Ming Tsai of Blue Ginger has helped draft a noble-minded bill that provides awareness training for the restaurant industry regarding the handling of food allergies. This bill has just passed.
The question is: Will it help?
For the past four years, Ming Tsai, the James Beard Award-winning chef/owner of Blue Ginger in Wellesley, MA and the host and executive producer of public television’s Simply Ming, has worked with Senator Cynthia Stone Creem (D – MA) to pass a bill to make restaurants safer for those with food allergies. Ming not only lobbied on the bill’s behalf but, drawing on his experiences as both the father of a child with food allergies and a chef/restaurateur, helped to shape the bill’s language and propose guidelines that were not only effective but also realistic in a variety of restaurant settings. This January the bill was signed into law by Governor Deval Patrick. This landmark legislation, the first of its kind in the US, calls for simple, inexpensive measures all restaurants can take to make dining safe for those with food allergies.
“I’m so proud that Massachusetts is the first state to pass such comprehensive legislation,” says Chef Ming Tsai. “I’ve always said if you are in the restaurant industry, it’s your duty to serve everyone safe food.”
You can see the full bill at:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/185/st02/st02701.htm
Reading into this bill, it basically does four things:
- Put a reminder on menus for people with food allergies to inform the restaurant of their condition
- Make restaurant owners watch a video in order to get sanitary certification and pass a quiz on the material afterward
- Make every restaurant have a poster on food allergy awareness in the staff area of the restaurant
- Create a voluntary program whereby restaurants may certify themselves as “Food Allergy Friendly”
It will be interesting to see if this bill is able to improve the lives of people with food allergies in a significant, tangible way. I would imagine that point 1 is by in large unnecessary, as one would think that those with food allergies would already be diligent in looking after themselves in restaurants. I know my friends who have food allergies certainly are. Points 2 and 3 will probably not make a very large impact either. Owners will probably forget the video, and the staff will probably not spend their hours engaged in a studious perusal of the poster.
The more intriguing aspect of the bill is point 4, which lets restaurants apply to certify themselves as “Food Allergy Friendly”. Given the economic downturn, the cost benefit analysis for restaurants isn’t so clear from a business standpoint.
Being able to tout yourself as “Food Allergy Friendly” allows you to capture a niche market, in much the way as being a kosher, vegan, or halal restaurant does. This is good for business, and business is bad. But what will be the operational cost do to so? Being food allergy friendly will almost certainly impose an increase in financial cost, care, logistics, and training on a restaurant. The question will be if this operational cost is worth the roughly *4% of the market share that people with food allergies in the US comprise.
Let’s assume that operational cost of the program on a restaurant is directly proportional to the effectiveness of the certification (a large assumption given lack of success of awareness programs like D.A.R.E., which require people sitting through hours of content). If this is the case, than a high operational cost program will produce few restaurants with rigorous certification—truly helpful to those with food allergies, but confined to those restaurants probably already doing it in the first place. Conversely, a low operational cost program will produce will many restaurants with less rigorous certification—of questionable utility to those with food allergies, but a greater overall awareness across restaurants. Given the economic climate, the creators of the certification program must think long and hard to find the intersection of utility curves for those with food allergies and restaurant owners.
Also, in this litigious society, will restaurants feel that being “Food Allergy Friendly” puts them at greater risk for lawsuits if a mishap occurs? Certified restaurants are making a claim that they are food allergy friendly, which may make them especially liable if someone gets sick. Might it not just be safer for restaurants to have something equivalent to the foot notes for “consuming raw or undercooked materials” for food allergies to keep themselves off the hook? Having a statement like, “MAY CONTAIN INGREDIENTS KNOWN TO CAUSE FOOD ALLERGIES. CONSUME AT YOUR OWN RISK.” after every menu item is probably the legally safest thing for restaurants to do. Or will knowing that they are reducing their risk of incidental food allergy exposure to a customer be worth the training for both legal and societal reasons? This is, of course, the service industry, and restaurants like to make all of their customers happy.
The spirit of this bill is certainly an excellent step towards keeping those with food allergies healthy and happy. However, there is much in the execution that will determine what change, if any, comes of it. I certainly hope this bill fulfills its purpose, and I urge the drafters of the certification program to think about the realities of the state of the restaurant industry in order to create a program that is both helpful and practical.
*A rough calculation of a ceiling of percentage of people with food allergies in the US. Take the number of people in the US with food allergies as stated by FAAN: 12,000,000. This estimate is likely to err on the high side, given that FAAN is an advocacy group. Take the population of the US rounded down to the closest hundred million: roughly 300,000,000. Divide the first by the second and get 4%. Given that the numerator is overestimated and the denominator is underestimated, this is a rough approximation to a ceiling of the statistic. Regardless of the nuances of this figure, food allergy incidence would probably require an order of magnitude greater market share to provide a purely financial incentive for restaurants to change.