That's funny, but isn't the purpose of health code laws quite different than that?<br><br>I'm not sure, but I thought that the laws regarding health codes (well, federal laws anyway) came under the adjudication of the FDA.
<br><br>Which if you look it up, is explicitly NOT an organization whose charter is to promote (or even protect) public health. Rather, its charter states that its raison'd'etre is to promote the sale of U.S. agricultural products ...
<br><br>Interesting, even if they're NOT the ones that monitor health regulations ... <br><br><br><br><br><br>JOE<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/25/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">David Nicol</b> <<a href="mailto:davidnicol@gmail.com">
davidnicol@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">On 9/25/07, Joe Fish <<a href="mailto:reverend.joe@gmail.com">
reverend.joe@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> Another bad anology -- health code laws are about as different from<br>> copyright laws in both their written form, and their interpretations in<br>> court, as two things can be and both still be called "LAWS". You're still
<br>> missing my point -- the trend in this country is to try to create "IP" law<br>> (both written laws and case laws) that gives the creator of something<br>> ULTIMATE, TOTAL, AND ABSOLUTE CONTROL UNTIL THE END OF TIME of the thing
<br>> they've created. Can you really say the same seems to apply to laws that<br>> govern health conditions at McDonald's?<br><br>Health codes are designed to give the public some assurance, absolutely,<br>
totally, and until the end of time, that you will not get food sickness by<br>eating at a compliant restaurant within city limits.<br><br>That said, loading my bowl with sliced clams right before closing at<br>Genghis Khan was stupid and I harbor no ill will against the place.
<br></blockquote></div><br>