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

[James Crouchet]

Encourage them to get the training, but not *require* it. We don't want to
set a standard by requiring training (or certification).

I am sure we can find other opportunities for my brother to come teach what
we need to know. He is in Waco now so it should be about as easy for him to
get to Dallas as Austin. Unfortunately he is the new guy at work so he is
on call on the weekends no one else wants to take (which is a lot of them
right now). It also means he is teaching a lot of the Food Handler classes
right now so he really knows the material. I'll talk to him and work
something out in the next few months.

Christian Doré

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Stefan li Rous
<StefanliRous at austin.rr.com>wrote:

> 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
>>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Ansteorra mailing list
> Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
> In order to make changes and manage your account please go to:
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/**listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-**ansteorra.org<http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org>
>