Ahcuah's Latest Blog Post Interesting for Barefoot Life-Stylers
- Thread starter Longboard
- Start date
Looks interesting, Board, as he always has good stuff to say. I will have to read this tonight. Thanks for posting here.
Well the employee in question wasn't actually barefoot, but wearing socks. And I'd be willing to bet that those sweaty socks that just came out of shoes had much more bacteria on them than did the outside of said shoes.
But still, it's on the freakin' floor, and bacteria doesn't magically fly up into the air and onto food. And one would hope they don't use any food that has come into contact with the floor.
But still, it's on the freakin' floor, and bacteria doesn't magically fly up into the air and onto food. And one would hope they don't use any food that has come into contact with the floor.
Thanks for sharing that, Longboard. Reading the post, the issue seems to hinge (apart from idiocy, of course...) on two points:
Assuming shoes are deemed "outer clothing" for a moment (thus making socks "inner clothing", as trousers/pants would be "outer clothing" and boxers/briefs would be "inner clothing"), then there are grounds to argue that the regulations are intended to cover the wearing or not of shoes. However, they are so loosely written as to permit ambiguity, rendering them useless.
However, now there is the second problem: the regulations do not say that any particular "outer clothing" be required, only that, should it be employed, that it be "clean". This is very different from requiring a) the wearing of a given example of "outer clothing" and b) its cleanliness.
In short, I am not so convinced that the regulations do not cover the use of shoes, I suggest that they do in spirit, but fall down in fact because of careless drafting of the regulation.
However, that all said, it is a staggeringly silly interpretation of a commonsense requirement to turn up to work in a state unlikely to spark an epidemic.
Makes me think about the thoughts going through my head on the bus home earlier today, though... I was wearing my VFFs and was returning from unsuccessfully trying to wrest my new Invisible Shoes from Customs and Excise (they were closed when I got there...), and as I approached my stop I realised that my VFFs were really annoying me and I wanted to take them off.
I could easily have done so, but wussed out. Why? Social pressure I suppose, playing on my need to be "accepted by society" (whatever that means, but it'S clearly at play in a moment like this...), even though I didn't think I cared much about the opinions of anyone I was likely to meet or were likely to get comments from (at least, the negative kind).
Weird. And now off topic. Sorry
- the definition of "outer clothing"
- the prescription (or lack thereof) of specific "outer clothing" that needs to be worn
Assuming shoes are deemed "outer clothing" for a moment (thus making socks "inner clothing", as trousers/pants would be "outer clothing" and boxers/briefs would be "inner clothing"), then there are grounds to argue that the regulations are intended to cover the wearing or not of shoes. However, they are so loosely written as to permit ambiguity, rendering them useless.
However, now there is the second problem: the regulations do not say that any particular "outer clothing" be required, only that, should it be employed, that it be "clean". This is very different from requiring a) the wearing of a given example of "outer clothing" and b) its cleanliness.
In short, I am not so convinced that the regulations do not cover the use of shoes, I suggest that they do in spirit, but fall down in fact because of careless drafting of the regulation.
However, that all said, it is a staggeringly silly interpretation of a commonsense requirement to turn up to work in a state unlikely to spark an epidemic.
Makes me think about the thoughts going through my head on the bus home earlier today, though... I was wearing my VFFs and was returning from unsuccessfully trying to wrest my new Invisible Shoes from Customs and Excise (they were closed when I got there...), and as I approached my stop I realised that my VFFs were really annoying me and I wanted to take them off.
I could easily have done so, but wussed out. Why? Social pressure I suppose, playing on my need to be "accepted by society" (whatever that means, but it'S clearly at play in a moment like this...), even though I didn't think I cared much about the opinions of anyone I was likely to meet or were likely to get comments from (at least, the negative kind).
Weird. And now off topic. Sorry
Yeah, I had a bus driver tell me I needed to wear footwear to get on the bus…
I asked how serious he was about enforcing the rule…he looked at me and said I could get on, he just felt the need to tell me…..lol
Shoes are so naturalized that people know we “need” to wear them they just don’t really know why…lol
I asked how serious he was about enforcing the rule…he looked at me and said I could get on, he just felt the need to tell me…..lol
Shoes are so naturalized that people know we “need” to wear them they just don’t really know why…lol
It's sometimes hard for me to accept the fact that people this stupid may actually share genes with my ancestors.
Btw, no judgement intended but pretty much every article from the US that makes my head spin these days is from Texas. Or Florida.
Btw, no judgement intended but pretty much every article from the US that makes my head spin these days is from Texas. Or Florida.
What I'm wondering is if there is a General Duty Clause (a la OSHA and EPA) that allows food inspectors the latitude to cite for things not specifically mentioned in the regulations.
I've looked through the FDA Food Code (which as I note is the basis for most of the state rules), and I cannot find any "general duty" clause. Seriously, most of it regarding personnel deals with proper handwashing, making sure that the hair is covered, that jewelry (that might allow contaminated food under it) is not worn, etc..
The FDA Food Code really does not care about what you are or are not wearing, only that you do not contaminate the food!
The FDA Food Code really does not care about what you are or are not wearing, only that you do not contaminate the food!
Having worked in food service for several years, my general experience has been that problems with sanitation do not lie at that low of an altitude
We all know that this gets down to perception: Barefeet are perceived as being unhygienic. Why? Not sure - I know on another thread someone stated that some folks correlate bare feet with poverty and/or sloth...maybe it has something to do with that. Additionally, pointing out that shoes track the same amount of dirt and bacteria does not seem to work..b'sides, illogical folks do not like it when you respond to them with logic.
NickW
Guest
Actually, I'd point out that our skin has an active Army of friendly bacteria that are continually on guard, killing off potential threats. Not true for shoes. Woouldn't get very far with that observation, either, though :/
I think at least part of the reason is that when the habitually shod take off their shoes and socks after a long day, they stink, and they assume that's the natural condition of feet--to stink. They don't realize it's the shoes and socks that are causing it. This is a typical failure in logic, whereby the 'B' in A>B>C is omitted (feet {A} in socks and shoes {B} stink {C}), and so people think A>C (feet {A} stink {C}).
If you're interested in these kinds of issues, you should look into SBL (Society for Barefoot Living). They've been working on this stuff for a long time.
Think of Ahcuah as the basic brains behind most of the SBL's hard research almost from the very begining only now blogging and checking in here instead.
With his departure there really hasn't been much NEW discussion over there.
I think the BRS should promote itself to walkers and other barefoot athletes/fitness enthusiasts to help it grow even larger into THE site for discussion of all things barefoot.
Well maybe not ALL things...........
With his departure there really hasn't been much NEW discussion over there.
I think the BRS should promote itself to walkers and other barefoot athletes/fitness enthusiasts to help it grow even larger into THE site for discussion of all things barefoot.
Well maybe not ALL things...........
The Barefoot Motion Society?
The Barefoot Recreation Society?
The Barefoot Sports Society?
The Barefit Society?
Dr. Howell mentioned in his book something like "daily barefoot locomotion is required for health"
I still think of Thomas the Train though.
The recent growth of barefoot running has done more to promote barefoot acceptance in my opinion than anything else, so it's only appropriate that the Barefoot RUNNERS Society remain the name of the premeir barefoot activity discussion site.
I still think of Thomas the Train though.
The recent growth of barefoot running has done more to promote barefoot acceptance in my opinion than anything else, so it's only appropriate that the Barefoot RUNNERS Society remain the name of the premeir barefoot activity discussion site.
Maybe just expand the forum selection then, to include non-running activities/sports?
Ive been thinking seriously about picking up barefoot swimming….seems WAY too risky though
Ive been thinking seriously about picking up barefoot swimming….seems WAY too risky though
Great Scot! What if there's glass in the pool!
