Originally Posted by Stephi1
The OP just thought she was telling an amusing story ....
Anytime there is a pet vs food story, we get all kinds of views and opinions. Hubby and I were talking about this story and in our view
, it was an amusing story if the cake hadn't been served and emergency cakes from walmart were served instead. In our view,
eating after an animal is just gross and disgusting. In our view
, a pet, a kid, an elderly aunt who tastes the cake with their finger (or whatever) is an amusing story ..... if the remaining food is then handled with proper sanitary sense.
I was raised in a home where the #1 sin was mistreating an animal, so I know how people can feel about their pets. (When our puppy escaped from the house and got hit by a car, I cried for 3 days!) What I find is that pet owners tend to view their pets differently than "just an animal", and I truly understand how that evolves.
I can understand how pet owners can think, in their view
, that eating the part of the cake NOT touched by the pet would be ok, and how the story would be funny ..... mostly to other pet owners who may have experienced the same thing.
I own a dog and 2 birds, and I find the story humorous .... until the cake was offered to guests. In my view
, that was gross.
And multiple views
just has to be expected when posting on a forum this size. And multple contrary views
have to be expected when many of us deal with health dept rules, food safety issues, and proper sanitary practices.
Yes, I find it a humorous story. Yes, I find it wrong to serve the cake anyway. But there's a reason health dept rules forbid animals in a kitchen.
As I think someone pointed out earlier, with so many states trying to get home bakeries licensed, these kinds of stories lend fuel to the fire as to why it's such a hard battle. It doesn't matter if this story was for a sold cake or not ... it's the home baker's practices that are remembered.
Just some points to ponder, in my view