930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: eddie on March 09, 2007, 12:38:00 pm
-
This is going on at 12:00 today on WAMU, in case anyone is interested:
It's a sour note for local clubs, as owners protest plans to bring the House of Blues to the District. Plus, one member of the City Council dreams of D.C.'s low-fat future, with a new bill that would require calorie counts on chain restaurant menus. Join us for our weekly review of the politics, policies, and personalities of the District of Columbia.
-
http://wamu.org/listen/ (http://wamu.org/listen/)
-
Is Kojo hosting?
-
Speaking of DC politics -- what's up with that stupid hat and turned-up coat collar that the Mayor wears to all outdoor photo-ops?
Who's his tailor? Guido Sarducci?
<img src="http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/03/08/PH2007030802385.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Why should anyone care if the House of Blues comes to DC? Aren't calorie counts on menus a good thing?
-
Originally posted by RustyOrgan:
Why should anyone care if the House of Blues comes to DC? Aren't calorie counts on menus a good thing?
http://www.930.com/cgi-bin/ubb-cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=014291 (http://www.930.com/cgi-bin/ubb-cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=014291)
-
I just learned that Clear Channel owns House Of Blues. So screw it... I'd never go there
-
Is that the mayor now??? Is that Fentis or something?
-
Damn, I missed the start fo this. Hopefully there will be an archive.
-
Originally posted by Curveball:
I just learned that Clear Channel owns House Of Blues. So screw it... I'd never go there
Clear Channel does not own ANY music venues anymore. Live Nation bought that part of their company like a year ago.
-
But Live Nation is a spin-off of Clear Channel..!
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
Originally posted by Curveball:
I just learned that Clear Channel owns House Of Blues. So screw it... I'd never go there
Clear Channel does not own ANY music venues anymore. Live Nation bought that part of their company like a year ago. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
Clear Channel does not own ANY music venues anymore. Live Nation bought that part of their company like a year ago.
"Bought" is the wrong word. Live Nation is a spinoff of Clear Channel and Clear Channel is still majority shareholder.
-
I stand corrected.
-
hmm - okay. House of Blues DC - Bad thing!
-
It wasn't a bad thing when Live Nation was doing slightly shows at Nation. You know, the ones that are a little too big for 930, but might not be big enough for DAR?
-
What we need are better bookers for the Birchmere and State Theater :)
-
House of Blues=bad
calorie or any other nutritional info on menus=good
-
Do people who frequent McDonald's need to be told how bad the food is?
Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
House of Blues=bad
calorie or any other nutritional info on menus=good
-
Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
calorie or any other nutritional info on menus=good
hoooray for nanny government!
-
Apparently, because they keep shovelling it in their mouths.
Originally posted by Joe Marshmallow III:
Do people who frequent McDonald's need to be told how bad the food is?
Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
House of Blues=bad
calorie or any other nutritional info on menus=good
[/b]
-
If the government isn't forcing restaurants to chance the food content, how is it a nanny government to make them display nutritional info? Who could possibly be against that???
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
calorie or any other nutritional info on menus=good
hoooray for nanny government! [/b]
-
Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
Apparently, because they keep shovelling it in their mouths.
Originally posted by Joe Marshmallow III:
Do people who frequent McDonald's need to be told how bad the food is?
Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
House of Blues=bad
calorie or any other nutritional info on menus=good
[/b]
[/b]
and how will that actually change consumer behavior? all of sudden they'll realize that it's bad for them? if you really want to do something, change the zoning regs in lower income areas to encourage grocery stores and not fast food.
-
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
It wasn't a bad thing when Live Nation was doing slightly shows at Nation. You know, the ones that are a little too big for 930, but might not be big enough for DAR?
I think Seth would agree, but I won't speak for him. I think his beef with the proposal for the HoB-DC was that the DC government was going to supply the owners with generous tax breaks and subsidies, money he built the 9:30 Club without. They've got deep pockets, let them use them if they want to compete for shows in the DC area.
-
Can you cite instances where it has been attempted and it didn't improve consumer behavior? Is there really any harm in giving it a try? It's called educating the public.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
menus=good
[/qb][/QUOTE][/qb][/QUOTE]and how will that actually change consumer behavior? [/QB][/QUOTE]
-
People who go to fast food know what they're getting into...it's their choice...no need to educate them...btw, who is proposing this??
Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
[QB] Can you cite instances where it has been attempted and it didn't improve consumer behavior? Is there really any harm in giving it a try? It's called educating the public.
QUOTE]
-
And while they're at it they should put warnings on packs of cigarettes so people know they're bad for you too so everyone will stop smoking.... :roll:
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
If the government isn't forcing restaurants to chance the food content, how is it a nanny government to make them display nutritional info? Who could possibly be against that???
it is a perception that the people are not smart enough to make their own decisions, and only through government regulation of how their choices are presented can the people make their own "informed" decisions. plus, can you imagine sitting down at a restaurant and being presented with a 5 page menu, breaking down what's in each dish, the caloric and nutritional value of each ingredient. . it would be maddening, not to mention demeaning, at least to me.
-
And labels on alcohol so pregnant women will know not to drink
Originally posted by Roadbike Mankie:
And while they're at it they should put warnings on packs of cigarettes so people know they're bad for you too so everyone will stop smoking.... :roll:
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
it is a perception that the people are not smart enough to make their own decisions, and only through government regulation of how their choices are presented can the people make their own "informed" decisions. plus, can you imagine sitting down at a restaurant and being presented with a 5 page menu, breaking down what's in each dish, the caloric and nutritional value of each ingredient. . it would be maddening, not to mention demeaning, at least to me.
First the electorate is too uninformed for you. Now any attempt to inform them is too much for you. Is there any pleasing a Libertarian?
-
Some people AREN'T smart enough to make good decisions, and aren't even aware of what the good choice is.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by nkotb:
If the government isn't forcing restaurants to chance the food content, how is it a nanny government to make them display nutritional info? Who could possibly be against that???
it is a perception that the people are not smart enough to make their own decisions, and only through government regulation of how their choices are presented can the people make their own "informed" decisions. plus, can you imagine sitting down at a restaurant and being presented with a 5 page menu, breaking down what's in each dish, the caloric and nutritional value of each ingredient. . it would be maddening, not to mention demeaning, at least to me. [/b]
-
I can see what you mean if the published the entire nutritional index that they put on store bought food, but a few quick stats on how good/bad the meal is for you can do nothing but make people smarter about the foods they eat, in my opinion. It certainly won't stop people from eating fast food 24/7, but it may help with deciding on a healthier alternative if nothing else.
Still, you'd find it demeaning? That seems a little overboard, at least in my opinion. If you don't need the info, just don't read it. And why is adding this to a menu any different from adding the info to store-bought food?
I guess I don't understand the idea that this type of move is some sort of Big Brother scheme to control our lifes. Seems pretty innocent to me...
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by nkotb:
If the government isn't forcing restaurants to chance the food content, how is it a nanny government to make them display nutritional info? Who could possibly be against that???
it is a perception that the people are not smart enough to make their own decisions, and only through government regulation of how their choices are presented can the people make their own "informed" decisions. plus, can you imagine sitting down at a restaurant and being presented with a 5 page menu, breaking down what's in each dish, the caloric and nutritional value of each ingredient. . it would be maddening, not to mention demeaning, at least to me. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
Some people AREN'T smart enough to make good decisions, and aren't even aware of what the good choice is.
oh, so the government is fit to figure out who is smart and who isn't as to what's best for themselves? it's a person's choice to decide what to do with their body.
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
I can see what you mean if the published the entire nutritional index that they put on store bought food, but a few quick stats on how good/bad the meal is for you can do nothing but make people smarter about the foods they eat, in my opinion. It certainly won't stop people from eating fast food 24/7, but it may help with deciding on a healthier alternative if nothing else.
Still, you'd find it demeaning? That seems a little overboard, at least in my opinion. If you don't need the info, just don't read it. And why is adding this to a menu any different from adding the info to store-bought food?
I guess I don't understand the idea that this type of move is some sort of Big Brother scheme to control our lifes. Seems pretty innocent to me...
first, you have to assume that the government is even correct about their nutritional guides and information (michael pollan would argue that the govt. is focusing on the wrong information- portion control is by far the bigger issue; not that we are eating bad stuff, it's that we are eating alot of bad stuff).
secondly, most of the nutritional information is already available on restaurants' web pages or if you ask. now, if you go to citronelle, it won't be available, but i'm sure you can ask and have your meal changed to your specifications. but, i don't want to bring class and socio-economic issues into this, even though i would appreciate it if govt. was at least honest about what this topic is about (lower class and lower educated).
-
i heard you'll be able to smoke and eat trans-fats at the DC House of Blues!
i believe they'll be selling their new "tobacco fries" at the snack bar!
-
That definitely makes sense. I don't frequent a lot of chain restaurants, so I know most of my favorite places wouldn't have these facts online anywhere. And when I do eat fast food, it's because I want something unhealthy.
Still, it I were looking at a menu that listed some nutritional highlights, I'd definitely choose the lesser of two evils. But then again, that's an entirely selfish reason for wanting it on there.
Oh, and PS...I'd definitely agree with the portion size. The one time I needed to drop a good bit of weight (I had porked up a little bit), all I had to do was some light running and sticking to the portions listed on the label. It's amazing what a difference that makes.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
first, you have to assume that the government is even correct about their nutritional guides and information (michael pollan would argue that the govt. is focusing on the wrong information- portion control is by far the bigger issue; not that we are eating bad stuff, it's that we are eating alot of bad stuff).
secondly, most of the nutritional information is already available on restaurants' web pages or if you ask. now, if you go to citronelle, it won't be available, but i'm sure you can ask and have your meal changed to your specifications. but, i don't want to bring class and socio-economic issues into this, even though i would appreciate it if govt. was at least honest about what this topic is about (lower class and lower educated).
-
Back to the topic...
Scott's Email to the host was extremely well put.
By the way, the program is archived: Real Audio (http://www.wamu.org/audio/kn/07/03/k1070309-13102.ram)
Windows Media (http://www.wamu.org/audio/kn/07/03/k1070309-13102.asx)
Listen to minutes 16-30 for the discussion on Development plans including HoB.
-
Prince Charles suggests McDonald's ban (http://www.foodfacts.info/blog/2007/03/prince-charles-suggests-mcdonalds-ban.html)
-
Well then please don't ask me to contribute my tax money to pay for the Medicaid that benefits those who deliberately abuse their bodies. And while I'm at it, shouldn't my health care premiums be lower than those who deliberately choose to abuse their bodies?
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
Some people AREN'T smart enough to make good decisions, and aren't even aware of what the good choice is.
oh, so the government is fit to figure out who is smart and who isn't as to what's best for themselves? it's a person's choice to decide what to do with their body. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
Well then please don't ask me to contribute my tax money to pay for the Medicaid that benefits those who deliberately abuse their bodies. And while I'm at it, shouldn't my health care premiums be lower than those who deliberately choose to abuse their bodies?
you're a republican after all!!!!
-
And please don't ask me to contribute my tax money to pay for the salaries of federal government employees who spend all day on internet message boards.
Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
Well then please don't ask me to contribute my tax money to pay for the Medicaid that benefits those who deliberately abuse their bodies. And while I'm at it, shouldn't my health care premiums be lower than those who deliberately choose to abuse their bodies?
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
Some people AREN'T smart enough to make good decisions, and aren't even aware of what the good choice is.
oh, so the government is fit to figure out who is smart and who isn't as to what's best for themselves? it's a person's choice to decide what to do with their body. [/b]
[/b]
-
ZING!!!!! (post of the week!! for sure!!!)
and am i wrong, but if one were going to get individual health care, wouldnt it be cheaper if they were not overweight, didnt smoke and had no other health issues?
sure, when you are getting benefits from your work, its a group rate, which you choose to take, but if you wanted, you could get your own. sure it'd be more expensive than your work rate, but you could at least get the "i dont smoke" break and feel all warm and fuzzy inside!!
-
Your tax money is going to pay for the federal workers who spend much of their day hanging out in the smoke break room, not the ones on the internet boards. At least I can attempt to multitask!
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
And please don't ask me to contribute my tax money to pay for the salaries of federal government employees who spend all day on internet message boards.
Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
Well then please don't ask me to contribute my tax money to pay for the Medicaid that benefits those who deliberately abuse their bodies. And while I'm at it, shouldn't my health care premiums be lower than those who deliberately choose to abuse their bodies?
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
Some people AREN'T smart enough to make good decisions, and aren't even aware of what the good choice is.
oh, so the government is fit to figure out who is smart and who isn't as to what's best for themselves? it's a person's choice to decide what to do with their body. [/b]
[/b]
[/b]
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
it's a person's choice to decide what to do with their body.
so let's give peeps the information required to make said decision. oh, wait, you're opposed to that. so people should make informed decisions without information... great logic :roll:
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
it's a person's choice to decide what to do with their body.
so let's give peeps the information required to make said decision. oh, wait, you're opposed to that. so people should make informed decisions without information... great logic :roll: [/b]
Why do you nanny-staters always assume that the general public is so stupid? Did it ever occour to you that people might actually realize that they are eating something that is terribly unhealthy when they go out to eat, and just don't care?
People are alot smarter than you think.
-
I agree 100%; I think the general public never gets enough credit. Just look at our absurdly simplistic "terror warnings"...
That being said, I have to ask what the harm is in making this information mandatory? You're right; many people either don't give a shit, or purposefully eat unhealthy foods because they taste great. These same people, if given the information, are most likely going to ignore it anyway.
But for the group that does want to know how healthy a menu item is, shouldn't they be allowed to reasonable and easily find this out? Printing certain quick health stats won't take away from the enjoyment of people that love greasy food and would choose it over a salad any day, and in no way is this banning fatty foods. It's giving information, which the FDA already enforces on store-bought products.
Doesn't it make sense to give some information out in restaurants? And since no one here is talking about removing unhealthy food choices all-together (hell, I try to eat healthy, but that sure doesn't stop me from grubbing down a Big 'N Tasty at McDonald's every now and again), how is printing calories and fat content on a menu infringing on the unhealthy's rights?
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
it's a person's choice to decide what to do with their body.
so let's give peeps the information required to make said decision. oh, wait, you're opposed to that. so people should make informed decisions without information... great logic :roll: [/b]
Why do you nanny-staters always assume that the general public is so stupid? Did it ever occour to you that people might actually realize that they are eating something that is terribly unhealthy when they go out to eat, and just don't care?
People are alot smarter than you think. [/b]
-
I agree 100%; I think the general public never gets enough credit. Just look at our absurdly simplistic "terror warnings"...
Terror was something that was very real, and politicians wanted to make people think they were doing something. Eventually people wised up and realized that they were more posturing than actual warnings, which is why they don't do those anymore.
That being said, I have to ask what the harm is in making this information mandatory? You're right; many people either don't give a shit, or purposefully eat unhealthy foods because they taste great. These same people, if given the information, are most likely going to ignore it anyway.
But for the group that does want to know how healthy a menu item is, shouldn't they be allowed to reasonable and easily find this out? Printing certain quick health stats won't take away from the enjoyment of people that love greasy food and would choose it over a salad any day, and in no way is this banning fatty foods. It's giving information, which the FDA already enforces on store-bought products.
Doesn't it make sense to give some information out in restaurants? And since no one here is talking about removing unhealthy food choices all-together (hell, I try to eat healthy, but that sure doesn't stop me from grubbing down a Big 'N Tasty at McDonald's every now and again), how is printing calories and fat content on a menu infringing on the unhealthy's rights?
The problem is, this bill is only requiring chain resturaunts to provide this information. Many of those already (http://www.rubytuesdays.com/files/Nutrition.pdf) offer (http://www.bajafresh.com/jump.jsp?itemType=CATEGORY&itemID=14&iMainCat=4&iSubCat=14&i3Cat=14) this (http://www.mcdonalds.com/usa/eat/nutrition_info.html) information (http://shop.legalseafoods.com/index.cfm/pk/page/pageid/10003) on their corporate websites.
So, this bill is either:
A. Pointless political posturing, addressing a problem that largely does not exist
B. Unfair to larger businesses and individual franchise owners
C. A and B
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
That being said, I have to ask what the harm is in making this information mandatory?
i think its the principal, which some people just dont seem to be able to grasp. law and politics always set precedents, and once one silly law passes through...it paves way for a bunch of other laws that sound similar but start eerily drifting towards something else.
sure, its just menu information now, but whos to say this wont start the ball rolling towards banning certain foods at restaurants or certain foods altogether?
and if you cant see thats a freedom being taken away, you have a real real real problem seeing!
but i suppose some freedoms shouldnt really be ours to have anymore!
-
But food manufacturers are already required to put this on store-bought food. Is anyone lobbying to change that? Is that a violation of your civil liberties?
I think you're being a tad Chicken Little (thanks, Dupek!) with your doomsday prophecy that this will lead into a ban on all foods that are not proven to have significant nutritional value, but I can at least see your point. My only question is why is it acceptable in one case and not in another? Seems that consistency would make sense in this case, no?
Not that all of this matters in the grand scheme of things, though. Personally, I find it to not be a cause worth fighting for. Although I would use the information and would find it helpful when ordering, my life will be just fine without it. I'm just more interested in why people on both sides get so worked up over such an innocuous thing...
Originally posted by le sonick:
i think its the principal, which some people just dont seem to be able to grasp. law and politics always set precedents, and once one silly law passes through...it paves way for a bunch of other laws that sound similar but start eerily drifting towards something else.
sure, its just menu information now, but whos to say this wont start the ball rolling towards banning certain foods at restaurants or certain foods altogether?
and if you cant see thats a freedom being taken away, you have a real real real problem seeing!
but i suppose some freedoms shouldnt really be ours to have anymore!
-
Do y'all realize if the government hasn't stepped in, whites and blacks would still be eating at separate restuarants and drinking from separate water fountains?
-
yeah, well, if the gov't hadn't over-reached and interfered with race relations, the market would have taken care of that all by itself :roll:
-
I wonder if you'll feel that way when you're 65 and your insides are rotting and you feel like shit everyday. See if your life is "just fine" then. ;)
Originally posted by nkotb:
Not that all of this matters in the grand scheme of things, though. Personally, I find it to not be a cause worth fighting for. Although I would use the information and would find it helpful when ordering, my life will be just fine without it. I'm just more interested in why people on both sides get so worked up over such an innocuous thing...
[/QB][/QUOTE]
-
Ah, but I'm a relatively healthy eater by nature (save for the small handful of fast food trips a year). That's why, health stats or no, my life will be reasonable the same.
Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
I wonder if you'll feel that way when you're 65 and your insides are rotting and you feel like shit everyday. See if your life is "just fine" then. ;)
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
it's a person's choice to decide what to do with their body.
so let's give peeps the information required to make said decision. oh, wait, you're opposed to that. so people should make informed decisions without information... great logic :roll: [/b]
it's not that i'm against making the information available. . i'm against government mandating that the information be made available. like i said before, nutritional information is already available at fast food restaurants (either at the restaurant or online).
-
Like I'm sure your typical fast food restuarant patron spends a lot of time online.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
it's a person's choice to decide what to do with their body.
so let's give peeps the information required to make said decision. oh, wait, you're opposed to that. so people should make informed decisions without information... great logic :roll: [/b]
it's not that i'm against making the information available. . i'm against government mandating that the information be made available. like i said before, nutritional information is already available at fast food restaurants (either at the restaurant or online). [/b]
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Like I'm sure your typical fast food restuarant patron spends a lot of time online.
and your point is. . .oh wait. . .that's right, there is none.
-
I guess it's all relative. But still, I would tend to think that some things probably aren't as healthy as we tend to think they are. But I've got my wife beside me to make me tow the line, and she seems to have a sixth sense to sniff out trans-fats and hydrogenated oils. It took her all the strength she could muster to not lecture the poor little girl scout who was selling Samoas that despite the claim to no trans-fats, the ingredients would indicate otherwise.
Originally posted by nkotb:
Ah, but I'm a relatively healthy eater by nature (save for the small handful of fast food trips a year). That's why, health stats or no, my life will be reasonable the same.
Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
I wonder if you'll feel that way when you're 65 and your insides are rotting and you feel like shit everyday. See if your life is "just fine" then. ;)
[/b]
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
I guess it's all relative. But still, I would tend to think that some things probably aren't as healthy as we tend to think they are. But I've got my wife beside me to make me tow the line, and she seems to have a sixth sense to sniff out trans-fats and hydrogenated oils. It took her all the strength she could muster to not lecture the poor little girl scout who was selling Samoas that despite the claim to no trans-fats, the ingredients would indicate otherwise.
to be no trans-fat, it has to be less than 1/2 gram. unfortunately, real butter contains just over that percentage, so it's technically a trans-fat, even though most nutritionists would agree that butter's trans-fats are nowhere near as bad as artificially created trans-fats. the new york times ran an article on this issue last week because of the difficulties bakers are having in meeting these demands without using butter since the rule does not differentiate between natural and artificial trans-fat.
in any event, the larger issue isn't trans-fat, it's portion control. if you want a cookie with trans-fat, then go ahead, but don't eat 10 cookies in one sitting with trans-fat.
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
I think you're being a tad Chicken Little (thanks, Dupek!) with your doomsday prophecy that this will lead into a ban on all foods that are not proven to have significant nutritional value, but I can at least see your point. My only question is why is it acceptable in one case and not in another? Seems that consistency would make sense in this case, no?
oh,. please dont misinterpret me (or should i say, please dont allow me to be misinterpreted)
I really dont care about this particular issue. First of all, i will eat whatever i want to at restaurants, and i am not a very unhealthy eater by upbringing. sure i eat meat (gasp) but i wont order the double bacon pork cheeseburger with nacho gravy fries either. and i am not someone who fights their weight, this is definitely not in my range or topics i give two shits about.
i also have a passion for cooking, so i rarely even go out to eat!
i have no doomsday prophecy (you calling my statement that is doing the same thing to my words as you claim i have done to the initial topic) but i see how things go from bad to worse.
someone on here said , give the govt an inch, they'll take a mile.
i cant believe i have said THIS much on this topic. boss isnt here, must be why.
i'm off to electronics class, should be more interesting! !!!!!!
-
Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
I wonder if you'll feel that way when you're 65 and your insides are rotting and you feel like shit everyday. See if your life is "just fine" then. ;)
i bet he'll still be less of an asshole than you are now!!! even while his insides are rotting out and he feels like shit
what makes you think your lifestyle is so much fucking better than anyone else's on here?
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
It took her all the strength she could muster to not lecture the poor little girl scout who was selling Samoas that despite the claim to no trans-fats, the ingredients would indicate otherwise.
you two are like the poster-children for the people i pray to god my future wife and i never ever become. seriously!
-
I never said my lifestyle was better than anybody else on here (ehough I'm sure ggw can bring up old evidence you the contrary if he's in the mood). I just don't feel like dying of pancreatic cancer at 57 like my dad did after a life of eating shitty foods and smoking, or feeling shitty everyday at 65 (though she's improving) after a life of eating shitty food and 25 years of smoking like my mom.
Originally posted by le sonick:
Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
I wonder if you'll feel that way when you're 65 and your insides are rotting and you feel like shit everyday. See if your life is "just fine" then. ;)
i bet he'll still be less of an asshole than you are now!!! even while his insides are rotting out and he feels like shit
what makes you think your lifestyle is so much fucking better than anyone else's on here? [/b]
-
I guess I'm not being 100% clear, because my main question isn't getting answered.
If it's OK to require store bought foods to have health information, why is it Big Brother to have this printing in menus? Is it because one is already standard practice and accepted, where as the other is new and scary because it leads down a road of eating meals in pill form from government nutrition centers? That's the main point I'm not understanding.
-
10 years and you'll be just like us. Seriously. :)
Originally posted by le sonick:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
It took her all the strength she could muster to not lecture the poor little girl scout who was selling Samoas that despite the claim to no trans-fats, the ingredients would indicate otherwise.
you two are like the poster-children for the people i pray to god my future wife and i never ever become. seriously! [/b]
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
I guess I'm not being 100% clear, because my main question isn't getting answered.
If it's OK to require store bought foods to have health information, why is it Big Brother to have this printing in menus? Is it because one is already standard practice and accepted, where as the other is new and scary because it leads down a road of eating meals in pill form from government nutrition centers? That's the main point I'm not understanding.
i don't know if i would say it's ok to be required to have the information, but my view is that if enough people make a fuss and a stink about wanting more information (and avoid bad press), then they should provide more information. not to mention a history of supply and misinformation problems. if a company is abusing its privilege to operate free of govt. oversight, that's wrong and needs to be corrected. it's my understanding that food companies were doing things to food without telling people- oversight of that seems warranted to me.
i see restaurants as different from boxed food. . .they are providing a service, whereas boxed food is a good. restaurants also operate under very small profit margins, and can't afford bad press, bad food or anything else that would reduce the number of customers. large companies that provide boxed foods don't have the same concerns.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
to be no trans-fat, it has to be less than 1/2 gram. unfortunately, real butter contains just over that percentage, so it's technically a trans-fat, even though most nutritionists would agree that butter's trans-fats are nowhere near as bad as artificially created trans-fats. the new york times ran an article on this issue last week because of the difficulties bakers are having in meeting these demands without using butter since the rule does not differentiate between natural and artificial trans-fat.
in any event, the larger issue isn't trans-fat, it's portion control. if you want a cookie with trans-fat, then go ahead, but don't eat 10 cookies in one sitting with trans-fat.
that's exactly why you have to read the ingredients and not rely on the trans fat count...unfortunately, the cookies in question (beloved Samoas...mmmmmm) did not have butter, but instead had partially-hydrogenated oils as the second ingredient on the list...I only wish they had butter instead...I e-mailed the Girl Scouts asking them how it was possible that a cookie whose number two ingredient could possibly have less than the .5 g trans fat limit FDA has for trans fat-free labeling...no reply to that one...
still, I ate the cookies...but I would have eaten and bought many more if they were made with wholesome ingredients like butter and sugar instead of hydrogenated oils and high fructose corn syrup...I would have paid twice as much, too...
a side note...everyone should read The Omnivore's Dilemma...great GREAT book...the author is very well-balanced and is not a health freak or activist or animal-rights guys...just a NYT reporter who digs into where most of our food comes from in the industrial/agricultural complex
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
If it's OK to require store bought foods to have health information, why is it Big Brother to have this printing in menus?
for the record, i see no need for the government to mandate either. i never said one was ok and the other was not.
i do think the info serves a good purpose but i am just so sick of the new laws every single fucking day. we're up to our necks in laws arent we people?
-
besides, you know (now that i've been thinking)
i am not a stupid person by any means, many people around me are dimmer. but i dont know what all these foods do to me, and what is good and what is bad and what is necessary for what.
so putting the amounts of foods isnt going to do shit. people that know what foods are good for them, arent going to need the information and people that dont know, arent going to be able to use the information to make decisions on what and where to eat.
perhaps this is some liability cover up scheme to pretend like people give a shit about other peoples health.
-
Yea man, the laws are dragging me down. They're fucking killing me, Brother Sonick.
Originally posted by le sonick:
Originally posted by nkotb:
If it's OK to require store bought foods to have health information, why is it Big Brother to have this printing in menus?
for the record, i see no need for the government to mandate either. i never said one was ok and the other was not.
i do think the info serves a good purpose but i am just so sick of the new laws every single fucking day. we're up to our necks in laws arent we people? [/b]
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
besides, you know (now that i've been thinking)
i am not a stupid person by any means, many people around me are dimmer. but i dont know what all these foods do to me, and what is good and what is bad and what is necessary for what.
so putting the amounts of foods isnt going to do shit. people that know what foods are good for them, arent going to need the information and people that dont know, arent going to be able to use the information to make decisions on what and where to eat.
perhaps this is some liability cover up scheme to pretend like people give a shit about other peoples health.
I think your comments point to some valid concerns. USDA/FDA regulations as they currently are often seem to protect industries more than consumers anyway. And, when you read "Omnivore's Dilemma" you will see how USDA regulations actually hamper sustainable agriculture and foster non-transparency in the food industry.
-
Like I'm sure your typical fast food restuarant patron spends a lot of time online.
Yet another out-of-touch elitist attitude on the issue.
Newsflash, guy...most people are fast food patrons, whether its once a week, once a month or every day. Most people spend time online and are alot smarter and more connected than you realize up there in your bubble.
It is completely idiotic to assume that because someone eats fast food that they don't know how to use the internet.
-
Newsflash, guy. I didn't mean for you to take me completely literally, but there is more than a kernel of truth to what I said. People who eat at fast food restaurants with the most frequency tend to be from lower socioeconomic groups. People from lower socioeconomic groups tend to also be less likely to have access to the internet. Connect the two idears.
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
Like I'm sure your typical fast food restuarant patron spends a lot of time online.
Yet another out-of-touch elitist attitude on the issue.
Newsflash, guy...most people are fast food patrons, whether its once a week, once a month or every day. Most people spend time online and are alot smarter and more connected than you realize up there in your bubble.
It is completely idiotic to assume that because someone eats fast food that they don't know how to use the internet. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Newsflash, guy. I didn't mean for you to take me completely literally, but there is more than a kernel of truth to what I said. People who eat at fast food restaurants with the most frequency tend to be from lower socioeconomic groups. People from lower socioeconomic groups tend to also be less likely to have access to the internet. Connect the two idears.
Then specify something like that instead of making snobby generalizations.
I still think more people have access to the internet than you think.
-
i used to think people were stupid and uninformed too, but now i realize, they just dont give a fuck.
-
You could very well be right. As of 2002, it was 49%, though only 27% for Blacks and Hispanics. AS of 2004, it was up to 75% overall, according to Wired. Couldn't find any stats more recent.
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Newsflash, guy. I didn't mean for you to take me completely literally, but there is more than a kernel of truth to what I said. People who eat at fast food restaurants with the most frequency tend to be from lower socioeconomic groups. People from lower socioeconomic groups tend to also be less likely to have access to the internet. Connect the two idears.
Then specify something like that instead of making snobby generalizations.
I still think more people have access to the internet than you think. [/b]
-
so, you healthy knowledgable eaters, anyone have any great online resources for finding out what foods are healthy and what foods arent.
i, for instance, love love love ciabatta bread, have a sandwich 3 times a week on the stuff. is it good bread or bad bread? i dont know. i just tried to find out. I spent 15 minutes and all i could come up with was that its made with 100% whole wheat, seems to have no trans fats or h-oils, and made with spring water.
sounds good, but maybe its not!
-
Originally posted by le sonick:
so, you healthy knowledgable eaters, anyone have any great online resources for finding out what foods are healthy and what foods arent.
i, for instance, love love love ciabatta bread, have a sandwich 3 times a week on the stuff. is it good bread or bad bread? i dont know. i just tried to find out. I spent 15 minutes and all i could come up with was that its made with 100% whole wheat, seems to have no trans fats or h-oils, and made with spring water.
sounds good, but maybe its not!
is it from a restaurant (Corner Bakery, Au Bon Pain, etc...) or from a store? most of the corporate lunch places have the nutritional content of their sandwiches on the web, but probably wouldn't break out details on the bread itself
if the bread doesn't have trans fats or h-oils, it sounds like it's OK. granted, the 100 % whole wheat doesn't tell us much, it still may not be whole GRAIN and may not have much fiber (really healthy bread should have at LEAST 3 g fiber per serving or more) HOWEVER, my opinion is that ciabtatta bread would be one the least of anyone's worries. bread is a wholesome, healthy staple if it is prepared w/o the hydrogenated oils or high-fructose corn syrup...
the American Dietetic Association has a good site:
http://www.eatright.org/ (http://www.eatright.org/)
I also like Marion Nestle's work:
http://www.foodpolitics.com/ (http://www.foodpolitics.com/)
Center for Science in the Public Interest:
http://www.cspinet.org/ (http://www.cspinet.org/)
Nutrition Data tells you the macro & micro nutrient content of many foods:
http://www.nutritiondata.com/ (http://www.nutritiondata.com/)
-
See! If it was posted on the menu, you wouldn't have to search to find your answer! :D
Originally posted by le sonick:
so, you healthy knowledgable eaters, anyone have any great online resources for finding out what foods are healthy and what foods arent.
i, for instance, love love love ciabatta bread, have a sandwich 3 times a week on the stuff. is it good bread or bad bread? i dont know. i just tried to find out. I spent 15 minutes and all i could come up with was that its made with 100% whole wheat, seems to have no trans fats or h-oils, and made with spring water.
sounds good, but maybe its not!
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Newsflash, guy. I didn't mean for you to take me completely literally, but there is more than a kernel of truth to what I said. People who eat at fast food restaurants with the most frequency tend to be from lower socioeconomic groups.
govt. money would be better spent incentivizing grocery stores to stay open or build new ones in lower income areas and encourage them to take an active role in the neighborhood, maybe by speaking at schools or something. for whatever reason, certain aspects of the population would rather eat at mcdonalds than buy the ingredients and make their own dinner at home.
-
CSPI has a great fact sheet (http://www.cspinet.org/nutritionpolicy/Nutrition_Labeling_Fast_Food.pdf) on why nutrition labeling in fast food restaurants is a good idea...
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
See! If it was posted on the menu, you wouldn't have to search to find your answer! :D
[/QB][/QUOTE]
its from a store. and even though it has ingredients on it, if i dont know which ones are the good ones and which ones are the bad ones, then i cant make the call
i work down the street from H&S Bakery so i get my bread from there.