Should anyone food service or restaurants with tattoos be required to pass Hepatitis tests?

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by Pollycy, Jul 8, 2018.

?

Should those working food service or restaurants with tattoos be required to pass hepatitis tests?

Poll closed Jul 29, 2018.
  1. To keep Hep-C from spreading, these employees should all have to pass hepatitis tests first.

    11 vote(s)
    61.1%
  2. No, having a tattoo does not mean you should have to pass hepatitis tests.

    7 vote(s)
    38.9%
  1. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The danger of contracting hepatitis is significantly increased by the injection of tattoo ink:
    Link: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/01/24/hepatitis-c-linked-to-tattoo-ink.html

    From the link:
    "The new study found that people with the virus were almost four times more likely to report having a tattoo, even when other major risk factors were taken into account, co-author Dr. Fritz Francois of New York University Langone Medical Center told Reuters Health.

    With THAT much of an increased likelihood of getting and spreading hepatitis, shouldn't all workers with tattoos, in food service and restaurants, be REQUIRED to pass hepatitis tests?!

    And, yes, hepatitis can easily be spread though food. The internet is full of such references, and for other types of hepatitis other than "C"!
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2018
  2. manchmal

    manchmal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    78
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    There is probably no bigger danger of getting hep from somebody who prepares your food unless you eat it raw or something. If we made everybody with a tat take a test before they could work in pubic it would cause chaos. Everybody is getting tats now even though most of them look like hell and make the wearers look like trash. Who would flip the burgers and do all the other crap jobs at restaurants?
     
  3. Oh Yeah

    Oh Yeah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,093
    Likes Received:
    2,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Anyone who works with food should be required to have the test.
     
  4. Liberty Monkey

    Liberty Monkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2018
    Messages:
    10,856
    Likes Received:
    16,450
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    It doesn't seem unreasonable, the chance of Hep C from a decent tattoo parlour tend to 0 but who can guarantee they used a decent parlour!.

    I would find it hard to argue against a test like this for food.
     
  5. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This. Should be tested for HIV, Hep, all of the possible pathogens and immediately fired if found to have any of them.
     
    Pollycy and Oh Yeah like this.
  6. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Just because so many people choose to have their bodies injected with ink that may, or may not, be contaminated with hepatitis doesn't mean that they should be allowed to handle food in public venues!

    Hep of the three different varieties (A, B, and C) can be transmitted through everything from a kiss, to food, to sex, sweat, etc. I knew a guy who ate raw oysters in Mexico many years ago and got hepatitis. He has had to live with the effects of that all his life.

    Just because people are stupid enough to get tattoos doesn't mean that they should be allowed to prepare or serve our food. Frankly, I hate even having to be around them at the gym, where there are huge numbers of tattooed people, and I always clean the hell out of all equipment I use there before I work out on those machines.
     
    manchmal likes this.
  7. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,838
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That strikes me as a strange choice of headline since it clearly implies the problem is with the actual ink rather than the risks of reused/insufficiently cleaned needles. I can’t help thinking that was a deliberate choice by an editor to create a general anti-tattoo vibe rather than focusing on the poorly operated and regulated vendors.

    You’ve been tricked by fuzzy statistics. Even if these figures are correct (and there are questions, even raised in the article you linked), it doesn’t mean a random individual with tattoos is significantly more likely to have Hepatitis C than one without.

    I’d also question how high the risk of infection is in an otherwise well maintained kitchen, especially compared to the various other infection risks that could be out there. You’d need to establish if the risk is high enough to justify the significant costs of testing a large proportion of employees (with the question of who bares the cost and who does the testing), including being significantly higher than for staff without tattoos (that their employers know about!) and for any other possible source of infection or contamination.

    Or you could just admit that you’ve a personal dislike for people with tattoos and saw the opportunity to stick it to them (no pun intended).

    (And before you ask, no I don’t. Far too much of a coward around needles :) )
     
  8. Crawdadr

    Crawdadr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    7,293
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I assume the worst about every restaurant. If you are that concerned about the health risks posed by Hep C then I would not eat out at all because there are literally thousands of diseases, viruses, and parasites that you can and do come in contact with when you eat at restaurants. Many of them are also more likely to be present the Hep C.
     
    Collateral Damage and Battle3 like this.
  9. Nonsensei436

    Nonsensei436 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,450
    Likes Received:
    960
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not all tattoos are in places of the body that are considered appropriate for public viewing. Do kitchen workers now have to be strip searched and their genitalia examined as part of the interview process?

    Sounds illegal.
     
  10. Spooky

    Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    31,814
    Likes Received:
    13,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are far bigger dangers from kitchens then people with tats.

    Food stored improperly, at the wrong temperature, utensils not being sanitized, food out of date...….the list is endless.

    I myself only eat at corporate restaurants because they usually tend to have higher standards expected of their kitchen crews. I've worked in mom and pop shops and they break so many rules to save a buck its disgusting. I'd also say that 9 out of 10 people in the kitchen have tattoos so I'm not really concerned about that.
     
  11. jay runner

    jay runner Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    16,319
    Likes Received:
    10,027
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No more salad bars for me.
     
  12. jay runner

    jay runner Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    16,319
    Likes Received:
    10,027
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe something simple similar to the Tb-tine test could be developed for Hep-C.

    But simple and cheap is very, very difficult to come by in health care.
     
  13. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The burden of proof should be on the person who has a tattoo. They should have to bring a recent, verifiable test result showing that they do not have any form of hepatitis BEFORE they can be hired. Hey, they didn't mind spending the hundreds of dollars (or more) that these tattoos cost to have injected into their skin, so they can bear the cost of the hepatitis tests also.
     
  14. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have a personal dislike for deadly diseases, like hepatitis... not people, no, not even the ones who deliberately put themselves and others in danger of contracting diseases like the various forms of hepatitis. Like I said in my reply Post #13 (above), the cost for tests that prove that tattoo-wearers do NOT have hepatitis should be paid for by the person with the tattoos themselves.

    Getting a tattoo is not a cheap proposition... many cost hundreds of dollars, or more. They should be able to pay for the tests also. And in my view, those tests should be mandatory for anyone with a tattoo who handles 'open' food in any kind of public establishment -- restaurant, grocery store, etc.
     
  15. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,838
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe you can’t even see it in yourself, maybe you just don’t want to admit it, but these statements are practically spitting anger and resentment towards people with tattoos. You’re entitled to your position but I think you need to be honest about your motives for any give proposal.

    You’ve not addressed the key question of the true level of risk of Hepatitis C infection from someone who has any kind of tattoo working in food preparation (and your sudden extension in to groceries!). You’re not asking “What is the risk and what is the most cost-effective way of mitigating it?”. You’re also ignoring all of the other risks in food preparation, some which are likely to be much greater or more impactful but currently don’t receive any specific attention outside general hygiene and safety measures.
     
  16. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You make an unfounded assumption that my concern grows out of a disliking for people who get tattoos. Hmmm, how to respond to that? Deadly diseases don't care whether we like the people who become infected, Joe, and that's why the important thing is to focus on deadly diseases themselves and to do whatever we can to keep them from spreading into as much of the population as possible.

    It is evident (and I can get more proof) that people who get tattoos are at a measurable and significantly increased danger of contracting hepatitis, that much is FACT.

    But, I do understand that people have a great need for 'self-expression'. When I was a teenager, we grew our hair long, bought Beatle-boots, "Carnaby Street" neckties, wore 'love-beads', beards, Nehru jackets, etc., etc., because of our generational need to express our incipient 'emancipation' from our parents' generation (or whatever the hell it actually was). Every generation's "youth" does this....

    BUT, for the purpose of creating a public exhibition, we didn't rush out and get our bodies injected with hepatitis virus(es). That's the key difference.

    Even at that, a person certainly has a right to inject himself with diseases if he wants to -- people do that with some kinds of 'recreational drugs' every day. In the United States, we have the right to destroy ourselves in any way that amuses us -- but we do not have the right to threaten or become a public health menace to others! That's where we should draw a hard, deep line, Joe.

    The good news is that we have immunization 'shots' for Hepatitis A, and Hepatitis B. Anybody getting a tattoo MUST get the protection of these immunizations before undergoing the actual injections of the ink -- if they have any common sense at all. The bad news is that there is no immunization for Hepatitis C.

    Last note: I'll be candid enough to admit that in my personal opinion, I think blowing hundreds (or thousands) of dollars on a potentially lethal 'exhibition' like 'tats' is possibly the most mindlessly stupid thing that anyone could do, unless they're über-wealthy, have a strange desire to put themselves 'on display', and have absolutely nothing else to spend money on. Surely, we all marvel at each other's stupidities all the time... right?

    But we should require that anyone who has chosen to inject himself with a substance that can contain a transmissible, lethal virus to undergo mandatory testing before being allowed to come in contact with food that other people eat, whether in a restaurant, or in a grocery store.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
  17. conservaliberal

    conservaliberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2010
    Messages:
    2,047
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't care whether people have tattoos or not but I have to admit that because hepatitis is such a dangerous disease anybody who does have a tattoo should be required to pass certain tests for diseases before they are allowed to work in restaurant or handle unpackaged food in a supermarket.
     
  18. DaveBN

    DaveBN Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    9,063
    Likes Received:
    4,872
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Should veterans who have served overseas also be required to pass a hep c test? They’re at a higher risk for the virus than anyone with a tattoo. Maybe they should pay for their own tests? What about a medical professional working a second job? They’re at a higher risk too.
    Even assuming a tattooed person actually is 4 times as like to have hep c, 4 times an extreme low risk is still pretty small. Not to mention other studies have not been able to confirm the numbers the one you cited came up with.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  19. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The burden of proof should be on the person who decided to get a tattoo in the first place. NO WAY should taxpaying citizens be expected to pay for any hepatitis tests for people who deliberately went out and got a tattoo....
     
  20. DaveBN

    DaveBN Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    9,063
    Likes Received:
    4,872
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You didn’t address a single point that I made. What about higher risk individuals? Tattooed individuals are not at sufficiently high enough risk for hep c to single them out.
    Your bias is showing.
     
  21. Crownline

    Crownline Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2016
    Messages:
    6,472
    Likes Received:
    6,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don’t have a problem going down this road, but require it of every worker. Just because one doesn’t have a tattoo doesn’t mean they don’t have hep.
     
  22. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It might not be a bad idea for everyone to be tested for hepatitis of all varieties, but it is recognized to have a greater presence among those who have been tattooed. Link: https://www.hepmag.com/article/tattoo-hcv-25887-248384741

    From the story at the link:

    Unsterile tattooing can transmit the blood-borne hepatitis C virus (HCV), and though it is unclear exactly what percent of people with the virus got it through tattooing, a study last year found that people with hep C were almost four times more likely to report having a tattoo, even when other major risk factors were taken into account.

    Honestly, I'm still trying to figure out why anyone with any sense would do this to themselves.... :psychoitc:
     
  23. Max Rockatansky

    Max Rockatansky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Messages:
    25,394
    Likes Received:
    8,172
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All food service workers should be tested for communicable diseases annually. Modern tech has driven the costs down for the tests so the whines of "it costs too much" are only from penny-pinching ass clowns who'd roll the dice on passing disease to make an extra buck.
     
  24. Max Rockatansky

    Max Rockatansky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Messages:
    25,394
    Likes Received:
    8,172
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Test everyone. For all we know, the lady serving your food as a tattoo of "Insert here" on her butt hole. Should employers examine every inch of every employee annually or should we just test them all?
     
  25. DaveBN

    DaveBN Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    9,063
    Likes Received:
    4,872
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If employers want universal screenings for disease then they would have to pay for it. Food service employees are famously underpaid, and expecting it to come from their pockets is absurd. I think McDonald’s with its astronomical profit margins can foot the bill for its people.
     

Share This Page