[Ansteorra] food safety was Re: Underage Participation In The SCA

[Stefan li Rous]

Okay, I see now that it isn't getting the training, but getting the  
certification that you were concerned about.

So long as the training doesn't automatically bind you to the  
certification, and I assume not, I can see where we could strongly  
encourage the training (or even require it) without requiring the  
certification.

That sounds reasonable. I thought you were saying we shouldn't require  
our food handlers to get the training because it would cause liability  
problems.

Stefan


On Feb 9, 2012, at 12:25 AM, James Crouchet wrote:

>> The law doesn't require us to have background checks for children's
> officers or that we use a "two deep rule".  So it could be said that  
> we
> could be sued if anyone ever documents that we had a situation where  
> we
> didn't follow "our own minimum standards".  And yet we still feel  
> that we
> should make these rules mandatory.
>
> The difference is that the background check and two deep rule are the
> common accepted practice for organizations of structure similar to  
> ours.
> For internal handling of food (i.e. we cook for our members, not for  
> the
> public) in not-for-profit organizations,  requiring food handlers to  
> be
> licensed is NOT common accepted practice.
>
>> I don't see how knowing what the perfect site conditions would be,  
>> makes
> you guilty if you are forced to use a non-conforming site.
>
> I think you missed my point.  If you have the license you need to  
> meet the
> standards to which you are trained.  If the site does not provide the
> equipment necessary to meet the standards and you still use that  
> site you
> are KNOWINGLY violating those standards.  Liability standards are  
> much more
> strict for licensed professionals.
>
> Christian Doré