant on Queen Anne) for allowing dogs in the dining room, dog-loving readers, predictably, piled on.

“Queen Anne is on the whole a dog community, and many of us celebrate that and live here because of it, wrote Donna Duggan in an e-mail. “… You probably could have walked down the street that night and seen another half dozen dogs having dinner with their owners. Queen Anne can be like that!”

Another reader suggested that he far preferred the company of dogs to kids at dinner.

[…]I know I’m opening a big can of night crawlers here, but I’m just wondering what people are thinking when they take their pets to a restaurant. Especially when it’s a violation of the health code. You wouldn’t take your kid to a bar. Why do some people think they can bend the rules when it comes to dogs?

And I would add: Kids are allowed in restaurants. Because they’re, you know, people. Unlike dogs. Anyway: Amen, sister.

RSS icon Comments

1

I hate dogs and kids and both should be banned from restaurants, libraries and ALL coffee shops in Seattle!!!!

"Won't somebody think of the adults!!??"

Posted by Just Me | August 23, 2007 1:33 PM
2

Fuck em. Who the hell wants a dog slobbering all over the place while they're trying to eat? Leave your goddamn dog at home.

Posted by JessB | August 23, 2007 1:36 PM
3

Wow, it is the dog hate-a-thon at the stranger this week! Next week can we do old people? I fucking HATE old people.

Posted by longball | August 23, 2007 1:37 PM
4

Even though I have a dog-friendly establishment at the end of my block, I don't really think dogs should be in restaurants.

Posted by Will in Seattle | August 23, 2007 1:38 PM
5

Ignoring the law for a moment, dogs in restaurants generally aren't a problem as long as they're kept out on the patio and behave. But it's pretty selfish to take a pet out and then make it sit under the table for such a long stretch.

Posted by Matt from Denver | August 23, 2007 1:41 PM
6

Oh Leslie Kelly, have you failed to consider that once they stop letting dogs in, you will have to wait outside as well?

Posted by Mr. Poe | August 23, 2007 1:42 PM
7

Aw geez, not this shit again. What is it about this whole legalizing-dogs-in-bars effort that gets you all worked up? Do you think that every one of your favorite haunts is going to suddenly become a big ol' Humane Society chapter? A few bars that want to appeal to dog owners will become "dog bars" and let them in; most of them will discourage or continue to forbid it. Whoopty-fucking-doo.

Posted by tsm | August 23, 2007 1:46 PM
8

Is it ok if I bring my pack of pitbulls in?

Birds? Rats? Potbelly pigs? Boa constrictor? Iguana?

Posted by Well | August 23, 2007 1:47 PM
9

Ummm, I can't wait fo a restaurant, coffee shop, department store, gym, freaking concert venue that does not allow kids. It's mostly the parents who disturb me.FYI no I don't think your kids cute and if I wanted one I'd get drunk bang someone miss my period buy an EPT stop drinking for a few months and have one of my own. Because yes people it is THAT easy to do and just because you chose "it" does not mean I have to like "it" or entertain "it". My dogs on the other hand are very cute and well beahved and much harder to attain.

Posted by Katherine | August 23, 2007 1:48 PM
10
Wow, it is the dog hate-a-thon at the stranger this week! Next week can we do old people? I fucking HATE old people.

What the fuck is wrong with people who can't tell the difference between A) hating dog owners and hating dogs and B) hating dogs and hating people?

lonball, hating dogs for being dogs, if that's what we're doing (which it's not) is not the same thing as hating a class of people. It's not morally equivalent, it's not intellectually equivalent, it's not politically, economically or socially equivalent.

That said, I do believe that anyone who uses the term "fur person" to describe their actual beliefs about the rights/qualities of a domesticated animal should be placed under some sort of custodial care that includes but is not limited to having their right to vote unconditionally revoked.

Posted by Judah | August 23, 2007 1:48 PM
11

What about some of us who are hard of hearing? I have a hearing-ear dog; do you think he could sit next to me at Benaroya? Makes about as much sense as having a dog in a restaurant. What about a pet pig? Chickens in church? Long live King Inanity!!!

Posted by KY. COL. of TRUTH | August 23, 2007 1:49 PM
12

My boyfriend takes our son's poodle into restaurants sometimes. I hate my boyfriend.

Posted by Dan Savage | August 23, 2007 1:51 PM
13

In my opinion, dogs belong only on the outdoor patios of casual-ish restaurants.

As for bars, I don't really care. Dogs work in a certain kind of bar (neighborhood bar/pub) and not in others. Bar owners aren't stupid -- they won't let people bring dogs if they don't want them to (nobody's going to force bars to allow dogs).

Posted by Julie | August 23, 2007 1:52 PM
14

I love dogs and cats and pets of all types but a dog in a restaurant bugs me. In a bar? Not so much, but in a restaurant, NO. Anyone or anything that can lick its own asshole has no business being in a restaurant.

Posted by monkey | August 23, 2007 1:54 PM
15

My friends who have a dog take him into just about every capitol hill business we go in. rarely someone voices a problem (workers, customers) the dog is well-behaved but not friendly. i guess our posse has clout

Posted by Garrett | August 23, 2007 1:55 PM
16

lets make new laws for more things we don't like, its worked for the republicans. Next it will be our turn!

Posted by meanie | August 23, 2007 1:56 PM
17

katherine, on the other hand dogs arent people too and to think as such, and to basically treat them like they are a child, you should be open to any of the same silly antics you put forth.

I dont think your dogs are cute, or well behaved by their very nature of being a dog.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | August 23, 2007 1:59 PM
18

Let's get Tim Eyman to get a Ban-Erica-Barnett-from-Seattle (BEBS) initiative on the ballot. Finally a shot at reviving his career.

Posted by Bob | August 23, 2007 2:02 PM
19

Oh yes!
I remember when i first moved to Seattle finding it SO FUCKING WEIRD that people apparently felt they could bring their dogs with them everywhere. Then I realized that dog people are crazy, they really do think that their pets are like children. Enforce the hell out of that sanitation law!

Posted by eloise | August 23, 2007 2:08 PM
20

@ -10 actually, i seriously just hate old people and would like a whole comments thread or 5 dedicated to the subject.

Seriously, i don't mind dog friendly bars, like Sulley's Snowgoose, or Buckaroo, but they shouldn't be allowed in full service restaurants.

Posted by longball | August 23, 2007 2:20 PM
21

let's make the distinction clear. people dont want dogs out of restaurants because they inherently dislike dogs. it is a health issue.

the reactionary, "ban old people, ban kids, ban whatever" is totally based on a loathing of that group of people. its actually quite sad for one group of people to treat their pets like people and then hate people, where as the other group of people treat people like people and pets like pets.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | August 23, 2007 2:24 PM
22

Since when did slog readers put a gigantic stick up their collective assholes?

Its a fucking dog. Deal with it. Or go to another restaurant.

Hygiene? News for you, your friend that just got back from the bathroom and now sharing your nachos just took a piss and didn't wash.

Posted by jmilwaukee | August 23, 2007 2:25 PM
23

My dog is better behaved than your kid. Quieter too.

Posted by Gitai | August 23, 2007 2:27 PM
24

@ 22, it's the law, stupid.

@ 23, your dog is also more miserable than my kid.

Posted by Who keeps a dog for a pet anyway | August 23, 2007 2:30 PM
25

@15 - get new friends.

@1 is absolutely correct.

Posted by honk | August 23, 2007 2:31 PM
26

I think it's kind of disingenuous to claim that it's a health issue. About half of us have a dog at home, and we eat there every day. Most of us haven't dropped dead of some weird dog-licking-butthole ailment. And we definitely sit in restaurants next to people who lick buttholes - just because it isn't their own, but someone else's, I'm not sure I see the difference.

That being said, I don't see why a handful of bars and cafes can't be dog-friendly. Let those who don't wish to share a bar or cafe with dogs patronize other establishments. On the other hand, I don't think all bars and cafes should be allowed to permit dogs, as there are people who have either serious allergy issues or phobias. I also don't think we should change the current state law which prohibits persons under 21 from bars and lounges, as those are my preferred places to eat.

I don't hold with allowing dogs in real restaurants, but more casual establishments, I think it'd be okay to have a few of them which permitted the four-legged. Any dog with behavioral, hygienic, or parasite issues should be summarily ejected however, as should any primate patron with the same issues.

Posted by Geni | August 23, 2007 2:33 PM
27

"Let's get Tim Eyman to get a Ban-Erica-Barnett-from-Seattle (BEBS) initiative on the ballot. Finally a shot at reviving his career."
---bob @18

oh you're so funny, thats just sooo spot on and original, you should be writing for the daily show!

well except for this: ecb has a few redeeming qualities(now and then, here and there) whereas tim eyman has proven to not have any.

xxhipsterlitexx

Posted by hipsterlite | August 23, 2007 2:35 PM
28

about half of us have a dog at home? REALLY? WHAT?

geni, do you wash your hands after a dog licks you? do you wash your hands after they lick you and you are going to eat something?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | August 23, 2007 2:49 PM
29

How does The Stranger, with its passionate embrace of many illegal activities _ smoking pot, prostitution, etc. (all things that ought to be legal, of course) _ so law-abiding on the issue of a minor infraction of a local health ordinance? And "a health issue"? Give me a break. Hundreds of millions of people around the world co-exist with dogs on a daily basis. Of the many hazards of eating in restaurants, the prospect of being felled by a dog-borne microbe is completely insignificant. Read "Kitchen Confidential."

Posted by CrankyScribe | August 23, 2007 2:50 PM
30

Dan would take his kid to a bar...

Posted by ecce homo | August 23, 2007 2:50 PM
31

My wife is incredibly allergic to dogs and cats. After she is around them for even a few minutes she is affected for hours after they are gone.

Anytime I see a dog owner walk into a coffee place, or restaurant with their "children" behind them, I really want to slap the taste out of their mouth.

Posted by Clint | August 23, 2007 2:54 PM
32

I would, do, and have -- but I keep him leashed, so it's okay.

Posted by Dan Savage | August 23, 2007 2:57 PM
33

@ 29, I don't recall the Stranger advocating the illegal activities you mention be done at restaurants.

Posted by Matt from Denver | August 23, 2007 2:58 PM
34

@31 - some people have similar allergy issues from other sources - e.g. peanuts. No one is seriously suggesting a blanket ban on peanuts from restaurant menus. Deal.

Posted by tsm | August 23, 2007 3:02 PM
35

This issue is simple. Its been said numerous times before.


asshole dog owners = asshole dogs


I'd love to take every dog owners word that their dog is tame, nice, friendly or whatever characterization they wish to throw at me, but I'm not in the habit of blindly trusting strangers.

If you cannot be without your dog for a few hours, then get your food delivered

Posted by lyn | August 23, 2007 3:02 PM
36

@34: The peanuts on your plate are not going to walk up to me and start slobbering, licking me, and shedding hair and dander in the air. Conversely, people who are allergic to peanuts can order something else; people who are allergic to dogs have to leave the restaurant entirely.

Posted by ECB | August 23, 2007 3:05 PM
37

@ 34, do peanuts float through the air and into your sinuses? Try again.

Posted by Matt from Denver | August 23, 2007 3:06 PM
38

Children raised in households with two or more dogs, and two or more cats, have lower rates of asthma, allergies, and similar autoimmune disorders. A more dog friendly society would help future generations avoid the suffering of dog and cat allergies. It's because the immune system needs to be challenged to develop properly.

And if it were legal to for a place to designate itself dog friendly, then you would be able to expect that if a place was not dog friendly, you won't encounter any dogs there. Under the current prohibition system, you never know if they are going to bend the rules or not.

But then it's really all about the fascism isn't it? It isn't enough that you don't have to be around dogs in public places. You want the power to prevent me from being around them as well.

That's why Erica keeps using her "ECB" persona to pretend that they want to require all restaurants to allow dogs, rather than permit some to allow them if they wish. ECB hates freedom. It's funny because it's true.

Posted by elenchos | August 23, 2007 3:08 PM
39

@36, 37 - clearly you're both unfamiliar with how unbelievably sensitive many peanut-allergic folks are. The mere smell of peanuts in the immediate vicinity can set off allergic reactions in some people.

Posted by tsm | August 23, 2007 3:09 PM
40

I'm an asthmatic -- we had a cat -- and I'm not against allowing dogs in restaurants. But the same rules that apply to kids in restaurants should apply to dogs: they can't be running loose, getting up in other diners' faces, getting in the way of the staff, or barking/crying. If they do, out they should go.

Reasonable kid owners obey these rules -- and when our kids are out of control, we leave. But some parents are selfish assholes, and they let their kids run riot and expect other folks to deal.

So...

Asshole kid owners = asshole kids.

Posted by Dan Savage | August 23, 2007 3:11 PM
41

@34 But that's the point, isn't it? Some cuisines are so suffused with peanuts that a person with a peanut allergy couldn't eat in the restaurant at all. Yet we don't ban the peanut. If the restaurant wants to cater to people who bring their dogs, then by definition they DON'T cater to people who hate or otherwise can't tolerate dogs. So take your business elsewhere. Plenty o'restaurants in the world. Leave some for the dog lovers.

Posted by CrankyScribe | August 23, 2007 3:12 PM
42

@ 39, even if that's true (and I've never heard that - source, please) it's still an apples to oranges comparison. Someone that allergic probably never goes out to eat without first calling ahead to see what's on the menu.

Posted by Matt from Denver | August 23, 2007 3:12 PM
43

BTW, I'm neutral on the issue - see my comment at 5.

Posted by Matt from Denver | August 23, 2007 3:14 PM
44

@16: It's been over an hour and no one's suggested banning Republicans from Seattle's restaurants and bars yet? Is it too obvious a joke? (Though I would vote for it.)

Posted by S | August 23, 2007 3:15 PM
45

@42 -

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/peanut-allergy/DS00710/DSECTION=3

"An allergic reaction may occur if you inhale dust or aerosols containing peanuts, such as that of peanut flour or peanut oil cooking spray."

I have friends who deal with this very issue. And as for your last sentence, that's precisely the point, isn't it? There's no reason it shouldn't ultimately be up to the person with the allergy to deal with it.

Posted by tsm | August 23, 2007 3:17 PM
46

@ 45, aerosols are a bit different than just the smell of Buddha's Delight. Even so, thanks for the link.

But what do you suggest? That people allergic to dogs call ahead to see if restaurants are complying with the law and not allowing non-service animals?

Posted by Matt from Denver | August 23, 2007 3:20 PM
47

Dog owners that think they're entitled to impose their dog upon others in a restaurant setting = asshole.

Child minders/owners that think their kids should impose on others in a restaurant setting = asshole.

BTW, I love kids and dogs. Can't stand cats tho. And agreed that with both kids and dogs it's the owners/parents/minders that usually need the electricity applied to their attention getting body parts.

Maybe the way through is to have an asshole ordinance.

Posted by Dave Coffman | August 23, 2007 3:23 PM
48

Dogs in Vienna and Berlin can go almost anywhere they damn please. But; these dogs also stop patiently at crosswalks, and, in Vienna, are often required to wear muzzles.

If you're going to lick your balls in public, you can't come into the restaurant or business.

Posted by Ariel Dumas | August 23, 2007 3:25 PM
49

@46, it's well established that even the tiniest trace amounts of peanut protein in the air or in food can trigger allergic reactions in some. There's a reason foods that are even just made with machinery that once processed peanuts at some point have to be labeled. Here - this is my last Googling just for you.

"Some people are so severely allergic to peanuts that being near them or breathing air that contains peanut residue can cause an allergic reaction."

And yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. If you're so allergic to dogs that you can't deal with one across the room, find a bar/restaurant that has none and/or doesn't allow them. Even if dogs are allowed in bars/restaurants, plenty such places will exist.

Posted by tsm | August 23, 2007 3:26 PM
50

@ 49, as long as it's the law, such people shouldn't have to go out of their way to find such a place.

Posted by Matt from Denver | August 23, 2007 3:29 PM
51

I don't know what everyone's so excited about. When I visited Vietnam, there were dogs in the restaurants all the time!

Oh, wait, that's not what you meant.

Posted by Finger lickin' good | August 23, 2007 3:31 PM
52

Ms. Kelly's reviews show little familiarity with the outside world.

http://www.cornichon.org/000532.html

Posted by Ronald | August 23, 2007 3:33 PM
53

Ah, but it's a DUMB law, extremely difficult to enforce and, to judge from all the haters, widely ignored. A patron who reports a restaurant for violating it puts the existence of the establishment at risk, which defeats the purpose(assuming it isn't simple pique). Clearly, there are two factions here, the dog-friendly and the dog-hostile. Sounds like two markets two me. I'm sure our friends in the restaurant biz can handle both.

Posted by CrankyScribe | August 23, 2007 3:40 PM
54

Dogs belong at a house with a yard to play with their owner. Not (selfishly) cooped up in a apartment/condo and then only let out when the owner wants to go to a restaurant or bar. Don't try to make us feel guilty for not supporting your dogs-everywhere lifestyle.

Posted by dpk | August 23, 2007 3:42 PM
55

gawdamnittohell...#51 beat me to the most obvious joke...

Posted by michael strangeways | August 23, 2007 3:43 PM
56

I hate anything where people refer to "the ____ community". It's corny.

Posted by I hate corny | August 23, 2007 4:23 PM
57

I don't think bringing your dog to a bar is a matter of "oh, I can't stand to be apart from him" or "he needs to get out" or whatever. Dogs break down social barriers (they are an excuse for people to strike up a conversation) and can be fun to have around in a social setting (for many people, anyways, maybe not the majority of those commenting here).

I used to go to a pub in England that had a cat. Everybody that went there either loved that cat or tolerated it because they wanted to go to the pub. It was fun to say hello to it and pet it, and it generally made for a more social atmosphere. I have a friend who is deathly allergic to cats and when she came to visit we did not go to that pub. No big deal...

Posted by Julie | August 23, 2007 4:23 PM
58

remember the context of this though;

$25-30 main dishes. part of that price should be a refined, elegant atmosphere because obviously the food quality varies greatly.

i understand teh complaint, and if it was The Grill it would be silly for her suggestion but this is a place that seems to be trying to be a fine dining experience, with fine dining prices, without the fine dining atmosphere.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | August 23, 2007 4:30 PM
59

my dog LIKES sitting under the table outside at the wedgewood ale house. no one gives a fuck about it either.

and dogs DO need to get out.

Posted by maxsolomon | August 23, 2007 4:38 PM
60

Serious pet people are insane. There is no logic in their ways. A dog is not a person, even if you wish really, really hard. Get over it.

Let me explain in a language you crazies can understand:

Noe pEtz in rstRants plZ

Posted by bearseatbeats | August 23, 2007 4:43 PM
61

Did anyone grasp from the article that the dog was OUTSIDE? The patio. Car exhaust and dog hair together as one. Yum! Not a great way to enhance your dining experience.

Posted by kandi | August 23, 2007 4:44 PM
62

And those blind people with dogs don't even watch what their dogs are doing. ECB get on those seeing eye dogs - why should blind people be able to go to a restaurant if it might disturb, well, you.

Thought you loved Berlin - is there a restaurant that doesn't allow dogs there?

Posted by whatever | August 23, 2007 4:46 PM
63

"@46, it's well established that even the tiniest trace amounts of peanut protein in the air or in food can trigger allergic reactions in some. There's a reason foods that are even just made with machinery that once processed peanuts at some point have to be labeled."

@49

Dude, you don't know what you're talking about regarding allergen labeling laws. Look at point 16 here:
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/alrguid.html

You also don't know what you're talking about regarding the "smell" of peanuts triggering allergic reactions, and yet you keep providing quotes and links that DON'T support your point. Annoying.

Posted by Bison | August 23, 2007 4:50 PM
64

@63 - OK, yes, they don't "have to be" labeled. However, most companies do label as such in practice because they want to avoid the slightest hint of liability.

And what is invalid about my noting that some people can suffer allergic reactions merely by being in the immediate vicinity of peanuts? Do tell.

Posted by tsm | August 23, 2007 5:30 PM
65

If the dog community is that crazy, do you really want to sit next to one of us? Even if we did leave our fur person companions at home? If we're really such assholes, wouldn't you rather not see us at all?

Legalize "Dogs Allowed" and you won't see us again. You go to your "No Dogs" bars and restaurants and talk about how fucked up we are, and we'll go to our dog-friendly places...

And there we will not talk about you at all. Won't even think about you, in fact. Scaaaary, no?

Posted by elenchos | August 23, 2007 5:44 PM
66

To the person who wanted to ban kids in restaurants - yeah, as soon as I can shoot to kill smokers who sit less than 25 feet from the doorway ...

Don't want kids? Great.

Don't want to eat with kids? Go to a bar.

Posted by Will in Seattle | August 23, 2007 5:57 PM
67

As I understand it, this is the ordering of priority of access to restaurants and bars we seem to have at present in our community, evidenced by laws such as the ADA and the codes barring dogs in restaurants and bars:

1. Access to all restaurants and bars for persons with disabilities who required a service dog.
2. Access to all restaurants and bars for persons who are allergic to, or phobic of dogs.
3. Access to all restaurants and bars for persons who want to bring their dog everywhere.
4. Access to all restaurants and bars for dogs.

No one seems to be arguing that the rights of people who are allergic or phobic of dogs should usurp the rights of people with disabilities.

Many people on Slog do seem to be arguing that their wish to bring their dog everywhere should usurp the right of access to public places for people who are allergic to, or phobic of dogs.

Given that a human dog owner can reasonably access public places without their dog, at the same time as another human who is allergic or phobic of dogs; and given that the insistence of the human dog owner of the presence of their dog could mean the exclusion of the humans with allergies or phobias of dogs, to do so would seem to be elevating the rights of access to all public places for dogs, above the rights to access public places by humans.

I couldn't agree with that prioritization, and I'd go further to say that I think it reflects a lack of compassion for other humans on the part of dog owners to insist upon the inclusion of their dogs in public places to the exclusion of other humans.

Posted by Diana | August 23, 2007 6:21 PM
68

"And what is invalid about my noting that some people can suffer allergic reactions merely by being in the immediate vicinity of peanuts?"

What is invalid is that your initial claim was that people can have allergic reactions from the "smell" of peanuts. This is not true, and none of your quotes or links say that it is. This is the point at which reasonable people admit that they are wrong.

"OK, yes, they don't "have to be" labeled. However, most companies do label as such in practice because they want to avoid the slightest hint of liability."

A simple "I was wrong" would suffice here. But instead, you try to justify your mistake with more speculation. I frankly don't believe that you know that "most" companies label with cross-contamination disclaimers. You probably see them on labels frequently, and so you made the assumption that this was mandatory. Having been shown that it's not, you retreat slightly to the position that it might not be the law, but it is at least standard practice. And you base this on what exactly?

Posted by Bison | August 23, 2007 7:12 PM
69

If I cannot smoke in a bar, then leave the fucking dogs at home. When I can smoke in a bar again, then I will put up with those worthless animals

Posted by JD | August 23, 2007 7:35 PM
70

If I cannot smoke in a bar, then leave the fucking dogs at home. When I can smoke in a bar again, then I will put up with those worthless animals

Posted by JD | August 23, 2007 7:35 PM
71

@ 68,to be fair to TSM his link at comment 49 includes this statement:

Understand that no amount of peanut is safe. Some people are so severely allergic to peanuts that being near them or breathing air that contains peanut residue can cause an allergic reaction.

I guess it's a question of whether airborne peanut residue includes the atoms that carry the scent. I don't think so, although I bet that people with truly severe peanut allergies like his (her?) friends are probably deathly scared and probably have an anxious or even panicky response to the scent of peanuts.

But it's still an apple to oranges comparison, if for no other reason than that the number of people allergic to animals is probably 100 times greater than those allergic to peanuts, and probably 1,000 times greater than those who can suffer just from the scent. Any way you cut it, taking pets to a restaurant is more likely to cause an allergic reaction in another patron than peanut sauce or peanut butter on the menu. What percentage of restaurants even have peanut sauce (the only thing that might be strongly scented enough to carry to another table or be smelled if a server is carrying it by you) on the menu anyway?

Posted by Matt from Denver | August 23, 2007 8:07 PM
72

Pointlessly pedantic much, @68? So your beef is that I said "smell" in one post instead of "inhalation of peanut protein"? Even then, my statement wasn't technically wrong, as the smell of peanuts could set of psychosomatic reactions. As for the manufacturing issue ...

http://www.foodengineeringmag.com/CDA/Archives/82aea52eecfc9010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0

"But leeway on cross contamination is not an excuse for lax sanitation and scheduling routines. "There definitely is a potential financial consequence' if people become ill from consuming improperly labeled foods, Hahn says. And the damage to a manufacturer’s reputation in a recall can be even more costly."

There is, in fact, a potential liability issue involved in not labeling for such contaminants. This won't, of course, satisfy your apparent desire for conclusive proof that X (>50) percent of food manufacturers label for potential allergen cross-contamination, but I'll just have to live with your disbelief, since I'm not going to Google the night away for you.

Posted by tsm | August 23, 2007 9:11 PM
73

My dog is trained to attack peanuts in restaurants. Maybe there's a place for her somewhere here.

Posted by Scenester hipster | August 23, 2007 9:34 PM
74

I'm cool with people bringing their dogs into bars and restaurants. But if that four-legged fucker gives me or my kids any shit, I'm sticking a fork through its head.

Posted by Sean | August 23, 2007 11:11 PM
75

... this wasn't _in_ the restaurant. It was on the patio. Outside.

I love dogs, I think they're wonderful, and I don't want them in restaurants. I don't have any problem with them on patios though - that's part of the point of patios. They're a more relaxed, informal area.

There's always the well-behaved caveat, but that goes for everyone/thing. I also don't mind restaurants making their own decision on whether they want dogs on the patios or not. I don't think it's unreasonable for them to make their own rules there.

Oh, and personally, I know what I'm allergic to and how to deal with that. I don't expect everyone around me to conform to any sensitivities I might have. People who are seriously allergic are responsible for ensuring their own comfort/safety. Three cheers for epi-pens. =)

Posted by wench | August 24, 2007 12:00 AM
76

oiuqztay tgfy txsvfzb lmbjdkp gioqz pfbksvz zbuh

Posted by sacl ptafocwnj | September 4, 2007 9:47 AM
77

cwqzyx dwxuebzlg usnil dyak izra xpymr lijnza sqia lkpzafoi

Posted by iwqx cszdla | September 4, 2007 9:48 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).