Hacker News Reader

Comment by fuzz4lyfe | Hacker News Reader

>And you'd never encounter a product that smells formaldehyde with an OEKO-TEX label.

These guys will put lead in children's toys but would never be so unscrupulous as to put a fake label on the product? Or lie to obtain certification?

View on HN

That's a criticism of the supply chain and enforcement, not the certification itself.

I think most people would agree that a promise without verification is no real promise.

China executed people responsible for adding an industrial chemical to baby formula [1]. Without debating the merits of capital punishment, I think the issue is the lack of consistency in supple chain management. The only model I could compare to would be Costco, who is pretty good at curating products customers will like (and the quality is usually good IMHO). Trust sells, if you find buyers who value trust.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/24/china-executes...

China executed scapegoats after huge internal outrage and an attempted coverup.

Not the kind of thing that builds trust.

I don't know whether they were just scapegoats. But if we assume the worst, that they were, it's still a big cost. Having to find scapegoats to pin the blame on while keeping morale of other employees up, I'd imagine that isn't easy. People will be scared. They will wonder whether they are next in line for scapegoating. They will try their best to stay away and cover their asses. It will raise costs to the point that no one will try this again.

I don't know about manufacturing. But for food products people get prosecuted all the time by trading standards.

My friend who works for them has a lot of interesting stories to tell. One story, she visited a local pub and asked for a dairy free ploughman's, the waiter asked if she would like butter on her bread. My friend waited for it to be added, then she put the whole meal, plate and all into a plastic bag and took it away for analysis. The pub got fined and another visit from trading standards.

>the waiter asked if she would like butter on her bread. My friend waited for it to be added //

I've heard stories like this before. It sounds a bit stupid on the part of Trading Standards (TS).

Waiter: "Do you want butter"

Customer/TS agent: "Yes, please"

Then the TS agent prosecutes you for putting butter on their food. Well why did they ask for butter. I mean, I realise that people are sometimes absolute idiots but I don't think you should prosecute restaurants for serving what you ask for.

A story in our local press was that the TS agent said "no peanuts for me as I have an allergy, I'll have the lamb bhuna, ..." and then they ordered a load of dishes - as you would for a family - and they included in their order "chicken satay". They specifically asked for it.

Guess what the restaurant did, they gave them what they asked for. And Trading Standards prosecuted them and made them out in the press to be evil.

Now to me it sounded like the person was ordering a bhuna with no nuts and a load of stuff for other people, if they're stupid enough to order a nut dish isn't that their own fault?

I don't know what's happened to personal responsibility but the expectation for businesses to coddle people has gone too far IMO.

/rant

It takes very little for the waiter to inject, "The satay contains peanuts as an essential ingredient, do you still want to order it?"

Sounds by that story that the other orders were intended for the other people eating given that the peanut free order was explicitly made. So I can only assume the waiter assumed the rest was an order for the others? Maybe that assumption may not (legally) be made and a warning needs to be made for everyone at a whole table? Either way that seems like a bit of a gray zone. Sounds almost like the point was to trip up the waiter.

When you are really allergic to peanuts, it can be an issue just to sit at a table where someone eats peanuts. A waiter should know this. Unlike many other things they deal with, it's literally a matter of life and death.

This I think it's exactly it, they are trying to trip the people up and it's not realistic.

...Wait. Your friend asked for no dairy, then said she wanted dairy anyway, then got people in trouble for that?

Am I missing something important here? This sounds like a textbook example of soulless, arbitrary bureaucracy that benefits no one but bureaucrats and their enforcers.

This sounds like someone (your friend?) had a quota to fill by any means necessary, as opposed to actually enforcing consumer standards. Rather shameful, IMO.

I guess you can get non-dairy spread, mayo, salad cream, etc to put on. It's not her being sneaky and trapping people, it's just that people are dumb. "You're offering me butter when I specifically asked for dairy free?" "Yes" Adds butter. Bosses all slap foreheads in frustration.

Lack of training. Stupid people. I dunno. She's got a lot of stories. The animal neglect are the worst. The pub food ones are the amusing ones. She gets a lot of food poisoning from dodgy food.

I, err... don't know how to feel about this. Entrapment at its worst?

I'm all for labels, safety, and verification enabling people to be informed, consenting adults.

But if you asked to have butter on your toast, as an informed consenting adult, you get butter on your toast, and it ain't anybody's fault but your own. And I'm a liberal socialist pinkie commie Canadian, not even a redneck gun-tottin' libertarian :D

There must be / I hope there is something I'm missing from the story...?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com