FROM THE FIELD
October 2006
Fixing the Regulatory Process

Time flies when you’re having fun. It’s been just about a year now since the Int’l. Code Council decided to require exhaust interlocks for all cooking equipment. And now the group has shown again just what’s wrong with how some regulatory measures get passed.

Those of you who remember that interlock fiasco might recall how it went down. Only nine foodservice people, on behalf of eight industry entities, filed documents during that public comment period. All of them advised against the measure, said it simply wasn’t necessary in foodservice and represented a needless expense. Then at final-decision time in September 2005, only four individuals from our industry showed up for oral testimonies. All four advised against making a code requirement for the interlocks, but they were basically like the handful who tried to hold the Alamo.

The ICC, after going through the motions of inviting industry input, then ignored all of it and passed what it wanted to pass. The ICC, you see, only allows its governmental members to vote on such things. Other members, other stakeholders—like, for example, the industries affected by the decisions and most familiar with the issues—can talk until they’re blue, but ultimately they have no vote.

Now fast-forward a year. Industry was excited, even giggly, when ICC and the Int’l. Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials announced they’d try a joint venture to hammer out a single plumbing code and single mechanical code. Finally, some consolidation and standardization of code requirements, everyone thought.

"If we don't mobilize to defend our own interests, we get what we deserve."

But no. On Aug. 31, ICC announced the effort with IAPMO was kaput. Long story short, the two groups couldn’t agree on the code development processes. ICC members didn’t trust industry enough to give it voting status. IAPMO, on the other hand, adheres to the ANSI standard for certification bodies, which requires that industry and other interested parties have voting representation. Neither ICC nor IAPMO was going to budge, so the dream of a single, unified code was dead as a dodo.

Now, a certain amount of mistrust between the regulators and the regulated is understandable. History certainly is loaded with reasons for it. But whatever happened to the “consent of the governed”? We’re talking about industry having a vote, not having a monopoly .

And while nobody’s advocating a “fox guarding the henhouse” position, we have to ask ourselves how the opposite system is working. Government regulators have a long, rich tradition of making big decisions about topics they don’t understand. “We’re from the government, and we’re here to help you.” Right.

Examples of regulatory force gone awry are everywhere. This past summer, for example, California’s legislature was set to rewrite the laws governing allowable amounts of lead in plumbing that comes in contact with water intended for consumption. Nobody wants people drinking lead, right? And if restrictions are good, tighter ones are better, right? Well, no. Industry lobbied against the proposed changes, armed with piles of scientific data showing the threat was not at all what the legislators thought it was. Then the lawmakers heard testimony from a metallurgist who said the lower-lead compounds in question were available. But he wasn’t from the plumbing industry and in effect had answered the wrong question. The lawmakers passed the law and then discovered the mixup.

The point is that there’s no substitute for familiarity with the topic, and there’s no substitute for knowing enough to ask the right questions. The regulatory process really needs to get the expertise and the authority in the same place. And right now only the ANSI-accredited bodies are doing that.

If foodservice is going to survive the coming decades of regulations, we’re going to have to get serious about demanding input. We need to mobilize our industry associations, and we need equipment manufacturers and the big operators to really exert some clout. If we don’t, we’ll deserve what we get.

Brian Ward
Chief Editor