'Feed kills'. State control for burgers
Discussion
Sadly, not regulation to improve what certain fast food chains call a burger, and which has the mouth-feel and taste of its packaging, but a clamp-down by Westminster City Council on cooking of the quality burgers served by top-class restaurants.
It seems that WCC doesn't like diners ordering 'rare' or even 'medium rare' burgers and has enlisted "the UK’s top expert on E. coli", Prof Hugh Pennington to say they can kill.
It seems that there are so many things that can kill us, that life is hardly worth living.
Streaky
It seems that WCC doesn't like diners ordering 'rare' or even 'medium rare' burgers and has enlisted "the UK’s top expert on E. coli", Prof Hugh Pennington to say they can kill.
It seems that there are so many things that can kill us, that life is hardly worth living.
The Sunday Telegraph 9Dec2012 said:
Council officials are cracking down on the freedom to choose how your burger is done, warning restaurants offering “gourmet” burgers not to sell them rare or even medium-rare.
A number of celebrity chefs are affected by the move, including Gordon Ramsay, whose Maze Grill restaurant sells a burger for £12, Angela Hartnett, whose York and Albany’s bar menu includes burgers, and the Soho House chain, run by Nick Jones, the husband of broadcaster Kirsty Young.
All face being asked at their next routine inspection how they offer their burgers after the decision by Westminster city council, which regulates food safety in more restaurants than any other local authority.
The decision is expected to be followed by other councils, but critics fear it could lead to questions over the safety of rare steaks and raw meat dishes such as steak tartare.
The policy is to be the subject of a legal ruling.
After routine inspections by environmental health officers, Westminster council challenged the way Davy’s was serving its £13.95 burgers at one of its restaurants in central London. Davy’s has taken the case to the High Court, which experts say could set a legal precedent as to whether or not diners will be able to order meat rare.
A Davy’s spokesman said: “The burgers are produced from high quality ingredients and Davy’s contends that it has safe measures in place to serve rare or medium-rare burgers."
James Armitage, the council’s food health and safety manager, said: “This is about making sure customers are eating meat that is not a threat to their health. It is possible to produce burgers that can be eaten undercooked, but strict controls are essential.
“We have enlisted the UK’s top expert on E. coli, Prof Hugh Pennington, to get this matter resolved and he has outlined that rare minced meat that is not correctly cooked and prepared can kill."
But John Cadieux, the executive head chef for the Burger and Lobster chain, said: “If you follow the guidelines to the letter then you’re going to destroy the burger industry.
“Not only that but you’re opening a Pandora’s box, because where do you finish? Steak tartare, runny eggs … the list is endless."
According to the Food Standards Agency (FSA), there are no rules banning the sale of raw or rare meat by restaurants or caterers.
Tony Lewis, of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, said: the case would have “nationwide implications”.
“At present the guidance from the FSA is that for burgers the meat should be cooked at 158F (70C) for two minutes," he said. “If Westminster loses the case we will have to reassess."
Where are John Gummer and his daughter when you need them?A number of celebrity chefs are affected by the move, including Gordon Ramsay, whose Maze Grill restaurant sells a burger for £12, Angela Hartnett, whose York and Albany’s bar menu includes burgers, and the Soho House chain, run by Nick Jones, the husband of broadcaster Kirsty Young.
All face being asked at their next routine inspection how they offer their burgers after the decision by Westminster city council, which regulates food safety in more restaurants than any other local authority.
The decision is expected to be followed by other councils, but critics fear it could lead to questions over the safety of rare steaks and raw meat dishes such as steak tartare.
The policy is to be the subject of a legal ruling.
After routine inspections by environmental health officers, Westminster council challenged the way Davy’s was serving its £13.95 burgers at one of its restaurants in central London. Davy’s has taken the case to the High Court, which experts say could set a legal precedent as to whether or not diners will be able to order meat rare.
A Davy’s spokesman said: “The burgers are produced from high quality ingredients and Davy’s contends that it has safe measures in place to serve rare or medium-rare burgers."
James Armitage, the council’s food health and safety manager, said: “This is about making sure customers are eating meat that is not a threat to their health. It is possible to produce burgers that can be eaten undercooked, but strict controls are essential.
“We have enlisted the UK’s top expert on E. coli, Prof Hugh Pennington, to get this matter resolved and he has outlined that rare minced meat that is not correctly cooked and prepared can kill."
But John Cadieux, the executive head chef for the Burger and Lobster chain, said: “If you follow the guidelines to the letter then you’re going to destroy the burger industry.
“Not only that but you’re opening a Pandora’s box, because where do you finish? Steak tartare, runny eggs … the list is endless."
According to the Food Standards Agency (FSA), there are no rules banning the sale of raw or rare meat by restaurants or caterers.
Tony Lewis, of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, said: the case would have “nationwide implications”.
“At present the guidance from the FSA is that for burgers the meat should be cooked at 158F (70C) for two minutes," he said. “If Westminster loses the case we will have to reassess."
Streaky
I had a burger in a well known 'beef eatery' chain. It was crap and I sent it back. The next one was the same, overcooked tasteless rubber. I offered to go in the kitchen and show them how to cook a burger -they refused but explained -they said they had no choice as their burgers were frozen (!) they had to over cook them... Needless to say I will never ever go there again for a burger -I would rather go without supper.
Cheers
Cheers
There is a useful precedent here in the High Court's decision about unattended swimming at Hampstead ponds. The Court thought swimmers should be allowed to choose their own level of risk.
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/c...
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/c...
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 9th December 09:47
See also Lord Hobhouse in Tomlinson v Congleton, a case about diving in to a lake and banging your head:-
"... it is not, and should never be, the policy of the law to require the protection of the foolhardy or reckless few to deprive, or interfere with, the enjoyment by the remainder of society of the liberties and amenities to which they are rightly entitled. Does the law require that all trees be cut down because some youths may climb them and fall? Does the law require the coastline and other beauty spots to be lined with warning notices? Does the law require that attractive waterside picnic spots be destroyed because of a few foolhardy individuals who choose to ignore warning notices and indulge in activities dangerous only to themselves? The answer to all these questions is, of course, no. But this is the road down which your Lordships, like other courts before, have been invited to travel and which the councils in the present case found so inviting. In truth, the arguments for the claimant have involved an attack upon the liberties of the citizen which should not be countenanced. They attack the liberty of the individual to engage in dangerous, but otherwise harmless, pastimes at his own risk and the liberty of citizens as a whole fully to enjoy the variety and quality of the landscape of this country. The pursuit of an unrestrained culture of blame and compensation has many evil consequences and one is certainly the interference with the liberty of the citizen. "
Lord Scott said:-
"...why should the Council be discouraged by the law of tort from providing facilities for young men and young women to enjoy themselves in this way? Of course there is some risk of accidents arising out of the joie de vivre of the young. But that is no reason for imposing a grey and dull safety regime on everyone."
Health and Safety wonks fail to read this stuff, alas.
"... it is not, and should never be, the policy of the law to require the protection of the foolhardy or reckless few to deprive, or interfere with, the enjoyment by the remainder of society of the liberties and amenities to which they are rightly entitled. Does the law require that all trees be cut down because some youths may climb them and fall? Does the law require the coastline and other beauty spots to be lined with warning notices? Does the law require that attractive waterside picnic spots be destroyed because of a few foolhardy individuals who choose to ignore warning notices and indulge in activities dangerous only to themselves? The answer to all these questions is, of course, no. But this is the road down which your Lordships, like other courts before, have been invited to travel and which the councils in the present case found so inviting. In truth, the arguments for the claimant have involved an attack upon the liberties of the citizen which should not be countenanced. They attack the liberty of the individual to engage in dangerous, but otherwise harmless, pastimes at his own risk and the liberty of citizens as a whole fully to enjoy the variety and quality of the landscape of this country. The pursuit of an unrestrained culture of blame and compensation has many evil consequences and one is certainly the interference with the liberty of the citizen. "
Lord Scott said:-
"...why should the Council be discouraged by the law of tort from providing facilities for young men and young women to enjoy themselves in this way? Of course there is some risk of accidents arising out of the joie de vivre of the young. But that is no reason for imposing a grey and dull safety regime on everyone."
Health and Safety wonks fail to read this stuff, alas.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 9th December 11:32
Breadvan72 said:
2003. The Daily Mail is, as usual, wrong about this stuff. Judges tend to adopt the same line as most of us would. Insurance companies need to get some lead in their pencils, and public bodies need to stop falling asleep at rubbishy H and S training courses.
We had a classic.The trainer tripped over a trailing OHP lead and threw his hot coffee over a student.
Some of us suspected it was scripted, but the DS who was doused with coffee denied it.
Reminded me of this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-203183...
Last burger I had from a well known chain had the bottom half of the bun missing. Easy mistake to make, obviously.
Last burger I had from a well known chain had the bottom half of the bun missing. Easy mistake to make, obviously.
Gassing Station | Food, Drink & Restaurants | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff