BBC News reports that a restaurant operator in the North Yorkshire county of England has been tried, found guilty of manslaughter, and sentenced to six years' imprisonment for the death of a customer who died after ordering chicken tikka masala with "no nuts" because he was allergic to peanuts. He died from what is believed to have been anaphylactic shock. Prior to the man's death, the restaurants had already been under investigation because another customer had a non-fatal allergic reaction after she was allegedly served peanuts contrary to her request.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Restauranteur Found Guilty of Manslaughter; Jailed over Allergy Death
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 82 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @03:04PM
Guy: I'm ordering dish X, I know there are nuts in it but I'm allergic to nuts. Please don't put nuts or anything that touched nuts in it - this is not an abnormal request. Nasty things happen if I consume nuts. Can you confirm?
Restaurateur: Right-o, no nuts or traces of nuts, you got it!
Restaurateur prepares dish without regard of customers request which was confirmed to customer to be complied with.
Guy dies because what he reasonably thought contained no nuts/nut allergens, still contained levels of said compound at levels that are inconsistent with a reasonable request for 'no nuts'.
Restaurateur clearly fucked up. And this isn't the first time this dude has had this issue. So I think this is all justified.
EXCEPT if the restaurant has clear indications and/or markings that say "we do *not* modify your dish", but it doesn't and it didn't so there it is.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Friday May 27 2016, @03:16PM
Restaurants will soon need a big sign on the door saying "Food prepared in this establishment may contain peanuts. Do not eat here if you are allergic to peanuts.". Then wait till the egg and strawberry crowd starts dying off.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NickFortune on Friday May 27 2016, @03:23PM
The guy operating the restaurant was heavily in debt and was cutting costs by replacing ground almonds (which wouldn't have triggered the allergy) with ground peanuts.
The meal was confirmed as being nut free and came with "no nuts" written on the top. After the buyer dies, the meal was found to be full of the damn things.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @07:05PM
Not just that:
The next day a trading standards investigator went to the premises and asked for a nut free meal.
Tests revealed that meal contained a "sizeable amount" of ground peanuts comparable to the levels found in Mr Wilson's lethal curry.
After the first incident the restaurant could have switched to telling people, "Sorry we can't do these sort of orders while maintaining the taste and excellence that we strive for" or similar PR bullshit. After all a nut-sensitive customer could turn out to be allergic to almonds too.
But no, they continued pretending that they could do it, there's no sign that the person going to jail tried to change things so that it wouldn't happen again. So to me it's a fair sentence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @09:19AM
Peanut isn't nuts, just like almonds.
(Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Saturday May 28 2016, @04:13PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by NickFortune on Friday June 03 2016, @03:33PM
The allergy was definitely to peanuts, specifically. The "nut allergy" seems to be sloppy reporting.
From what I read since, the customer here was expecting the meal to be made with almonds and was assured that was what was going to happen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @03:24PM
Maybe restaurant owners should start religiously objecting to food allergies.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday May 27 2016, @03:29PM
"Food here may contain ingredients. We cannot guarantee food can be prepared without some amount of ingredients. Do not eat here if you might be allergic to ingredients."
I do gotta say, I wouldn't be ordering ANYTHING that normally had nuts in it if I was that crazy allergic to nuts. I mean, even if the order gets in right and the chef leaves them out, how do you know peanut oil wasn't used, or it's not in the sauce in some trace elements or something? Hell, for that kind of reaction, I probably wouldn't trust food I didn't make myself.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Gaaark on Friday May 27 2016, @04:15PM
Gotta agree: my lactose and gluten allergies will not kill me, but I know that if something says "May contain milk", it probably does and i don't eat it.
If i go to a restaurant and order a burger with no cheese and no bun, i know i may end up suffering a bit afterwards, because of cross contamination.
If it could kill me, no, i wouldn't order peanut butter and jelly sandwich, but please leave out the peanut butter.
Aaaaand the bread.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Friday May 27 2016, @05:12PM
> a burger with no cheese and no bun
So... ground beef, then, with optional toppings.
Regardless of what marketers would have us believe, there is no carb-free sandwich or fat-free cream, and there is no bun-free burger, tofu-based meat nor soy milk.
People who can't eat some things should be like people named Boenher: denial and self-delusion just makes you seem weird.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday May 27 2016, @09:01PM
It's hard enough to get the kid taking your order to understand "Double whopper, no bun and no cheese":
so many times it will come as just 2 burger patties: no sauce, no toppings. Just 2 patties.
Or they look at you, then down at their keypad/board, then at you.
To say to them "I want ground beef, cooked, with regular toppings and sauce" would make him/her wet himself/herself.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @11:55PM
I was working at Wendy's when the Atkins diet fad hit. Within a week we had it down to a routine. The problem is somebody says, "I want a hamburger" and then wants it without a bun, my first instinct is to look at them like they're crazy because I have no idea how the fuck to make a "hamburger" that doesn't have a bun.
Say to them "I want ground beef, cooked, with regular toppings and sauce" and their only question will be to the manager about how to ring such a thing up. If he rings you up for a hamburger, I expect you'll jump down his throat cussing and screaming about how uneducated and illiterate he is because you got charged for a bun.
People like you are pieces of fucking shit.
These days, I can be a BOFH if you try that kind of shit on me.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday May 28 2016, @02:46AM
Is that you, Stupid?
I love it when Stupid writes something... it always comes out stupid.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1) by Francis on Friday May 27 2016, @09:42PM
Are you actually allergic to those, or is it just a sensitivity?
The vast majority of the people who have to avoid those things for medical reasons can tolerate a small amount of it without dieing and conflating them with allergies does people with actual food allergies a huge disservice as it leads people to think that a little bit is OK.
Now, there are people with minor food allergies, I'm sensitive to gluten and lactose and try to avoid it as much as possible, but if I do happen to consume some, my face isn't going to swell up as my airways swell shut.
Getting some gluten when you've got celiac disease is a problem, but you're not going to get die from a small amount of cross contamination the way that you might with an actual food allergy.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday May 27 2016, @10:36PM
The level of reaction is pretty important. My brother was mildly allergic to peanuts when he was a child, though he seemed to outgrow it. He could eat half a jar of peanuts and the worst thing that would happen to him was blotchy rash and he'd have a nasty stomach ache.
I still think if I was going to die from ingesting it some amount of something, I'd not even want to go to a restaurant that might even potentially have it available.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday May 27 2016, @08:12PM
That's the appropriate answer. I see it all the time on packaging: This food has been prepared in a facility that may contain: X Y Z
I also see quite often: Contains: Milk, Soy, Peanuts.
Restaurants are a facility whereby it's almost impossible to guarantee no cross-contamination. I'm always asking for gluten free, but I don't reasonably expect my lunch to contain no traces of wheat whatsoever.
That being said, this owner does deserve the man slaughter charge for lying to the customer. All they needed was the above disclaimer and that ALL they could do would be best efforts with no guarantee of no traces of peanuts. The worst that could have happened would have been a dejected almost-customer walking away and an owner who missed out on a lunch fare. Nobody would have died though.
Really, fuck the restaurant owner for lying. I hate those bastards, and I've run into plenty. With all smiles and understanding they will tell you one thing, then deliver exactly what you didn't ask for. Usually that results in poor customer satisfaction the "Invisible Hand" sorts out their sociopathic pandering behavior, but in this case we need the courts to put this asshole away for 6 years to send a message. That being, provide proper disclosure on your menus, and get used to saying no to some people. No is actually a very acceptable answer, just a less profitable one.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Friday May 27 2016, @09:46PM
The problem is that products that are produced on the same equipment as foods that contain tree nuts and whatever else often times have less contamination than foods that were just produced in the same facility.
Those are usually just on the label for people who are less allergic to the ingredient. While the assumption when you hear food allergy should always be that a reaction is potentially fatal, the reality is that there's a substantial number of people walking around with less severe food allergies where the reaction is just a minor annoyance.
When people lie about the contents of the food that takes the control away from the person to make an informed decision. If I'm not mistaken, the number one reason for food recalls is cross contamination. Traces of allergens in things that they shouldn't be in..
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Friday May 27 2016, @07:03PM
Some already do.
Off the top of my head, my local Dunkin Donuts has a sign like that. Only a few of their product have nuts, but it is simpler for them to have a legal disclaimer rather than keep everything seperate and ensure there are never any contaminations between the products. So if I want my Boston Creme donuts, it is at my own risk.
Similarly, many store bought items have disclaimers "may contain traces of nuts or peanuts", even though the product is not supposed to contain nuts. All because they are simply made in the same facility as products that do contain nuts.
Honestly, it boggles my mind food providers even still use nuts considering the risks. Where are the "you can't be too safe" parrots?
(Score: 2) by Nollij on Saturday May 28 2016, @02:14AM
They're out there. Do you know how thoroughly equipment has to be cleaned before it no longer needs to be labeled as potentially containing trace amounts of nuts?
But they are a small minority on the food safety debate. Besides, nuts are cheap, and in high demand. And once you start down that path, there is no shortage of food allergens.
Oh, and we're *REALLY* bad about listening to warnings about food safety. Any void in the world of unhealthy/unsafe/dangerous food will quickly be filled by someone new.
I doubt that anyone will really let Congress (or city council) ban Reese's cups. You saw the outcry over banning over-sized full-sugar sodas.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @03:35PM
By that same token, if you have that severe of a reaction, would you trust a restaurant to be that scrupulous in keeping the nuts away from anything that touches your meal? And especially ordering a meal that normally contains nuts?
Sure, the restaurant is negligent, but the customer is also a dumbass because that degree of isolation isn't possible in a restaurant setting.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @03:51PM
By that same token, if you have that severe of a reaction, would you trust a restaurant to be that scrupulous in keeping the nuts away from anything that touches your meal? And especially ordering a meal that normally contains nuts?
I have to agree. It isn't like the restaurant was putting rat poison in the food. The meals were completely edible and would have passed any health inspection.
I think the court is holding the restaurant to an unreasonable standard. If they had charged extra for a special, guaranteed nut-allergy safe meal then the conviction would be completely justified in my eyes. But a simple menu substitution shouldn't create liability for the customer's life.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 27 2016, @09:36PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @10:39PM
So, if someone orders a BLT without the T and still gets a piece of T is that also deserving of prison time?
How about a Cobb salad with dressing on the side, but the dressing is on the salad?
What if they order a vanilla milkshake and they get a chocolate milkshake, you gonna lock them up for that too?
Restaurants are not medical grade dispensaries. Holding them criminally liable for that standard is disproportionate.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday June 02 2016, @03:39PM
If you can't serve food that isn't FATAL to your customers, you should not be in business at the very least.
If the guy hadn't warned them he was allergic, you might have a point. But he did, and they knowingly and intentionally put his life at risk anyway over what -- ten buck maybe? They made a guarantee to him that their service would be safe. And they lied. Should the skydiving company also not be responsible if the parachute they give you fails to open because they didn't pack it properly?
(Score: 2) by pendorbound on Friday May 27 2016, @04:29PM
It is possible to maintain that degree of separation. A good chef will go out of their way to prevent cross-contamination of ingredients and be aware of all the components of all ingredients they source. When it comes to preparing food for an individual with an allergy, they'll scrub down every utensil, prep surface, pan, grill, etc. that they're going to use to prepare it and be certain that there's no cross contamination.
When you consider than something as simple as a little bit of raw chicken slipping into something or improperly cleaned vegetables can make people sick, a chef needs to spend a LOT of time & effort ensuring ingredients don't contaminate each other. Adding nuts or anything else into the mix is just one more thing they have to be knowledgeable and careful about.
That said, the scrub down for an allergy order is definitely time & work to do. I'm always clear if I order something special that it's just because I don't like an ingredient, not that I'm allergic to it. IE don't pile it high with [whatever], but a little cross contamination isn't going to kill me (literally). Hopefully servers pass the info on to whoever's preparing & save them some unnecessary work.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday May 27 2016, @04:54PM
You can't make that assumption if you have that kind of allergy. There are gaps in training (restaurant workers come & go all the time), there are plain old mistakes. Even foods with official marks cannot be trusted 100%. There was a scandal a few years back involving one of the two main kosher marks used in the US. Turns out, the food wasn't kosher.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @10:22PM
It is possible to maintain that degree of separation. A good chef will go out of their way to prevent cross-contamination of ingredients and be aware of all the components of all ingredients they source. When it comes to preparing food for an individual with an allergy, they'll scrub down every utensil, prep surface, pan, grill, etc. that they're going to use to prepare it and be certain that there's no cross contamination.
Why even waste that much time for a few people with allergies? Just refuse to serve them. That's what they should have done.
(Score: 2) by Nollij on Saturday May 28 2016, @02:20AM
Restaurants are often part of the hospitality industry. Custom orders are VERY common - Burger minus tomato, extra sauce (on the side), etc.
Alienating customers (and potential customers) by refusing to accommodate these requests earns a bad reputation. Besides, for most of food service, it's still profitable.
Allergy orders are more difficult for sure, but they usually come with the caveat that it may have come into contact with allergens.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by pendorbound on Friday May 27 2016, @03:38PM
One clarification: Replace "Restaurateur" with the cook the Restaurateur's manager hired. Restaurateur said in trial he was not on-site when the meal was ordered, prepared, or served.
If you tell me nuts will kill you, I give you something with nuts telling you there's no nuts, and it kills you, I have some culpability. How much depends on whether I knew or should have known that any ingredients contained nuts (and whether I communicated any uncertainty I might have had). If I intentionally put nuts in it, that's murder. If I didn't check, that's manslaughter. If I used ingredients that clearly said "NO NUTS" and they actually did have nuts, that's on the supplier of the ingredients absent any proof that I had reason to know the label was inaccurate.
In this case, Guy1 hires Guy2 who hires Guy3. Guy3 made the meal, Guy2 was probably who ordered the ingredients. It's unclear how much G2 & G3 knew about the ingredients. At least based on what's in TFA, Guy1 was out of the loop, but he's doing six years for it? UK law is a different thing than US of course, but I have a problem with that significant a sentence for that many degrees removed. Even if Restaurateur gave the order to use cheap peanut-containing stuff instead, the manager and cook had the responsibility to know what they were cooking with and serving. Even if Restaurateur pushed the staff to work quickly, cut corners on ingredients, etc., it's up to the staff to know that they can't provide nut-free meals and communicate that to customers.
Under US-law this would be much more reasonable as a civil wrongful death suit against Restaurateur. I don't see any criminal culpability for him.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @07:09PM
Years ago I worked for a fast food place. The manager had a sign in her office that read: "This isn't Burger King. You take it my way or you don't get the damn thing." Too bad this couldn't be hung right under the menu board in the lobby.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday May 28 2016, @02:42AM
I found a recipe [food.com] for chicken tikka masala that is made with almonds:
Another [epicurious.com] specifies peanut oil:
Another [comfybelly.com] says
However, the four recipes for the dish I found on the BBC Food Web site don't specify the use of nuts or peanuts:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/low-fat_chicken_tikka_04689 [bbc.co.uk]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/chickentikkamasala_67780 [bbc.co.uk]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/chickentikkamasala_73305 [bbc.co.uk]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/chickentikkamasala_91321 [bbc.co.uk]
The Wikipedia page doesn't mention peanuts, peanut oil, or almonds. So it looks to me as though the dish is sometimes made with nuts or with peanut oil, and isn't normally made with peanuts--if I'm not misleading myself by looking at those writings I found online.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Dunbal on Friday May 27 2016, @03:12PM
Next, imprison the pharmacy for not making sure he was carrying an Epi-pen that could have saved him. Then arrest the NHS for not funding enough research into desensitizing people for food allergies.
(Score: 2) by SuperCharlie on Friday May 27 2016, @04:12PM
So you definitely want to the curry with no cyanide? Ok.. Gives you cyanide curry, you die. Your bad?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @06:54PM
I have a reasonable expectation that a meal does not contain a toxicity class 1 poison.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday May 27 2016, @05:04PM
Yes, allergies are clearly a big public health issue. Yet jailing a restauranteur over an allergy death is a move in the wrong direction. I suspect a great deal of dishonesty, and the restauranteur is more scapegoat than perpetrator. Lot of medical problems are all too conveniently blamed on "bad" genes, or the patient, while possible environmental causes get short shrift. Obesity? That's your fault for being gluttonous and lazy, you slob. Coke and Pepsi and bisphenol A are not known to have anything whatsoever to do with it, no sir! Allergies? Must have inherited that from your parents, who inherited it from theirs and so on. So why didn't your great great grandparents suffer from life threatening allergies? Could it be because they weren't surrounded by chemicals that sensitize people to potential allergens? How about cancer? Bad genes again, sorry, rough luck for you! You think you were exposed to radioactive waste? Nah, you're just making that up, just imagining it.
It's not that genes play no role, but that their role has been oversold.
(Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Saturday May 28 2016, @04:20PM
Then arrest the NHS for not funding enough research into desensitizing people for food allergies.
For what it's worth, Addenbrooke's has ben running fairly large-scale trials of a technique for removing allergies. It's a bit difficult, because you have to take the treatment regularly for over a year for it to work, but the response so far is positive. Hopefully they'll be rolling it out as a standard treatment in a few years.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @03:16PM
The likely side effect is the NO restaurant will be willing to try to accommodate any food allergy.
Or there will be enough lawyer's words on the menu to make it so that no customer can depend on them trying.
I'm not sure this is an improvement.
(Score: 5, Informative) by fishybell on Friday May 27 2016, @04:21PM
From TFA: He had been substituting the thickening agent almond powder with ground nut mix, which contained peanuts, as a way of cutting costs.
This isn't a case of "oops, we forgot" or "oops, there was some cross-contamination," but rather a "we didn't tell our workers or the customers that the thickening contained nuts and there was no way to make the dish nut-free." The company supplying the thickening agent even warned them about the allergy risks but he chose to ignore it for profits.
People die of allergies somewhat frequently and the owners aren't prosecuted. This is a case of gross negligence leading to a death even after they sickened someone else. Practically manslaughter by definition.
(Score: 3, Informative) by choose another one on Friday May 27 2016, @05:06PM
Here's what I don't get - since when is almond powder "nut free", when did almonds stop being nuts ?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 27 2016, @05:22PM
Ditto. The terminology here is confusing. The guy ordered a dish known to contain nuts, despite the fact he has a nut allergy? In fact, he didn't get "nuts" in that dish, instead he got legumes. So-called "peanuts" aren't nuts at all, because nuts grow on trees, and legumes are small perennial plants.
Was the deceased allergic to nuts, or to peanuts? Which killed him, the almond powder, or the peanut substitute?
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Friday May 27 2016, @06:34PM
To my limited understanding, almonds are different enough that they do not trigger the allergic reaction.
Almonds == TASTY && Peanuts|Brazil Nuts == DEATH
If the dish was made with the almond thickening paste as advertised, there would not be a problem. Since the paste was substituted to save cost without telling the staff about the change and the risks associated with the change, the staff was not aware that they could not comply with the no nuts request.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday May 27 2016, @07:33PM
FWIW, peanuts are not nuts. MANY people are severly sensitive to peanuts. Some are allergic. This says NOTHING about how they would react to walnuts, almonds, filberts, brazil nuts, pecans, etc.
More people are at leas mildly allergic to peanuts than to any "other nut". And more people are seriously allergic.
This guy has no excuse, and manslaughter seems an appropriate verdict.
FWIW, I happen to like peanuts, but that doesn't change the facts.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @03:33PM
The restaurant was using a cheap alternative to almond powder for thickening that contained a ground nut mix as a cost cutting measure being £300k in debt. And the previous person that almost died's mother said when she challenged restaurant staff at the Jaipur Spice restaurant, they denied using peanuts and said their curries only contained almonds. Which the investigation into that found that was false. So the restaurant was actively lying and no attempt at accommodation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @04:23PM
What about almonds being processed in a facility that also processes peanuts? Maybe the grinder used for almonds also made peanut butter? If I had that kind of allergy condition, I wouldn't eat anything not prepared by myself.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday May 27 2016, @09:30PM
The question at hand would be did he know the cheaper mix included peanuts? Should he have known?
One thing for sure, if I owned a restaurant in the UK, I would as a matter of policy indicate that anything in the place may contain peanuts including the air and water, no exceptions, even if I never ordered them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @10:44PM
> they denied using peanuts and said their curries only contained almonds.
The order said "no nuts" so even if they had used the original recipe he still would have got nuts.
Maybe he's only allergic to peanuts, but if they are just going to say "nuts" then using almonds wouldn't have been any more honest.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Gaaark on Friday May 27 2016, @04:09PM
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Touché) by Phoenix666 on Friday May 27 2016, @04:46PM
Hmm, the format you're looking for is called, "book."
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday May 27 2016, @09:03PM
Ah, i see you've played Linky/Firefly before! XD
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Informative) by kanweg on Friday May 27 2016, @04:13PM
If you have a condition like that, don't you carry an injectable dose of Epinephrine or something like that with you?
Bert
(Score: 3, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Friday May 27 2016, @08:19PM
I have a friend who is allergic to shell fish. For his graduation his father took us out to an elaborate dinner and threw a lot of money around. Long story short, we each ate about $100 worth of lobsters, shrimp cocktails and coconut shrimp, and king crab legs. It was basically a shell fish holocaust with my deathly allergic friend right in the middle. I asked him if he had his epi pen. response: "Nope. Too clumsy to carry around. They probably have one in a first aid kit anyway". He enjoyed his filet mignon and thankfully had no issues.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @04:22PM
Orders from a public restrauant. Strike two.
Does not carry an epi-pen. Strike three.
Hes out of here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @04:54PM
Haha, knew I could expect plenty of these kinds of comments if this story wound up here. Was not disappointed. :)
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday May 27 2016, @05:07PM
Why the hell isn't there a "-1 (Doesn't Know What The Fuck Darwinism Actually Means)" mod? Or, for that matter, a "-1 (Heartless Asshole)" one?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday May 27 2016, @05:19PM
Well, the person with a genetic deficiency, and inappropriate self-preservation behavior (excessive trust) will be not having any more children.
Darwinism.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday May 27 2016, @05:34PM
There's no moral dimension to it though. Nature is not, so far as we can tell, a moralizing process, let alone a singularly-conscious one like an individual human being. Nature is not sitting there in the ether somewhere going "Hahaha, serves you right, dumbass!"
Inevitably there's some dimension of moral judgment attached when people say things like this, though. THAT is the problem. There is no "should" as in "people with unfit genes for their environment SHOULD die." There's just "statistically speaking, people with unfit genes for their environment are more LIKELY to die."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Friday May 27 2016, @05:46PM
> There's just "statistically speaking, people with unfit genes for their environment are more LIKELY to die."
Where's that -1 mod you were talking about?
Darwinism is about creatures with the right adaptations/mutations having more descendants.
The other one don't die, but the more appropriate traits become dominant in the population.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday May 27 2016, @09:41PM
Two sides of the same coin. The traits that aren't adaptive disappear because the organisms carrying them die off, sometimes in very short order. I think you understand this very well and are just snarking.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 27 2016, @09:47PM
Darwinism is about creatures with the right adaptations/mutations having more descendants. The other one don't die, but the more appropriate traits become dominant in the population.
No, the primary agent of selection in the natural world is death. Every organism which exists does so by producing considerably more young than are necessary to maintain the population. That's because most of those young, sometimes orders of magnitude more, die than survive. I really can't think of a situation outside of human society and its pets where young organisms have a high rate of survival.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday May 27 2016, @11:51PM
True, but it's no the primary Evolution mechanism.
Imagine a Hulk mutation, where 99% of animals born with the mutation get to live twice as long as the oldest non-mutant, while being much stronger. But they are sterile.
For one generation, it looks good. But the next generation is either back to normal, or likely worse off for having had less chance to reproduce given the new "supers" being at the top.
Death is the mechanism that filters the least efficient mutations, but the ability to gain an advantage and propagate your mutation across the population is more important than its direct mortality impact.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 27 2016, @06:09PM
There's no moral dimension to it though.
Nobody is saying there is.
1) Guy is born with dangerous allergy.
2) Guy takes risk knowing he has allergy.
3) Guy dies.
Cause and effect.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday May 27 2016, @07:37PM
While I despise your morality, your facts are correct (if an epi-pen would have solved the problem).
OTOH, this doesn't exculpate the perpetrator, who appears to deserve the sentence, and perhaps it should have been 2nd degree rather than manslaughter, as he knew or had reason to know that his actions were likely to lead to someone else dying.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Friday May 27 2016, @09:49PM
That depends. According to TFA, the manager, not the owner ordered the lower cost nut powder. It doesn't state if the label said it included peanuts or not.
If he didn't make the substitution, his culpability is quite limited. If the label didn't indicate peanuts, even more so.
(Score: 2) by Nollij on Saturday May 28 2016, @02:31AM
It may be different in the UK, but in the US, I can promise that it would have the label if it comes from any significant-size supplier.
Due to the high-profile nature of peanut allergies, you would have to get down to a mom-and-pop shop to find someone so ignorant of the law. And these aren't likely to be cheaper.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday May 28 2016, @04:08PM
Well, that's a good argument that they charged the wrong person, but it doesn't diminish culpability...unless the product didn't list peanuts as an ingredient, which would mean they REALLY should have charged someone very different.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday May 28 2016, @04:56PM
It may not reduce overall culpability, but it certainly reduces the the owners culpability.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @05:01PM
If I went to jail for every work screw-up I did, I'd be around to watch our sun go nova through the bars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @05:23PM
Remind me not to eat in your restaurant sir.
(Score: 2) by forkazoo on Friday May 27 2016, @06:25PM
If "every work screw-up" you did involved killing somebody through criminal negligence, after you nearly killed somebody the same way and refused to change what you were doing after being warned that you were behaving dangerously and recklessly, you probably would go to jail for every work screw-up.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @06:26PM
If I went to jail for every work screw-up I did, I'd be around to watch our sun go nova through the bars.
Don't be so harsh on yourself, Mr. President.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by zugedneb on Friday May 27 2016, @05:34PM
I asked my mother once if she knew of any case of these modern allergies like nuts and gluten from her youth. She is 65, btw from Romania.
She said, child of a coworker had gluten allergy, but otherwise no.
So, in Romania up to 1990 she was only remotely aware that such things existed.
Given how the westerners order a defined dish, and then start to pick and choose of what should be in it, the owner, if not EU-born and not young, probably thought the people are just idiots.
Like: can I order this onion-garlic soup, but pls pls pls no onions and garlic in it? Just some plain soup and bread?
So yeah, I can understand the owner too...
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @06:38PM
Most allergies are not life threatening. For example my wife is actually allergic to mayo. Now her reaction is usually she feels like crap and throws up. My same reaction to most shell fish. We dont die. We just get mildly sick.
I recognize the symptoms of a allergic reaction as I used to have terrible hay fever. Growing up it was not uncommon for me to sit there and sneeze 20-30 times in a row. Then do that 3-4 times an hour. I used to use some pretty wicked anti-histamines to get around it. It went away when I moved away from the area.
Basically what happens is the histamine in your body decides that particular food is an invader. It reacts by attacking it. Making *you* feel like shit. Get a wild enough reaction to it (like the dude from the story) and you die.
My wife went out with this one dude. His mother decided 'oh she is faking it' then decided to make a dish with mayo in it. She spent 2-3 hours prepping this meal. Well my wife blarfed it all back up within 15 mins. Couldnt taste it at all.
Dug into her family history. Her mother is ok, grandmother and great grandmother both could not eat mayo. It is odd too. As she can eat the individual things from mayo. But not mayo itself. Though she dislikes vinegar. But she can eat it. Put the things together in the same dish and she usually does not feel very good.
There are people out there that think food allergies are not a thing. They are. Until a few years ago most people chalked it up to 'being a picky eater'. So many people want to 'test' you. It actually really kinda pisses me off. I am personally not allergic to peanuts. I just *hate* the taste so if you can bury the taste I will eat them. Yes I am being picky. Please shut the hell up and stop trying to force feed me something. People do this *all* the time. "oh you have just never had good xyz" The number of 'good' peanut butter cookies over the years I have been forced to try...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27 2016, @06:58PM
Misguided idea to exclude every "possible allergen" from mother/baby diet is misguided.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/peanut-allergies-introduction-in-infancy-1.3478147 [www.cbc.ca]
Human immune system evolved to adjust to common foods through early exposure to them. Not through some "spooky action at a distance" while being kept away from said foods.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday May 27 2016, @07:42PM
Not clear. There's reasonable evidence that you are correct, but while plausible it's not conclusive, and probably it's true in some cases and false in others.
OTOH, peanuts are a special case. They are subject to infection with aflatoxin, and this is quite likely to kill people who are at all sensitive. And this is a problem of long standing. Look up the kids song that starts "Found a peanut..."
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Friday May 27 2016, @07:23PM
I RTFA so this guy got what he deserved but I as an owner would put up the generic this facility serves items which may contain nuts, soy, dairy products and such and refuse to make any concessions for fear of liability. Much like places that serve vegan or vegetarian vs halal or kosher have to have separate grills, having a part of the kitchen that is totally free of possible allergens can be a huge cost and space issue.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday May 27 2016, @08:49PM
- How do you call a Vegan restaurant?
- Depending on the mythology, Tartarus or Hell's 9th...
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Saturday May 28 2016, @12:24AM
I hate to admit it but I do not get the reference or the joke, please tell me more.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @12:32AM
It's making fun of vegans. That's all you need to know.
Wait. I think you're one of those gay vegan mooooslims! Only a gay vegan mooooslism wouldn't find a joke about vegans funny!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @05:21AM
Wouldn't that be a gay mooslim halal ? Veganism doesn't have anything to do with religion, or as it would be in millennial terms spiritual ?
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Saturday May 28 2016, @01:48AM
introduction, suitable for the hurried, to the circles of Hell in Dante's Inferno: http://danteinferno.info/circles-of-hell/ [danteinferno.info]
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Saturday May 28 2016, @05:25AM
I read the Inferno at a young age but I'd guess your making a reference to the betrayal of trust. I need to go eat a burger or something my brain just did not make the connection. Thanks for the enlightenment :) Cheers
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge