Jump to content


Welcome to the eG Forums!

These forums are a service of the Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, a 501c3 nonprofit organization dedicated to advancement of the culinary arts. Anyone can read the forums, however if you would like to participate in active discussions please join the Society.

Photo

New law in CA requiring cooks to wear gloves


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#31 Bill Klapp

Bill Klapp
  • participating member
  • 850 posts
  • Location:Neive (CN), Italia

Posted 07 February 2014 - 04:23 AM

 

 

Gloves on their hands?

 

Seems to me that some people have way too much time on their hands.  And do nothing but sit around and come up with ways to interfere in everyone's life.

 

Dear Lord, from these arrogant, know-it-all, do-gooder meddlers please deliver me.

 

:hmmm:

 

 

.

+10.  When California is having its state pension money stolen by bankstahs, or getting ripped off for billions in energy costs by the former crooks at Enron (rolling blackouts, too, as I recall!), or teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, does anyone in its electorate or government ever look at saving the money wasted on stupid crap like this as a way to balance the budget?  They saved an imperiled populace from eating politically incorrect foie gras a while back, but could not seem to do anything about the Bittman bacterial chickens that were attempting to kill people a while back, as I recall...

 

 

Food law generally works in favour of your economy because it means other countries can be confident in your food exports (being produced to a safe standard).  In my oppinion one of the best single contributions the U.S. had made to the world was the development of HACCP.  Think how many millions if not billions of people have been saved from food poisening and how standardised global food hygiene based on HACCP has boosted food business globally.  Consumers need to be confident in the safety of their food.  Just look at China and the problems they faced with milk contamination.  Your politicians are only doing what they think is in the best interest. The single use glove law might not achievev its objective however.

 

No argument about the first part of your post, but the last sentence sums up the latest effort.  I do not see any logical connection between the two.  The glove law is utterly impossible to enforce, and not likely to make a dent in the wonderful world of germs and bacteria.  For those extremely sensitive to such things, I fear that this is the wrong planet for them!  :)


Bill Klapp

bklapp@egullet.com

#32 JoNorvelleWalker

JoNorvelleWalker
  • participating member
  • 1,740 posts
  • Location:New Jersey USA

Posted 07 February 2014 - 10:23 AM

 

 

 

Gloves on their hands?

 

Seems to me that some people have way too much time on their hands.  And do nothing but sit around and come up with ways to interfere in everyone's life.

 

Dear Lord, from these arrogant, know-it-all, do-gooder meddlers please deliver me.

 

:hmmm:

 

 

.

+10.  When California is having its state pension money stolen by bankstahs, or getting ripped off for billions in energy costs by the former crooks at Enron (rolling blackouts, too, as I recall!), or teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, does anyone in its electorate or government ever look at saving the money wasted on stupid crap like this as a way to balance the budget?  They saved an imperiled populace from eating politically incorrect foie gras a while back, but could not seem to do anything about the Bittman bacterial chickens that were attempting to kill people a while back, as I recall...

 

 

Food law generally works in favour of your economy because it means other countries can be confident in your food exports (being produced to a safe standard).  In my oppinion one of the best single contributions the U.S. had made to the world was the development of HACCP.  Think how many millions if not billions of people have been saved from food poisening and how standardised global food hygiene based on HACCP has boosted food business globally.  Consumers need to be confident in the safety of their food.  Just look at China and the problems they faced with milk contamination.  Your politicians are only doing what they think is in the best interest. The single use glove law might not achievev its objective however.

 

No argument about the first part of your post, but the last sentence sums up the latest effort.  I do not see any logical connection between the two.  The glove law is utterly impossible to enforce, and not likely to make a dent in the wonderful world of germs and bacteria.  For those extremely sensitive to such things, I fear that this is the wrong planet for them!  :)

 

 

Why is the glove law utterly impossible to enforce?  People can observe.  When I was in Naples I noticed glassware was not being washed between uses.  Was that why I got horribly sick?  Of course I can't be sure.  When I was in Loiyangalani I noticed the person filtering the drinking water simply poured from one container to the other, as the filtering process wasn't going fast enough.  Was that why I almost died and had to be flown two hours to the hospital?  Of course I can't be sure.

 

Had Mary Mallon worn gloves during her culinary career perhaps fewer people would have found themselves on the wrong planet.  Of course I can't be sure.



#33 Bill Klapp

Bill Klapp
  • participating member
  • 850 posts
  • Location:Neive (CN), Italia

Posted 07 February 2014 - 11:28 AM

Just a function of the number of cooking venues in California and the amount of money available to hire and pay inspectors...


  • judiu, annabelle and Porthos like this
Bill Klapp

bklapp@egullet.com

#34 Porthos

Porthos
  • participating member
  • 1,204 posts
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 07 February 2014 - 11:41 AM

Just a function of the number of cooking venues in California and the amount of money available to hire and pay inspectors...

Yup.

 

Observations from my life:

 

(while a student at a small Christian college) You can't legislate morality - it has to come from within.

 

(from my years as an engineer) your patent is only as good as your patent attorney in court.

 

(from my 60 years watching California pass law after difficult-to-enforce law) For those who don't care about the law, and there are plenty of them, they only care about getting caught, not about being on the correct side of the law.

 

My POV: the law is well-intentioned but won't have a serious impact on low-ball food establishments. I don't work in the industry so that is an outsider's viewpoint.

 

In my ren faire kitchen (we do not sell to the public - we feed our own group) I am ok with properly groomed well-washed hands touching the final product. If you don't want to have clean hands you will quickly tire of my asking you to wash your hands and probably quit showing up. I wear gloves when handling the final product because it is much easier to toss the gloves than keep washing my hands over and over.


  • judiu and annabelle like this

Porthos Potwatcher
The Unrelenting Carnivore
"If every pork chop was perfect, we wouldn't have hot dogs." (source unknown)
Customer to clerk in a clothing store, "Do you have these in a size for people who actually eat?"


#35 slkinsey

slkinsey
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 11,116 posts
  • Location:New York, New York

Posted 08 February 2014 - 07:07 AM

Glove laws typically don't do much to address dirtiness from general kitchen grunge, cross-contamination from food products or handling money. And, as some may have observed, they may even make things worse. But they aren't really designed for that anyway. What they are designed to do is address the transmission of illnesses that come from poor hand-washing, primarily after using the bathroom. And all the signs in the world can't affect that behavior unless you are willing to post a monitor by the bathroom sink. Here is a good example of what a glove law does:

This particular county is extremely stringent on certain food safety issues. Due to a stubborn and repeated hepatitis outbreak years ago that was propagated from food handling staff in some local fast food restaurnats, we had a glove law that was in place and strictly enforced years before it was commonplace elsewhere. It does not seem a coincidence that the problem never returned once the law was enforced. In one particular year at the peak of the problem, this small county (population under 500,000) had 40% of the reported cases in NY state for the entire year - that is including the NYC metro area.


So... Huge hepatitis problem effectively solved with a glove law. If it seems that the problems solved by a glove law are more serious than those it fails to address (and I am guessing that transmission of things from bad bathroom hand-washing is a far more serious problem than transmission of everything else, both in terms of number and degree of severity) the law can make some sense from an epidemiological perspective. The fact that some scrupulous kitchen staff are inconvenienced doesn't really figure into public policy decision making.

Edited by slkinsey, 08 February 2014 - 07:12 AM.

Samuel Lloyd Kinsey

#36 Jaymes

Jaymes
  • participating member
  • 7,438 posts
  • Location:Houston, Texas

Posted 08 February 2014 - 08:32 AM

It should be pretty easy to determine whether or not the hepatitis rate drops significantly following implementation of this law.

Let's hope it does.
"And you, you're just a stinker."

#37 annabelle

annabelle
  • participating member
  • 1,957 posts
  • Location:Grand Lake o' the Cherokees, Oklahoma

Posted 08 February 2014 - 09:04 AM

Those gloves are unwieldy for someone like me who has very small hands.  The only place I have worked that had extra small gloves was in the laboratory of  hospitals.

 

If ending the  transmission of disease is the goal, then it would make sense that all persons who are handling fresh foods should be vaccinated for hepatitis B, as well as tuberculosis as a condition of hiring.  (Let me count the vaccinations I have needed over the years to work in hospitals.) If public health is the end goal of this law, then let's take the bull by the horns and get the workers vaccinated and make sure they have hand-washing stations with plenty of soap and paper towels at the ready.  To my mind, gloves are merely cosmetic if your personal hygiene is already suspect.


  • Jaymes, judiu and quiet1 like this

#38 Bill Klapp

Bill Klapp
  • participating member
  • 850 posts
  • Location:Neive (CN), Italia

Posted 08 February 2014 - 10:22 AM

How many of us use disposable gloves for food handling in the home? (My guess: damn near nobody.) For those who do not use gloves in the kitchen, how often do you wash your hands after going to the bathroom (my guess: closing in on 100%) and during meal preparation (my guess: 10 times per meal, even if only rinsing sometimes)? How many times have family members contracted hepatitis, typhoid fever or other serious illnesses as a result of your cooking that were NOT directly attributable to the proverbial "bad clams" or some other food-borne problem? You catch my drift. I get that the lower one goes on the food chain (or chain food, perhaps), the greater the risk may be of all of the above, but it also seems to me that such places are easily avoidable and that they may well be breeding grounds for other health and sanitation issues that would best be dealt with by hiring more restaurant inspectors rather than wasting time and money with marginally enforceable or effectively unenforceable new laws. My guess is that people wash their hands in The French Laundry kitchen, and may even wear disposable gloves without a law requiring it when appropriate. Seems to me that establishments most in need of such a measure are at the same time the least likely to comply...
  • judiu likes this
Bill Klapp

bklapp@egullet.com

#39 annabelle

annabelle
  • participating member
  • 1,957 posts
  • Location:Grand Lake o' the Cherokees, Oklahoma

Posted 08 February 2014 - 11:22 AM

I haven't lived in California since 1991, but am stunned every time I visit by all the niggling legislation.  I don't think more inspectors are the answer; are food service employees not required to take and pass a basic food safety and handling course?  One of my sons worked in the cafeteria at his university and they were all required to take and pass such a course before handling food.

 

A separate person to handle the till is a good idea as well.  Money is really dirty.


Edited by annabelle, 08 February 2014 - 11:22 AM.

  • judiu likes this

#40 slkinsey

slkinsey
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 11,116 posts
  • Location:New York, New York

Posted 08 February 2014 - 12:28 PM

.My guess is that people wash their hands in The French Laundry kitchen, and may even wear disposable gloves without a law requiring it when appropriate. Seems to me that establishments most in need of such a measure are at the same time the least likely to comply...


You can't really make exceptions for this kind of law. Who is going to decide which places are high-end and scrupulous enough to be exempted? On what criteria? How are they to know a show wasn't just made for the inspection? How will they adjudicate disputes and who will pay for that process? How will they ensure that an establishment still qualifies for an exemption on an ongoing basis? How will it play out politically and legally when this results in gloves only being required at inexpensive places operated, staffed and patronized by immigrants and the economically disadvantaged? Meanwhile, the reality is that if the French Laundry cooks want to continue going barehanded, after a while they will be able to do so, so long as they keep an eye out for inspectors and keep gloves handy.

As for whether the establishments most needing to comply are the least likely, the hepatitis results I posted above suggests that glove laws do have an effect on an epidemiological basis.


None of the foregoing means that I don't agree it's silly for FL cooks to wear gloves. I am merely pointing out that these laws generally do benefit the public health whether they are silly for some or not.
  • judiu and Lisa Shock like this
Samuel Lloyd Kinsey

#41 Tri2Cook

Tri2Cook
  • participating member
  • 3,772 posts
  • Location:Ontario, Canada

Posted 08 February 2014 - 01:03 PM

I agree with Sam that it would be impossible to apply the law to some and not others based on how high-end a place is perceived. The place where I work, while not fast food, would be considered low on the food chain compared to something like the French Laundry and I'm very diligent about hand washing. If people really believe they can accurately judge the cleanliness habits of the employees based on how high-end a place is or isn't, they're wrong. They can only assume based on generalities and hope they're right when it comes to the places they assume to be up to their standards.


It's kinda like wrestling a gorilla... you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is tired.

#42 Bill Klapp

Bill Klapp
  • participating member
  • 850 posts
  • Location:Neive (CN), Italia

Posted 08 February 2014 - 03:51 PM

Nobody suggested that the glove law should be applied differently to different classes of establishments. Read what I wrote again. What was implied is that well-managed places with reputations to uphold are more likely to meet or exceed health standards and are more likely to self-enforce. Tri2Cook, while we cannot judge the cleanliness habits of any individual employee, but we can judge the compliance of any given establishment with applicable health laws (a manner of public record, as well as conspicuous public display and even regular media reportage in most states), which seems to me radically more important than wearing gloves (which themselves will no doubt not be employed as required and will end up carrying some of the same things that bare hands presently do), and surely more important than the cleanliness habits of any given employee. Well, except for Typhoid Mary, of course... :)
Bill Klapp

bklapp@egullet.com

#43 Tri2Cook

Tri2Cook
  • participating member
  • 3,772 posts
  • Location:Ontario, Canada

Posted 08 February 2014 - 04:19 PM

Tri2Cook, while we cannot judge the cleanliness habits of any individual employee, but we can judge the compliance of any given establishment with applicable health laws (a manner of public record, as well as conspicuous public display and even regular media reportage in most states), which seems to me radically more important than wearing gloves (which themselves will no doubt not be employed as required and will end up carrying some of the same things that bare hands presently do), and surely more important than the cleanliness habits of any given employee. Well, except for Typhoid Mary, of course... :)


True and kinda the point I was making. The restaurant where I work isn't at the fine dining level but we maintain very high standards of cleanliness, food safety, etc. and have that consistently reflected in our inspection scores. The health inspector generally has to feed his ego by writing down some trumped up nothing at the end of the inspection sheet because it's apparently against the rules to just say "great job gang" after we clear all the checklist items. He's told us many times that we have by far the cleanest kitchen of any place in his territory. But it's not the type of place people might assume that to be true of. So, in a divided scenario (which I'm not saying you suggested, just joining in on discussing that idea), people would probably insist on us wearing the gloves while giving the "fancy" place an hour away a free pass. I've been in the kitchen at that place... giving them gloves wouldn't make it much better. So I agree completely with you that insisting on gloves in a place that doesn't have good overall cleanliness and safety practices is a waste of time.

 


  • Jaymes and Porthos like this
It's kinda like wrestling a gorilla... you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is tired.

#44 annabelle

annabelle
  • participating member
  • 1,957 posts
  • Location:Grand Lake o' the Cherokees, Oklahoma

Posted 08 February 2014 - 05:44 PM

What's to stop any establishment with a decent revenue stream from simply bribing an inspector? 



#45 judiu

judiu
  • participating member
  • 2,245 posts
  • Location:South Florida

Posted 09 February 2014 - 08:43 PM

Nothing, except that something like that "grows" and then becomes another sort of problem... % (
"Commit random acts of senseless kindness"

#46 huiray

huiray
  • society donor
  • 2,227 posts
  • Location:Indiana, USA

Posted 27 June 2014 - 06:08 PM

The law was unanimously repealed by the California Senate and now awaits Gov. Brown's signature.

 

http://www.latimes.c...0627-story.html



#47 patrickamory

patrickamory
  • participating member
  • 1,603 posts
  • Location:New York

Posted 28 June 2014 - 10:07 AM

Great news!



#48 JoNorvelleWalker

JoNorvelleWalker
  • participating member
  • 1,740 posts
  • Location:New Jersey USA

Posted 28 June 2014 - 07:14 PM

Glad I don't live in California.



#49 quiet1

quiet1
  • participating member
  • 129 posts

Posted 29 June 2014 - 08:34 PM

Given that I've seen medical professionals who seem completely oblivious to best practices for gloves, I'm pretty skeptical about "MORE GLOVES!" as a solution for food prep cleanliness issues. I mean, if you put clean gloves on with dirty hands, how clean are your gloves anyway?

(Plus based on observation, people seem to either think of gloves as part of the uniform that you put on and never change, or else as a thing to protect THEM from having to touch the icky whatever - not as a method for controlling cross contamination.)

Edited by quiet1, 29 June 2014 - 08:51 PM.

  • Jaymes, annabelle and Porthos like this

#50 Jaymes

Jaymes
  • participating member
  • 7,438 posts
  • Location:Houston, Texas

Posted 30 June 2014 - 11:54 AM

The law was unanimously repealed by the California Senate and now awaits Gov. Brown's signature.

 

http://www.latimes.c...0627-story.html

 

Got an especially huge kick out of this line discussing reaction to the repeal:  "It's a coup for restaurant industry workers who petitioned in support of a repeal, arguing that hand washing is as effective as wearing gloves, without the added cost or environmental effects of what would amount to millions of discarded gloves."

 

"...millions of discarded gloves."

 

Those silly Californians.  Here you can't even get your loaf of bread and lettuce head and jug of milk in a plastic bag out there anymore.  But they had passed this "do-gooder" legislation that would have created "millions of discarded gloves."

 

I mean, c'om.  You gotta laugh at that.

 

  :laugh:


  • Smithy and annabelle like this
"And you, you're just a stinker."