I _promise_ you people with allergies know about this "tactic."
What all you who suggest it fail to empathize with is that it's the only option most of the time. being completely removed from the social scene of eating out is extremely alienating, and eating out is very common especially for young adults.
So you concede, you look up the menu online ahead of time, decide "hey this probably looks safe, I can risk it"
Boom, you accidentally eat something you didn't account for, try not to make a scene in front of your friends and the other patrons, go out to your car take Benadryl and pass out. Night over.
Very sad stuff, but nonetheless I have zero interest in subsidizing your social preferences (either through regulation or litigation costs). Lots of people live good lives without going to restaurants all the time. Have a barbecue or something.
I'd be curious about your thoughts on regulations that solely pertain to providing available information to consumers. For instance, a regulation saying "If any of your recipes in this facility use sesame, mark that on your product" seems both incredibly feasible and incredibly valuable for people trying to determine how to manage their needs (e.g. what to serve at the suggested barbecue)
I can empathize with thinking that trade-offs that incur a high overhead might be super onerous to comply with, but simple information-based laws which just provide consumers with information that businesses already have on hand seems incredibly easy to comply with, no?
For example, in this case a "produced in a facility that handles sesame" label seems like it'd be a huge accommodation win without extremely minimal overhead for businesses.
I _promise_ you people with allergies know about this "tactic."
What all you who suggest it fail to empathize with is that it's the only option most of the time. being completely removed from the social scene of eating out is extremely alienating, and eating out is very common especially for young adults.
So you concede, you look up the menu online ahead of time, decide "hey this probably looks safe, I can risk it"
Boom, you accidentally eat something you didn't account for, try not to make a scene in front of your friends and the other patrons, go out to your car take Benadryl and pass out. Night over.
Just order a glass of vodka. No sesame and social success guaranteed.
Very sad stuff, but nonetheless I have zero interest in subsidizing your social preferences (either through regulation or litigation costs). Lots of people live good lives without going to restaurants all the time. Have a barbecue or something.
I'd be curious about your thoughts on regulations that solely pertain to providing available information to consumers. For instance, a regulation saying "If any of your recipes in this facility use sesame, mark that on your product" seems both incredibly feasible and incredibly valuable for people trying to determine how to manage their needs (e.g. what to serve at the suggested barbecue)
I can empathize with thinking that trade-offs that incur a high overhead might be super onerous to comply with, but simple information-based laws which just provide consumers with information that businesses already have on hand seems incredibly easy to comply with, no?
For example, in this case a "produced in a facility that handles sesame" label seems like it'd be a huge accommodation win without extremely minimal overhead for businesses.
1 reply →
the stick you want to take with where you tax money goes is an ADA protected disability?
I hope society doesn't feel the same way about your needs when they inevitably arise
edit: reduced the tone.
5 replies →