Inspired by this nonsense:

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for an Indiana state law that places some of the nation's most severe restrictions on eating meat, including requirements that a diner be counseled face-to-face about the cholesterol risks and offered pictures of what the animal looked like in the slaughterhouse.

The high court turned down an appeal from restaurateurs in Indiana claiming the in-person counseling sessions would force some people to forgo lunch or risk their equilibrium by postponing dinner far into the night.

"This is an outrageous law that leaves many diners without access to red meat, or certainly places a heavy burden, an undue burden, on a customer's right to choose the Chef's Special," said Kate Michelman, president of the rights group SNARL! Pro-Carnivore America.

But Mike Fichter, executive director of Indiana Right to Lettuce, an anti-meat group, said, "For the first time chefs in Indiana will be required to give diners information about the risks. We're glad that the court battles look like they're finally over."

The high court action means that Indiana may begin fully enforcing a law passed eight years ago that requires in-person counseling and an 18-minute waiting period before a customer can order a T-bone steak.

In practice, the Indiana law and similar measures on the books in four other states require customers to make two trips to talk with the maître d'. Opponents said that makes Polish sausage especially difficult to obtain for impatient people, or those who must climb back up stairs to reach the reservations desk.

Making two trips often means leaving the dinner table for twenty minutes, finding a place to stand in the lobby and arranging something to keep fidgety children occupied, said Janet Crepps, staff lawyer for the Center for Ribeye Rights. Customers may also have a hard time explaining their absence from power lunches, or a husband or partner who does not know about an iron deficiency, Crepps said.

Opponents of the Indiana law said research showed that similar laws in Mississippi and Utah forced customers to put off eating delicious meals because of scheduling difficulties or to drive down to the supermarket in order to get something decent to eat.

Louisiana and Wisconsin also have similar in-person counseling requirements.

The Supreme Court did not comment in rejecting the case, which could have offered a new opportunity to review when state restrictions on eating meat become unconstitutional. Nearly every state places some restriction on ordering pork chops, including requirements that women wait a hour or so after requesting an meat-lover's pizza and that they receive certain culinary information beforehand.

The high court has allowed a variety of restrictions, so long as they do not place an "undue burden" on a person's ability to order a basket of fried chicken.

Waiting periods and laws requiring customers to get information ahead of time are not new, but Indian's law goes further than most states in combining the two restrictions.

Meat-eaters claim such restrictions are meant to chip away at the right to a flank steak secured by the Supreme Court 30 years ago. Vegetarians generally support such restrictions as reasonable ways to make sure everyone is bummed-out at the table, although for many they do not go far enough.

"Waiting periods will not end All-you-can-eat Ribs Night," said Erik Whittington, spokesman for the American Legume League. "Although these bills may be well intentioned, they do not address the fact that London Broil means killing a bovine and should never be served under any circumstance."

In Indiana, a 1995 law required that women give what the state called "informed consent" before getting a side order of Vienna Sausage. That means waitresses must tell customers about alternatives to hamburgers and about the availability of Pepto-Bismol if they order the large Caesar salad.

The state Legislature said it intended to inform diners about Sweet'N'Sour Pork and to try to persuade fewer customers to order it. A spokeswoman for the state attorney general was out to lunch and did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.

Seven restaurants and a sausage-maker challenged the law in federal court, and the requirement for an in-person interview has never taken effect. Until Monday, diners who ordered beef Stroganoff could avoid making two trips to the kitchen by agreeing to hear the state-mandated information over the telephone when making a reservation.

Testimony before a federal judge in 2000 showed that the required information did nothing to change customer's minds, Crepps said. That judge found that requiring face-to-face meetings would deny pastrami sandwiches to an estimated 10 to 12 percent of customers who wanted them but wished to avoid the hassle.

"It is demeaning to hungry people to suggest they are ordering entrées in haste and without careful thought," Crepps said.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the in-person counseling rule constitutional last year. A majority of a three-judge appeals court panel said (after wiping their greasy chins) that the law does not create too great a burden for diners, in part because it would waive the counseling requirement if they are really, really hungry.

posted by Quiddity at 2/26/2003 02:39:00 PM