WAMU

[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...
 
 

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]

[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.

[Venerable Bede]

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).

[sonickteam2]

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!

[nkotb]

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).

[vansmack]

Back to the topic...
 
 Scott's Email to the host was extremely well put.
 
 By the way, the program is archived: Real Audio
 Windows Media
 
 Listen to minutes 16-30 for the discussion on Development plans including HoB.

[ggw]

Prince Charles suggests McDonald's ban

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

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]

[sonickteam2]

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!!!!

[ggw]

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]

[sonickteam2]

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!!

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

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]

[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:

[alex]

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.

[nkotb]

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]