Would you eat 2,900-calorie cheese fries?
More cities are requiring restaurants to tell customers how much fat is in that burger. What do you think of the trend?
From Gerry, Chicago IL I think people should be allowed to make informed decisions on what they want to eat and put into their body – the only exception being endangered animals.
From John Baltimore, Maryland There should be a ban on certain foods for ecological management and health reasons. I see no problem there. And if there werent nutrition facts on foods, ppl would be in an uproar about "whats in my food! The gov't should really make them tell me!". Some people only like to complain about crap. Bans are a necessary evil. Except for Jim from Houston… let him pour corn syrup down his throat all day. "Gobrment dun need to make ME get no edumacation!"
From Barbara Reitz, Hampton, NJ I think it's a good idea to know exactly how much fat you're putting into your body. But more important, is that I've heard that some fast food restaurants put an anti-vomiting additive into their food, because without it, people would barf up the food because you're system doesn't know how to digest it. If this true it should be outlawed and people should be made aware what fast food chaims do this.
From max loos, las vegas, NV. Let the Bans begin. Someone has to step up and make people stop the madness. Killing sharks for their dorsal fins? INSANITY! I agree with all the other bans and some others that should be included on the list.
From Sandra, Mahwah, NJ The government hasn't any right to dictate to its' citizens what they may or may not eat.
HOWEVER . . . .
People should be educated and guided by their own conscience – there should be an awareness of where their food comes from. Most people totally disassociate the package of meat in the market with the animal – animals who spend a short lifetime of suffering before ending up as someones' burger or wings. IMHO . . . if there is cruelty involved in the raising or harvesting of animals, the practices should be changed or banned. This goes for foie gras, shark finning (how CRUEL can you be?). HORSES (intelligent, companion animals) should NOT be used for human consumption at all.
If you are interested in the source of meat and other animal products, in this country, read Dominion by Matthew Scully. It's an eye opener to the total disregard humans have for other living creatures, just to satisfy our tastebuds.
Tom, from St. Paul MN, you're a callous ignoramus, "because the constitution doesn't grant animals rights," they don't have any?
From Lauren, Urbana, IL Rising obesity rates are becoming a great concern because of the health risks involved with becoming obese however placing a tax upon high-fructose corn syrup is not the answer to the issue. If we allow a taxation like this we might as well forget the very reasons the United States was founded, freedom(Recall the Boston Tea Party). Adding a tax will not change peoples desire for sugary sodas however individuals which are overweight or are at risk of becoming overweight will need to make changes in their behaviors (their diets and activity)to not continue being a statistic. As a society we can help this by providing better health and fitness education in schools and not being so focused on the pressure of being Hollywood skinny but rather the beauty of the human body for being fit.
From Rob, st. louis, mo Now imagine if simply not just to improve the health of the people, but reduce the rising cost of the public option, what kind of laws would be passed about what you can and cannot eat.
From Jim, Houston TX SCREW THE BANS. EAT WHAT YOU WANT, THATS WHY GOD PUT THE ANIMALS ON EARTH.
IF IT DOES NOT EAT YOU FIRST THEN IT FAIR GAME. FOOD SOURCES DO NEED TO BE MANAGED SO AS NOT TO DEPLETE THEM, BUT TO BAN A FOOD BECAUSE SOME BLEEDING HEART THINKS IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE IS BS.
From Jane Moore Charlotte, NC I've been reading the previous opinions given, and for the first time I'm going to express mine. I don't expect it to carry a whole lot of weight, but I hope some folks will consider what I write.
First, I don't think this is a column to display how snotty one can be to another person who is sharing his/her thoughts.If you are put off by another's point of view, and you are so convinced they are wrong,then educate them. Snotty teachers are not effective teachers. American rudeness has reached new lows. We can be better people than this.
Secondly, a nation that cares for only those with the power of the vote,or the money to influence politicians, ignoring the rights of the powerless, (children, the elderly, yes, and even the animals we so gustily consume) is not a nation worthy of respect.
Force feeding poultry until their livers are many times the size they ought of be, crating newborn calves and feeding them some milk substitute until their flesh turns white with anemia, slicing off the fins of sharks and throwing their helpless bodies back into the sea is deplorable, unnecessary, and totally motivated by greed. Some things you just don't do, because they are wrong, and inhumane, and beneath the dignity and self respect you should have for yourself.
We're not so almighty perfect that we deserve to treat another with disdain and mockery because he/she does not agree with us. Nor are we so hungry that we need to inflict misery on an animal that gives its life to sustain us.
From Ben Wood, Chicago, IL You are an idiot. Educate yourself on the Foi Grois process. If you want to eat meat… fine. Slaughter the animal humanely. If you need to torture the animal until it goes into liver failure than you are just a piece of garbage.
From Tom, Saint Paul, MN wow, this is more nanny state, when will it stop!
why are people considered not smart enough to make decisions on their own about trans fat, and corn syrup?
And banning foie gras, because its "cruel to the cute little animals"??!! Im sorry, the constitution doesnt grant a goose rights, only people!
From Bob, Somerville, MA Regarding the linked section on shark fin soup:
Fox News reports:
“The world's booming shark-fin trade is killing up to 73 million sharks per year — about three times more than the official catch reported to the United Nations, a new study concludes.
“The overfishing of sharks could have serious effects for the entire marine food chain in some ecosystems.
“Another recent study found that removing sharks from a reef environment in the Caribbean had a trickle-down effect on other species.
“Without sharks, carnivorous fish that the sharks usually fed on thrived. The carnivorous fish, in turn, preyed on parrotfish that kept the corals clean.
“In time, the reefs changed from being clean to being covered with algae, which can kill a reef.”
***
Researchers acknowledge the difficulty of assessing annual deaths because the industry is “notoriously secretive.” Fox News reported on one effort to get reasonably reliable figures:
"The shark-fin trade is notoriously secretive. But we were able to tap into fin-auction records and convert from fin sizes and weights to whole-shark equivalents to get a good handle on the actual numbers," said study leader Shelley Clarke, an American fisheries scientist at the Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research at the University of Hawaii and the National Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries in Japan.”
One explanation for the very high figures is that often only the fins are used; the rest of the shark is discarded. Again, Fox News reports:
“Sharks are often still alive when their fins are sliced off, and their bodies are thrown back into the sea.
Scientists worry that the demand for shark fins could soon outpace the abilities of sharks to reproduce.”
Human intervention, then, is clearly damaging reef systems that are essential to healthy oceans and the rest of the food chain. One hopes that an awareness of the scale of the problem can provide the background for discussing what actions seem appropriate.
For more, see
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215882,00.html
or a National Geographic article at
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/10/061012-shark-fin.html
From Ben Porter, Houston TX Both regulation and taxation of foods is a half-hearted attempt to cause widespread social change; even moreso, it is an ineffective way to do so. Look at the impressive amount of tax on cigarettes. Many places the tax on cigarettes is over 100% (see the gov't is making more than than the tobacco companies on this on). However, when taxes go up consuption drops and then rises to pre-tax levels. Social programs encouraging healthy eating (or making it a requirement for those whom the gov't foots the bill for, in response to all you anti-medicare advocates) are more important than trying to create an all encompassing ban for health reasons. Of course eating a half block of cheese melted over a combination of bacon and fried potatoes isn't good for you. However, its not that bad for you if you maintain a healthy LIFESTYLE.
As a second comment to Josh: deciding what is poisonous and what isn't is not a distinction that your posted opinion is in a position to take. Trans fat lead to cancer and heart disease. Mouthwash leads to mouth and throat cancer. Alcohol leads to liver disease and being a crappy friend/husband/father and a sudden depressive episode later. It is all in the same boat and you either accept the boat as i do (people can do to themselves what they want) or you dont (the gov't can do what it decides is in peoples best interest)
From Boh, Richmond VA Yo Josh, chill for a second, OK?
(1) If "The Government" is obligated to pay for your medical care or medications, you just invited them to the table (Medicare+Medicaid+uninsured = >50% of the public).
(B) Your lack of logic as to which party "pounces (sic) more [of] these freedom-choking regulations" (many of which came into law during the last seven years of the Halliburton Administration) ignores fact in favor of truthiness. Remember, (Democratic) Clinton Administration equals balanced budgets and economic growth leading to budget surpluses, while (Republican) Halliburton Administration equals wild spending for senior drug benefits (=record profits for Big Pharma) and a trumped-up war with Iraq (=happy days are here again for Halliburton). These, combined with tax cuts for the rich, lead to record budget deficits. Democrats may have been pilloried as the tax-and-spend party, but the Halliburtons have outdone them. "Spend (but don't tax)" works for a few Karl Rove election cycles, and leaves the successor with an abysmal economy. Exceptions: Well, that's just another word that you don't know how to spell. At the end of the day, there is a fundamental disconnect between reality and the Josh(s) of the US. Democrats are not the freedom-choking regulators, nor are Republicans the laissez faire, "less is more government."
(3) I fully agree with Josh that it is not the role of government to regulate personal choice. But if government has to rescue idiots who stay in their cardboard shacks with Katrina bearing down on them, government just bought a place at the table.
(4) Bear Down, Wildcats!
From Sarah, Annandale Va. I for one want my goverment telling me what I can and cannot eat depending on my weight and health issues. I have no problem with my goverment in a democratic country weighing me and giving me a physical. I would then appreciate the free food bans more. If the goverment wants to write me a big ticket for eating 2,200 calorie cheese fries for a snack I would appreciate it. It's cheaper than hiring a personal trainer or joining a weight loss club or gym. See you in court! That's the american way.
From Eric, Zuerich, Switzerland Ann Chung "What next? Will the states start entering everyone’s kitchen and pantry and arrest them for having Karo corn syrup or a pound of Blue Bonnet margarine."
Only if the bottle of Karo syrup is not labeled correctly with nutrition and caloric information. Of course for you it wouldn't make any difference since you haven't a clue what it means anyway.
From Eric, Zuerich, Switzerland R.J. Brotherhood: "The trouble with the State interfering with anything, whether it be food or seatbelts or other things, is that we HAVE NOT (!) VOTED for such measures."
When did "we" vote that traffic drives on the right or aircraft must be inspected etc.? Answer: we didn't, at least not directly. That's the job of the legislators and government. How can we vote on every proposed law and regulation? What expertise does the common man have to decide if, for example, what constitutes a safe bridge? Answer, none.
Your simplistic "argument" is simply a knee jerk reaction. You benefit from all the other regulations concerning food safety etc., but when you see a chance to moan then you are at the head of the line with your great knowledge and loud voice. Give us a break.
From Eric, Zuerich, Switzerland Bans aren't that effective. How about two vertical polls spaced 10 inches apart. Can't fit through? Tough, you don't get to board the aircraft and cause a safety issue.
From Eric,Zuerich,Switzerland Consider this: I own my own business and I have instructed the HR department not to hire anyone who is over weight. To me an overweight person lacks energy, drive and self respect. I don't want such an employee. There are better people out there to choose from.
From JB, Houston, Tx We went to Nathan's on Coney Island last week and I think ignorance is bliss. I got only 1 hot dog and split the fries when I saw what kind of calories I was consuming. Does it change what I eat? Maybe..but we still went to Peter Luger's and had a steak and a few drinks. When is the government going to ban High Fructose Corn Syrup in food? They won't since the corn lobby is so big.
From Jessica, Hillsboro OR I'm 100% in favor of listing as much about a dish as possible — for the completely selfish reason of being able to eat out more. With my allergies, when in doubt, I have to skip. And that means I end up having to opt out of a lot.
From Anna, San Francisco, CA Its great they are requiring nutritional info. There's nothing wrong with 2900 calorie cheese fries: if you split it with 4 friends, or just completed a triathlon or a grueling 3 day backpacking trip.
The 66% of us in this country who aren't obese shouldn't have foods banned.
From Matt, Colorado Springs, CO "Fruit and vegetables ought to be almost free, and hot dogs, cheeseburgers, ice cream and candy bars should be $10"
Good work forming an opinion devoid of common sense. Supply and demand will always make the most sought after items more expensive. Legislate these matters all you want, it won't solve any of the problems without creating new and bigger problems.
From Sam C., Show Low, AZ I like the idea of knowing what I am eating … as long as I am not restricted in my choices…then I can knowingly do the wrong thing for my health which is my right as an American! I can also choose to eat the right thing for my health if I so feel like it! It is great to be an American!
From Josh, Tucson, Az I think regulation and taxation of any non-poisonous consumption (with some exeptions on poisons such as alcohol) is abhorrent . The government needs to stop being our mommies and daddies. No one has a right to tell me what to eat, or penalize or throw an extra tax on what I eat. We all know that certain foods are unhealthy and its our responsibility to eat healthy or deal with the consequences. I am sick and tired of the democrats pouncing more of these freedom-choking regulations and laws in place. This is not to say I favor the republicans, but they don't have as much of a reputation for regulation. Anyhow a message to the government: DON'T TREAD ON ME, AND DON'T TREAD ON MY DIET. IT'S NONE OF YOUR D*MN BUSINESS!
From Thom, Keystone, Co. Screw the government, it has more important things to do than decide what I eat. I eat certain foods because I enjoy their flavors and how I feel after I eat them. Prohibition didn't work with alcohol, why does the government think they have the right to deny "We, the people"?
From Doug, Liberty, Mo Come on Sara (Kansas City)-"no one complained when they banned lead paint"-big difference between banning lead paint and banning food.
It all comes down to personal responsibility-a personal choice on what to eat. Big Brother is pushing his nose into our personal business too much. Personal responsibility not federal responsibility.
From Kevin Gould, Gainesville FL I love cheese fries so much they are delicious. I would just eat a big thing of cheese fries, a steak, a soda, and then I would just run around Outback three times. Solution solved.
From RJ, Miami, FL Reflecting the view of most industry groups, Chuck Hunt, executive vice president of the New York State Restaurant Association's New York City office, derides the disclosure laws as cumbersome micromanagement of small businesses. And, he adds, "14 years ago the FDA started requiring nutritional information on goods to be eaten in the home. Has that addressed obesity?"
—-Ummm, they are still fat asses because Americans eat out…tough to stick to a diet, and lose weight, when you go to place like Panera and get a sandwich thinking it's a healthy substitute for fast food, when in reality the nutritional values are just as terrible…I can't tell you how many meals I've eaten at restaurants with a person who thought they were eating healthy, when in reality, they were ignorantly feeding their obesity. Then they wonder "Why haven't I lost weight? I've only been eating chicken…" ya, chicken that is covered in 2500mg of salt, sauteed in a gallon of oil, then smovered with a cream sauce
From Cyndy, Mobile, Alabama This is absolutely a great thing! As a consumer, I have often wished more restaurants made the nutritional content available.
From Lauren, Baltimore MD Although laboratory testing and menu adjustments are an additional cost to a business, common sense tells us that that cost will ultimately be passed on to the restaurant's patrons.
This is not a “bottom line” matter—this is the health of the United States we’re talking about. As a consumer and a human being, I feel that I have a right to know exactly what I’m putting in my body. Even if I continue to eat 2,900 calorie french fries—fine. At least I knowingly put 2,900 calories into my body!
From Rob Well Jim,
You don't get a vote about what I do. The government is not here to decide what is careless and not careless. Neither are you. If you want me to stop eating endangered species make your point and move on when your done. The government is not a lead pipe for you to enforce your own personal outlook of the world.
From Jim People who say the Government bans are curtailing their freedoms are ridiculous. That is like saying next time you order fish you will know what the actual worldwide stock and harvest rates are so you know you won’t be contributing to the extinction of a food source. Otherwise…plain and simple…you don’t really care as long as you can do whatever you like regardless of consequences…that is why the rest of us want the bans…to try and stop carelessness.
From Glenn Chase, Dover, NH Our "democratic" country has become overwhelmed and overburdened by socialists who know what is good for the masses. To police the country's foolish laws costs taxpayers dearly. We need to return the government's role to infrastructure, public safety and justice. Let the feeble minded folks like myself make decisions that concern our own health/welfare and I will continue to pay fair taxes to be free, safe and semi-literate. Asking me, to pay for you, to keep you, from harming yourself; is beyond stupid. Please do share your bright ideas with your family and friends, but don't force them on me.
From John LaPlante, Saint Paul, MN In "Full-Disclosure Menu" (May) Ian Mount recommends that restaurant
owners accept laws requiring calorie counts on their menus as "far
better than the alternative: nanny-state restrictions on what can be
served."
But as he points out, nanny-state restrictions are already underway in
New York and Chicago, and other governments are may jump on the
bandwagon. Giving in to disclosure demands will only encourage the
nannies.
Government has no legitimate role in dictating what a person can and
cannot eat. If the public allows politicians to dictate their diet, we
might as well turn off the lights.
From Scooter, Austin, TX Seriously, where is the end of the government trying to curtail the freedoms of American citizens? What's next? Is the government going to tell me where I can and cannot live? Where I can travel? What I can wear? Who I can talk to? What I can and cannot think?
Does this sound rather Orwellian? It might, but so does telling me what I can and cannot consume.
From Cindy H, Deatsville,AL We need to encourage people to take responsibility for their own choices – and make them deal with the consequences instead of baling them out. This would help our country out in most ways, not just dietary excesses. Sheesh. We cannot FIX everybody or prevent every bad thing that may happen.
From Tom Alderman Roswell, GA I think it's great. With obesity in this country at epidemic proportions, perhaps this may help. Fast food is one of the great contributers to the epidemic.
From Maija, San Mateo, CA I think it's a great idea! Consumers should know how many calories they are consuming. It’s amazing how hard restaurant chains are fighting to hide their nutrition information. I wanted to share a new service my company just launched called ‘Wellternatives’ that lets people find nutrition info for thousands of chain restaurants for free – right from their cell phone. It also makes recommendations for a healthier alternative, hence the name… Wellternatives. If restaurants aren’t going to post their nutrition info, we figured we’d do what we could to give people instant access to the info from anywhere. Would love to hear what you think of it!
From Anonymous The government does not need to tell most of us how to eat. We are living in the greatest country and obviously people are over indulging, I just wish the obese would recognize that obesity is there problem and not mine to pay for, where were they when I needed a student loan.
From Yadgyu, Harkeyville, TX It that appears from some of the blogs here that some of you haven’t been paying attention!!! I guess you don’t mind paying taxes to support the person who has allowed themselves to become morbidly obese,refused to educate themselves in proper nutrition and exercise all in the face of plenty of opportunities to do so and then no longer are able to work to support themselves and/or their families. I guess it doesn’t bother you that a beautiful creature like a shark has its fins sliced off and its body thrown back into the ocean still alive for your bowl of soup. I guess you don’t mind that the huge money-making machine called the food industry is adding ingredients to our foods simply to make them go farther, taste better, last longer on the shelf, look prettier etc.,etc. no matter what the cost to us,the environment, all the living things on the planet, the planet… I say, “Know who you elect and let them help us to help ourselves.”
Come on, people!!! =(
Christie,RN
____________________
Why do people always complain about how anothr person is costing the system money?
If we got rid of all of the inefficient people on Earth, there would only be a few hundred million million people left. We need to stop complaining about how obese people, disabled people, illegal immigrants, etc. are draining money from taxpayers. The government is going to take the money and spend it no matter what.
Just be happy about your own self and stop laying guilt trips on other people. Let the next man be a bum if he wants to. As long as he isn't trying to bring you down with him, you should not care about him and his troubles. Stop being so conceited, arrogant, and elitist. You are no better than anyone else out here. one slip can leave you in a position where you are unable to provide for yourself.
From Rebecca, Michigan YES. YES. YES. I am all for the government forcing restaurants to post/publish the nutritional content of food. I am also fine with the government getting rid of Trans fat. Being fat is EXPENSIVE (health industry, transportation industry, etc..) and unhealthy. People can still get a hold of trans fat, but it a chemical that is not needed and exists in processed food. I can't believe anyone would actually want Trans fats in their food.
From Shannon Wells I prefer full disclosure and taxes to outright banning of food, except when the food production involves animal cruelty. Encouraging animal cruelty does not serve the public interest.
As for banning food for health reasons, unless it is outright poisonous, I think that's stupid.
However, if you think your own eating habits aren't anybody else's business you're wrong. Scientific research shows that your health affects your family's health – your partner and your children are very likely to follow your food and exercise habits – but also, the rest of us bear the burden of the excess health care costs that come from your ruining your body. We all pay for other people's failure to take care of themselves, at least to some degree.
So I think a food tax is far better. If you want to stuff yourself with junk, then you ought to have to pay a premium up front. If you want to smoke a pack of cigarettes a day, then your health insurance costs are higher. That's completely fair. Fruit and vegetables ought to be almost free, and hot dogs, cheeseburgers, ice cream and candy bars should be $10. The food tax can go to subsidize the price of healthy food and to promote healthy eating.
From Robert – Caracas, Venezuela The government has no business whatsoever outlawing foods that make people fatter. Many things are bad for your health, but we live in a free society and people can eat what they want. It is absolutely right to require disclosure of food content to the public (calories, fat content, etc), so they can make educated decisions about what they consume. If the real gripe lies with the taxpayer burden of paying medical costs for obese people, then we should consider taxing items based on their trans-fat content or some other "junk food tax." But outlawing certain foods is just plain wrong.
From Luke, Fayetteville, WV As someone severely allergic to gluten (a staple in almost anything made in America) I am definitely in support of full disclosure of ingredients in food, so I know whether or not the stirfry I just ate was made with soy sauce that had gluten (almost all brands do!).
However, is it necessary that restaurants cannot sell unhealthy food to people that want to eat poorly? I don't think so. Perhaps with proper disclosure of what we are eating, people can make their own decisions about what they want to put into their bodies. If people know what they are eating and still choose to do so, more power to them. I just want to know what I'm eating in the first place!
From R.J. Brotherhood, Mexico City, Mex. The trouble with the State interfering with anything, whether it be food or seatbelts or other things, is that we HAVE NOT (!) VOTED for such measures. Where has REAL democracy gone? We vote them in, and for 4 years the politicians do just what they like. And laws/measures, etc. do rarely get repealed when a new team gets in. Anno 2008 we should have REFERENDA on decisions that affect us all: there is Internet, and we are NOT stupid! Look at Europe (where I live), where the State's interference has gone WAY beyond food… Democracy, PLEASE!
From Basil, Seagraves, Texas Well I am for one that we should whats best for us I am tired of the goverment trying to make us do what we do not want to do. We the United States of America is getting more Communist every day cause we are being told what where and we do do things.
From B. Mers, Denver, Colorado The choice mentioned in this article between laws requiring disclosure or "nanny-state" restrictions is a false dichotomy. They are both "nanny-state" measures. If I don't like eating a particular dish at a particular resturaunt w/o disclosure, I can ask the chef, or eat somewhere else. Voting with the dollar produces far more and far better results than any politician that gets involved.
Once we crossed the line that allows government to protect us from ourselves, we forewent any logical objection to just about any restriction that can be imagined. It was the death knell for Residual Individual Sovereignty in the U.S. Now, its only a matter of time…
From Tina, Houston Texas I'm so sick and tired of the people of the United States laying down and playing dead while self-claimed "know-it-alls" change our laws and continue to lead us into being a communist country.
We all know margerine is bad for us, but by golly, if I want to eat it and suffer a heart attack, that's my perogative. If I don't care to wear my seatbelt and I fly through the windshield and die, that's my perogative…
Why can't all you "do-gooders" stop treading on my rights? And why is everyone letting them do it? We don't need big brother telling us what to eat, what not to eat, and how to sit in our cars. When are they going to start telling us how to wipe our a**'s? The better question is, are we going to let them tell us when? Sad, sad, sad state of affairs.
From TomB, Ottawa, Ontario Nanny state and busybodies at their finest. It is all about power and not health.
But who is going to deal with HALAL and COSHER foods, when animals are actually TORTURED during slaughter? Too unconfortable to mention?
From PA-Pilot To John in New York: The only reason these foods exist is because people buy them. If you don't like HFCS, don't buy it. If you don't like GMO, don't buy it. We do have choices and like it or not, the vast majority of people don't care. Genetically modified corn goo is cheaper than cane sugar, and people want cheap, so therefore that is what is going to be sold. We live in a free market, which means you are free to buy or not buy any product.
From PA-Pilot I am 100% in favor of mandatory disclosure of ingredients and nutritional information to consumers. Consumers have a right to know what they are putting in their body. But, I am 100% against bans of any kind whatsoever. Instead, there should be stiff penalties and taxes on being unfit due to the excess burden on the health care system. Whether or not someone is overweight is strictly their choice (don't give me the glands argument. Thermodynamics trumps glands). You should be free to make bad choices and to pay the price for them. That kind of freedom and liberty is preferred to the nanny state.
From Christie Jacobson, R.N., Dundas, Illinois It that appears from some of the blogs here that some of you haven't been paying attention!!! I guess you don't mind paying taxes to support the person who has allowed themselves to become morbidly obese,refused to educate themselves in proper nutrition and exercise all in the face of plenty of opportunities to do so and then no longer are able to work to support themselves and/or their families. I guess it doesn't bother you that a beautiful creature like a shark has its fins sliced off and its body thrown back into the ocean still alive for your bowl of soup. I guess you don't mind that the huge money-making machine called the food industry is adding ingredients to our foods simply to make them go farther, taste better, last longer on the shelf, look prettier etc.,etc. no matter what the cost to us,the environment, all the living things on the planet, the planet… I say, "Know who you elect and let them help us to help ourselves."
Come on, people!!! =(
Christie,RN
From Jeanette Tejeda de Gomez While Arizona declined to pass Sen. Amanda Aguirre's bill last year
regarding caloric information, the Arizona Restaurant & Hospitality
Association and the Arizona Department of Health Services have partnered to
create a voluntarily program. McDonald's and Outback restaurants are early
signers.
Please see press release below.
Thank you,
Jeanette
Director of Communication
Arizona Senate Democratic Caucus
ADHS News Release:
gray rule
Release:
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES TO HOLD PRESS CONFERENCE
TO LAUNCH ARIZONA SMART CHOICE PROGRAM STATEWIDE
Release Date:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – March 24, 2008
The Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) is pleased to announce its
newest program, "Arizona Smart Choice," which is designed to help people
find healthy menu options at restaurants statewide. The ADHS will hold an
official press conference to launch the program on Mon., March 24, 2008, at
the Arizona State Capitol Rose Garden, which is located at 1700 W.
Washington Street in Phoenix, at 10:30 a.m. The Program is a proactive
initiative developed by ADHS to combat obesity in Arizona, which has more
than doubled since 1990. Those restaurants that have already signed on to
the program include McDonald?s, Outback Steakhouse, Macayo?s and Subway.
"In 2007, Sen. Aguirre convened a group of community, health and restaurant
leaders to establish a statewide restaurant initiative designed to raise
awareness of the importance of good nutrition when eating outside of the
home. We solicited restaurants of all shapes, sizes and menu selections and
encouraged them to offer and promote healthy menu options," said Susan
Gerard, Director of ADHS.
Through the program, the ADHS is partnering with participating restaurants
and is both helping them to identify healthy items within their menus, as
well as encouraging them to slightly alter some menu items to reach Arizona
Smart Choice requirements.
"Any restaurant interested in submitting their recipes, or working with us
to tweak menu items to meet our nutritional criteria, need only contact ADHS
to start the process," said Margaret Tate, bureau chief of Chronic Disease
Prevention and Control for ADHS. "Once a menu item is approved, the
restaurant is given Arizona Smart Choice program materials to display at
their location(s)."
To qualify for approval, a main dish must meet the following criteria:
* Minimum of two servings of beans, whole grains, fruits or vegetables;
* No more than 700 calories;
* No more than 30 percent of total calories from fat;
* No more than 15 percent of total calories from saturated fat;
* No more than 0.5 grams of trans fat (no added or artificial fat); and
* No more than 1,500 mg of sodium.
To qualify for approval, a side dish item must meet the following criteria:
* Minimum of one serving of beans, whole grains, fruits or vegetables;
* No more than 300 calories;
* No more than 30 percent of total calories from fat;
* No more than 15 percent of total calories from saturated fat;
* No more than 0.5 grams of trans fat (no added or artificial fat); and
* No more than 650 mg of sodium.
Restaurant participation in the program is voluntary. There is no fee for
restaurants to join the program, but they will need to pay for nutrient
analysis services of their menu item(s) and any costs incurred in tweaking
their recipes. For more information, or to begin the process to enroll your
restaurant, please visit http://www.azsmartchoice.com.
From Ann Chung, Seattle WA What next? Will the states start entering everyone's kitchen and pantry and arrest them for having Karo corn syrup or a pound of Blue Bonnet margarine.
Gice it a rest! It is none of government's business to protect us from ourselves.
From Jennifer, Ellicott City, MD I love this new trend! I want to know what I'm eating for better or worse. Just recently, I was pleasantly surprised by the nutritional info that I researched on one of my favorite comfort dishes – the Naked Chicken Burrito at Qdoba. I had started a diet and put the burrito on my "no-no" list, but after visiting the website I found out it wasn't nearly as bad for me as I had thought. More than that, I found out that by skipping the cheese, I could bring the dish within my calorie requirements. I'm thrilled that I was able to find this out and think this info should be available for most restaurants.
From Ben, Richmond VA Oh, come on… anyone could have made that error. Of all the arguments on here, Dan's is the most grounded in legal reasoning.
From Richard Morgain, New Orleans LA "Effect" a ban. Not "affect." Although it has no bearing on the substance of your claim, spelling mistakes lend little credit towards claims of others' ignorance.
From Dan, Brooklyn, NY I think that "Bart" needs a refresher in Constitutional Law. I hope he is not a lawyer. No bar-certified attorney should make such inaccurate assertions.
Before I begin, I find it humorous that my previously stated solution to this issue (move to a different State or elect a legislature that better represents your values) is characterized as "liberal." My reasoning is identical to that used by Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, etc. in defending a State's right to make legislation for the health and welfare of its citizens and rejecting the federal government's authority in attempts to do the same. Few "liberals" would share similar legal reasoning with the above Justices.
Also, "miss-state" [sic] is spelled, "misstate." Although it has no bearing on the substance of your claim, spelling mistakes lend little credit towards claims of others' ignorance.
Now, the substantive issues.
First, please cite the FDA regulation that gives that agency the "authority to limit/ban sale of food/goods found to be harmful as tested scientifically." I look forward to your response.
Second, you correctly state that Congress possesses the power to regulate interstate commerce. However, I express no opinion on whether federal regulation of food items for the purpose of promoting general health would pass Constitutional muster under a Commerce Clause justification. I will note that recent decisions suggest that the Court has become less willing to uphold federal regulations pegged to the Commerce Clause that are actually veiled usurpations of the State's police powers. See, U.S. v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598; U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549.
Third, your conclusion that a State lacks the power to regulate intrastate commerce is flatly wrong. Regulation of intrastate commerce is completely within the 10th Amendment's purview. However, the Court labels almost no goods as intrastate. In fact, the opposite is true. The Court goes out of its way to declare affected goods interstate. Therefore, the Court would probably rule that a State food ban affects interstate commerce.
But, this does not end the inquiry. Because the affected items are incoming goods, the Court will focus on whether the regulation in question discriminates against out-of-state goods or is equally applied to all goods. The regulations in question here are total bans. A total ban affects in-state production/sale the same as out-of-state importation/sale. Therefore, the regulation does not discriminate. Because it does not discriminate, the State regulation can burden interstate commerce if it attempts to promote the health and welfare of its people, unless the party challenging the State law can demonstrate that the State could achieve exactly equal benefits through a law that would not place a great burden on commerce. See, Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, Wis., 340 U.S. 349. This is a very high standard. I have a difficult time envisioning a successful challenge under the above test.
Finally, I can count the number of times on one hand that a State regulation made pursuant to its police powers has failed rational-basis review. The assertion that a ban on goose liver is irrational is…well, irrational.
My arguments have nothing to do with whether the food bans in question are a subjectively good idea. Instead, they conclude that a State has the power to affect a food ban, for the purposes of promoting the general health and welfare of its citizens, pursuant to the police powers, despite the regulation's affect on interstate commerce. That's all. So, once again…we're back to square one. If you don't like the laws in your State, move to a different State or elect a legislature that better reflects your values.
From Judy, Hillsborough, NJ While I appreciate the noble intentions behind these food bans, I'd prefer not to go out to dinner with Big Brother, thank you. I'd like to be the one to decide what I eat and what my kids eat. How far will this be allowed to go? I realize it is all in the name of good health, but where do you draw the line? Sunburns can cause skin cancer–will it be illegal to go to the beach because it's not good for you? Let's take some personal responsibility here.
From John, New York NY The food industry is about lying and deceit. Have you ever wondered why every food you see have "0 grams trans fat"? It's because the FDA allows foods with 500mg trans-fat to be labeled as "0 grams", even though we all know that people generally eat over two servings of whatever they're eating.
On top of that, the only reason why HFCS is popular is because of corn farmers here in the US complaining to the government that sugar is ruining their business. Therefore, sugar is ridiculously expensive, and genetically modified corn goo reigns supreme.
The point here is that we NEED legislation if we feel that trans fats and HFCS are harmful to our health. We can't trust companies to change their ways just because of public concern, mostly because that doesn't work. You might argue that we should allow social darwinism to take its toll on businesses that don't bend to our wishes, but when 300lb Gladys and her 7 obese children are still happily flinging money at these corrupt businesses, change would never occur in our lifetime.
From Dan, Bloomingdale, IL [quote]When the government starts telling me what I can and cannot eat, will be the day that the government will be welcome to cover my health insurance costs – and require that my employer then pay me directly (and tax-free, mind you) what they would have spent on health insurance for me.
The government has zero vested interest in my health; therefore the government has zero right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body. If I want to drink four cans of Coca-Cola, eat two large orders of McDonald’s fries, covered in cheese sauce, with five slides of Chicago-style pizza for lunch (after I had a four pancake, three egg, and four slice of bacon breakfast), that’s my business.
Posted By Erik H., Portland, OR : May 1, 2008 11:33 pm
[/quote]
This is actually quite incorrect. Does this imbecile think he will never be 65 years old and forced onto Medicare? What an idiot.
From Edwar Luis Jr. Pomona, California I'll pose this question to our Federal, State, City official, and all of those health conscious citizens. What would you say to me if I told you that eating what you consider a healthy meal was not healthy at all simply because someone said it wasn't healthy? And what if I was going to prohibit you from eating it? What if I like eating foods that I know are not very healthy? What punishment are you going to bestowed upon me? I can read food labels too, or are you going to force me to make up your own mind that I really didn't understand what I was reading? I fully agree on displaying nutritional information, and I truly agree we need to become more health concious, but It is completely un-American that any government, Federal or otherwise, want to force upon me what I can, and cannot eat! It seems we tend to listen and believe (sometimes blindly) to whatever our health institutions feed us (no pun intended). We do not need a forceful Federal government to keep us safe in our day to day activities. What we, as free citizens choose to do in the privacy of my own homes (aside from physical harm to others), should not be regulated, or forcefully thrust upon us. I'd like to propose that keeping this trend of oppression, yes I said oppression, for the next 20 years will see all free Americans as insecure as children because we may not be sure if walking outdoors with a little more bulge than what is legally acceptable will be cause for fear.
From Deb Bville Ok I am 41 years old, when I was 15 my mother had a heart attack. Following her Doctors orders over the years she eliminated alot of foods from her diet and changed the way she cooked, She passed away at 55. After living by the Heart Association Diet for many years I began having stomach problems, my Cholesterol went up, my Iron went down, my blood sugar went way below normal. I was also overweight. I was told I was at risk for a Heart Attack or Stroke. After being placed on several different medications which did little to help and alot to hurt, I made a life choice. I went back to the old ways of cooking and eating. I do not use oil or shortening, I use lard, I started buy raw milk, butter and cheese. I stopped buying processed foods. I also use true sea salt ( with all of the natural vitamins and minerals intact). I am now within a normal weight, I no longer suffer from IBS or Lactose Intolerance, My blood sugar is within a normal range and so is my cholesterol. Why take away peoples choice to eat how they choose, let us make our own choices. Some of us do know what we are doing.
From Anonymous This is way to far I mean eat what you wanna eat. How are forgin resturants going to serve foods that are "banned". This to me is just as ridiculous as the "banned books list."
From K Carroll, Clayton, CA Umm, excuse me? Since when do people have to eat at restaurants? As usual, the legislators and everyone else are ignoring the real problem – Americans are extremely over-self indulgent. Before the 70's eating out was a luxury, a treat that happened occasionally. Now people seem to feel they have a constitutional right to eat out all the time and a constitutional right to expect others (the law-makers, the restaurant owners) to make it "safe" for them to do so.
If people are concerned about what's being served in restaurants, eat at home. If you're concerned about obesity, EAT SMALLER PORTIONS and eat less often! I saw an antique dinner plate (about 100 years old) the other day. It was the size of a modern-day salad plate! Remember people, you don't have to put the fork in your mouth and you don't have to finish every bite on the plate! You don't have to patronize cheap fast-food chains which by definition provide cheap fast food to eat. Healthy food is not necessarily that cheap or that fast. If restaurant business fell off dramatically because people decided to eat out less often, guess what! The restaurants would then find it to their benefit to provide the kind of food and nutritional info the market says it needs.
As for the government – this is another bogus issue they can focus on to distract everyone's attention from the fact that Congress is not doing its constitutionally-mandated job and solving real problems such as the war in Iraq, the huge budget deficit, endemic corruption in government, etc., etc.
KLC
From US Navy Sailor, Underway, open waters It is getting ridiculous. While I totally agree with displaying nutritional content, it is completely insane for the government to try and tell me what I can, and can not eat. It is going WAY to far. We don't need a strong federal government to keep us safe in our day to day activities. What I choose to do in the privacy of my own home, is nothing that should be regulated, (obviously forgoing any crimes against humanity) I hate to think where this is going over the next 15 years.
From Mia, San Diego, CA Some of the comments here are just ridiculous. People are actually advocating the legal enforcement of their eating choices on the rest of the population. I mean, the idea of banning MSG or corn syrup or whatever else people are complaining about is beyond absurd. Are these people out of their minds? I cannot comprehend the thought process that gets them from, "I choose not to eat MSG," to, "therefore MSG should be illegal." I mean, hell, I don't like lima beans; I think I'm going to go lobby for a ban on those right now.
From DC Hendrixson, Laurel, MD Kudos to San Francisco for banning High Fructose Corn Syrup, the main sweetner in soft drinks.
Corn syrup, unlike real sugar has absolutely zero nutritional value. It goes directly to the liver where it's stored as fat. Real sugar is absorbed immediately into the blood stream.
Soft drinks sweetened with real sugar also taste much better.
We as consumers need to pressure the soft drink industry to use real sugar rather than high fructose corn syrup. Eventually it would be a win-win situation and have a major impact on obesity.
Obesity is out of control and will have major health implications and cost this nation trillions in the future if we don't get it under control. Banning High Fructose Corn Syrup should be number ONE on the list of products.
DC Physician
Laurel, MD
From Lisa, Fort Worth TX I agree that we should be educated about what we eat but I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with the government telling me what I can or can't eat. There are so many important issues out there that should be addressed. We should have smaller government, not larger! What happened to personal responsibilities and choices? If I choose to eat a fast food hamburger and french fries how is that hurting or impacting anyone else? Is this where our country is headed…more governmental control and less personal freedom and responsibility. Is the government considering us regular people too stupid to handle our own personal health? If someone wants to be obese and unhealthy….leave them alone! That is their choice. I am scared of where all of this is going!
From Cashew/ El Centro,CA I was raise on raw milk until I was 14. I didn't have a stomach problem until we moved from the farm. I missed the morning treat of cream and honey with biscuits and pork gravy. I was 4'10" and 85 lbs. My skin had no problems.
Feed everyone fear. There is nothing wrong with raw milk, if handled with care. These laws were passed to keep the big producers taking the money in from the consummers. Let the people know margarine is one molique from plastic.
It was just another way of taking our freedon of choice away and controling our money for big business. Freedom of choice is lost by stupid laws pushing others believe on the people.
From Jack, Reading, MA The key in all of this is education. For example, the majority of Americans have no clue how dangerous Tran Fats are nor do they understand that reading the nutrition label on packaged food is not enough. You must read the ingredients AND know what to look for. Restaurants are perhaps the most unhealthy of places to eat. They use an abundance of sodium on their foods, rich sauces, etc. Again, people deserve to know what is in their restaurant food and decided for themselves in it is in their best health interest to order that specific food item. For those of you who enjoy eating cheese fries, Big Mac's, etc enjoy your short, unhealthy and obese life cause you aren't going to be on this earth very long.
From chuck Nashville TN If those that are so fat. and it seems more and more are..around waist and between ears.. not so prone to disease and due to own gluttony, not a serious medical issue, we would not have to regulate.. The data on OBESE is there and we are getting fatter.. So prefer we regulate the foods, as nothing else will work. The fat are like the DUI driver.. if not regulated will kill someone..as they gobble up food and medical resources.
From William Miami FL. When is BIG BROTHER going to install the camaras in my kitchen? Maybe I can arange to leave them a key so they don't have to sneak in.
From CareLyn I would like to see artificial food additives and preservatives removed from all food.
Period… end of story.
No more msg , or high fructose any thing…
no more aspartame
I would like to see a ban on GMO crops.
I would like to see a ban on flouride in our drinking water.
I would like to see the COMPANIES whom produce foods with high levels of in-edible garbage packed in it TAXED… Tax the companies , not the consumers.
Tax the companies whom produce these outrageous chemicals…
If they want to use unhealthy cheap crap,for our food supply regardless of the health implications, they should have to pay.
There is a healthy choice to high fructose corn syrup.. it is called sugar… natural and digestible.
Soda in several countries is still made with SUGAR.
Butter is better for the average healthy person , than margarine. Why because butter is natural!!!
Amazing!
I think the ban on Frois Gras is ridiculous!
If any one has ever been to a farm that produces Frois Gras… they will tell you, as I have seen, the amimals are treated much better than most peoples house pets. The farms I went to put all our methods of U.S. "conventional" corporate farming to shame.
I personally see no problem with raw milk or even raw meat. I think the enzymes and bacteria make you healthier … Milk in America makes me ill… milk in Europe does not. Hmmm Funny.
The problem is not the product , it is the farming and packaging methods…
I also know, the more time i spend in Europe, the younger and healthier my skin looks and feels.I beleive that is in direct response to the lack of flouride in the water and the quality of ALL the farming practices and food production. The farming practices are predominantly natural and it shows in he health and well being of the soil he land and the people.
And food production, well, most people in Europe have too much pride in quality to go shoving poison in the food the will sell.
Everone knows , natural is better.
From Mike Laughlin, NV don says: "who are the people electing these idots? obesity is a personal problem created by the indvidual choices made" don you don't make sense. If people don't know what's in the food they eat, how can they be blamed for the choices they make? Duh!
From Erik H., Portland, OR When the government starts telling me what I can and cannot eat, will be the day that the government will be welcome to cover my health insurance costs – and require that my employer then pay me directly (and tax-free, mind you) what they would have spent on health insurance for me.
The government has zero vested interest in my health; therefore the government has zero right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body. If I want to drink four cans of Coca-Cola, eat two large orders of McDonald's fries, covered in cheese sauce, with five slides of Chicago-style pizza for lunch (after I had a four pancake, three egg, and four slice of bacon breakfast), that's my business.
From Paul G, Orlando, FL I'm so glad we have the Obesity Police watching what we put in our bodies. It's great to see that we have the time and resources to focus our attention on what foods are bad for us and then enforce thier usage on society. I'm sure the crime rate, unemployment rate, homelesness, education dropout rate and other local / state topics are close to being cleared up. Not to mention that pesky gas hike issue thingy is probably getting lowered as we speak. That is why we see this sort of "very important news" topic here. Come on poeple, think about it. It's your bodies, your money, your comfort food. Eat dammit!!
From Kristina, Bow Wa I would like to see a ban on Pesticides, Preservatives, Corn Syrup, Hydrogenated oils BUT MOST OF ALL EXCITOTOXINS or MSG how many of you are aware that the words 'yeast extract' is some fancy name for MSG (they have other fake MSG phrases out there that is just one)yes we still have that in our food google it. I am a mom and am very concerned with the amount of TOXINS that are in our food. Another note certain FDA approved food coloring has been proven by Doctors to cause ADD and a host of other issues b/c they block receptors in the brain. One does start to ask themselves why would someone allow our food to become soooo toxic well everyone is out to make a buck but I wonder if all the politicians and FDA members eat any of the stuff they are forcing down our throats. It is becoming way too expensive to avoid these things since they are in everything. And for those of you who think pesticides are ok consider this some pesticides are actually diluted agent orange that we have used on enemies in war.
The Truth Can be Scary but it can also be EMPOWERING
EDUCATE YOURSELF DONT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT
From don who are the people electing these idots? obesity is a personal problem created by the indvidual choices made.
From Barton K. Hawkins, Ph.D., San Antonio, TX Not sure just WHAT Alexa is thinking, but her statement is fundamentally untrue.
The vast majority of fatty acids contained within butter, lard, etc. are saturated; those that are not are cis mono- or poly-unsaturated fats to a trememdous degree (there are trace percentages of trans fatty acids secondary to a variety of redox events).
I detest over-regulation, certainly, but the assertions made by this woman re butter being banned under the NYC state is incorrect.
From Thad Schiele, Denver, CO High Fructose corn syrup is pushed by the Federal Government with corn subsidies. Now they want to tax the consumers for buying it? The stuff is aweful, and is making the nation fat. But how about cutting the subsidies instead of taxing the consumer. If they are going to tax soda containing high fructose corn syrup, to be consistent, they should tax milk, bread, katsup, canned fruit, and the hundreds of other products containing the substance that is one of the main causes of obesity problems in the US. Stop Subsidies! Encourage free markets! You will see food costs go down, and healthier foods on the market shelves.
From alexa, boston ma Did you know that meat and dairy products which are regulated by the USDA and not the FDA contain natural trans fats? So, in response to a not unreasonable ban on artificial trans fats from hydrogenated oils, bakeries, restaurants and cafes that once used real butter in their muffins, cookies and pastries must switch to palm oil and other plant based fats so that they can serve trans fat free foods. Idiotic.
From T L, Dallas, TX I wonder if Thomas J does PR for a fast food restaurant. It's no big deal to tell consumers what they're being served. Wouldn't your family members tell you what was in the home cooked meal if you asked? This adds needed accountability and if people know what's in the food, market forces will puch healthier alternatives
From Thomas J It's time to be mad enough for action. Try picketing the offices of every elected official promoting and voting for these "nanny government" measures. Label them for what they are: fascists. Let's start there, and then move on using electoral power to overturn existing "nanny state" laws and get officials out of office who won't cooperate in these necessary moves to retain/regain freedoms.
From Russ A, Houston TX Fat content can hide in many dishes, both at fast food places and conventional restaurants; when the only place available in an area doesn't tell you what's in their food, how can you make an informed decision? Additionally, many restaurants (fast-food and sit-down) employ prefab packaged recipes and items that can't be ordered without objectionable content. As a result, for example, people with lactose intolerance may encounter difficulty getting something without cheese, and those who can't eat things like canola oil (and lots of common food additives) may find themselves with a dilemma that leaves them only the choice of whether to have a meal at all…or skip it, perhaps for an unhealthy period of time before the next opportunity. I think people should have the absolute right to know what they're eating; if they want to ignore it and/or chow down on things that aren't good for them regardless, I can't and won't stop them…but I need to know what I'm eating, and I'd really rather have the opportunity to decide what goes into it. Sometimes, this means I have to bring a precautionary brown bag when traveling, and that isn't always practical – or even legal.
From Barbara Arn, RN, Vancouver WA We all have the right to kill ourselves anyway we choose: tobacco, alcohol, chili-cheese fries. However, down the road, don't expect those of us who have to take care of you to be sympathetic to your plight. I work in the health care system and am continually amazed at the expectation that we should be expected to heal years of poor choices and self-indulgence. You reap what you sow.
From Vito Z, Bloomfield,NJ Y'know, quick-service (fast food) restaurants already comply with these requests,and it seems that salads and other items have been added and expanded as a result. I like the idea. Leaving uneaten food is not palatable to me, nor is taking it with me to places that are not refrigerable. Serving size matters. Ingredient content matters. Nobody is requiring a food science lesson. Nobody will tell someone what he has to eat;don't want it,don't order it. Food BANS??!! I guess if there are laws against cruelty to animals,there may as well be one to prevent consumption of their carcasses. But I stress
that this be a voluntary act,not a Federal mandate.
From David, E First, I want to complain about 9 pages for this little bit of fluff. An obvious attempt to shove advertisements down my throat. I didn't read past page 2.
On the issue of trans-fats, you have it wrong. "Vegetable Shortening" and "Margarine" aren't necessarily trans fats. Trans fats are hydrogenated vegetable oil. "Margarine" and "Vegetable Shortening" can be made without hydrogenated oil. "Hydrogenated" means the chemical structure of the fat molecule has been altered to have extra hydrogen atoms. This changes the fat molecule into something that does not occur in our natural diet. Many studies have shown these "trans fats" are not digested and metabolized like other fats, leading to obesity, heart disease and the build up of "bad" or LDL cholesterol. The reason corporations want to use "trans fats" is because they do not break down like regular fats (hence the problems it causes in our bodies) therefore, having a longer shelf life and the need for no refrigeration, bringing down costs. So, you have to ask yourself, do you want to save a few cents by eating something that has been chemically altered into something that does not naturally occur in our diet? I made up my mind long before these bans that I didn't want to be a guinea pig for the corporate bean counters.
From BC, Houston, TX The only reason HFCS is used is that the sugar-producers lobby pressured Congress to place high tariffs on imported raw sugar to protect domestic sugar farmers. Kill the tariff and you will see sugar as an ingredient more and more.
If you have doubts, think about this… Why do the soda manufacturers use HFCS in the USA and sugar everywhere else?
From Allan Dias, Goa, India This is terribly funny; govt. enacting laws to enable people to make an 'informed choice' on a $3 side of french fries. It is incredible they did not think it necessary for people taking a $300,000 mortgage. Only in the US….
From Bart Hawkins, San Antonio, TX I think "Dan" has missed the point (not unusual for liberals of his stripe – especially ones that deliberately miss-state constitutional law and cloak themselves (and attempt to cloak us) in their own ignorance).
Bottom line is the FDA/DOA can and does have the authority to limit/ban sale of food/goods found to be harmful as tested scientifically.
The states do NOT have the right to do so for INTERstate commerce, though the can and do do so for items sold intrastate.
It is this intrastate power (and by inference, intralocality power) that needs to be stripped. There is just no doubt that Chicago acted irrationally by banning goose liver, and that NYC banned trans-fats as an EMOTIONAL, not scientific, response to these issues.
Bottom line is these issues should be regulated at the Federal level, such that all can compete on an equal playing field.
The problem here is NYC is very much attempting to legislate human eating behavior – through a burden placed on commerce. Bottom line – will make no difference; those who choose foods wisely at home and whilst eating out will continue to do so. The fat slobs of the planet will not.
After all, the old cliche…"I'll take a Big Mac, large fry, 12 piece McNugget….and oh, yes, a small diet Coke please!" is so very very true.
From Kathy Acquistapace, Dobbins, CA I chime in with Elsa—get educated and get a clue. Also, I have the right to eat what I want. After all, people who come here from other countries even accidentally kill themselves when picking and eating wild mushrooms.
Raw milk is an outstanding source of beneficial bacteria such as lactobacillus acidolphilus, vitamins, enzymes and calcium. Sickness resulting from raw milk is rare — instead, it is pasteurized milk that is often implicated in outbreaks of food-borne illness.
During the period 2000 through 2004 there were several listeria-related food recalls in California associated with pasteurized milk products and ice cream. During this same period more than 12 million servings of raw milk products were consumed and not one person complained of illness and not one pathogen was ever found either by the state, or FDA.
A California raw milk producer then hired a laboratory to perform an experiment. The lab added 10 million counts of pathogens to one-milliliter samples of organic raw milk and found that the pathogens not only would not grow but they also died off. The lab concluded: ” … Organic raw milk and colostrum do not appear to support the growth of pathogens … “
From Pristine, Des Moines IA And don't use a picture of honey to represent HFCS!
From Lynn,Las Vegas, NV Has anyone read or re-read the book "1984", lately? Can we say "scary"!
From MarthaW Copperas Cove TX Sure I like that a lot of restaurants and whatnot tell you how many calories are in something, but my problem is this:
If you want something healthy to eat, why go to a fast food chain? Even their salads have more fat than one would think. Unless it's just lettuce, it's not much better for you. Fast food was not designed with health in mind. It was designed as a luxury, a pleasure of life that has now become more of a bane.
I believe that banning certain foods is not going to change much because people will just find other things to eat that are just as bad. All we really need to do is eat out less, balance our meals, and get out there and burn the energy our bodies store.
From M. M. McClelland, Dallas TX People may choose to eat whatever they please, but at least those who care can make informed decisions about what they eat. I personally would like to know when I'm ordering that a medium size curly fries at a common fast food chain is ~400 calories by itself. If you look up the nutritional info on some of the stuff we eat on a regular basis, it's disgraceful that companies are allowed to produce such items. People can still buy it… but will they want to?
Micromanaging?? Well, if we have to in order to get true information about what we're putting in our bodies… so be it.
From graydad62 Whats the big deal? If people want to eat let them!!It's not my place to enter an opinion of what people do or eat!!!!!!
From BB, Waldport, OR High fructose corn syrup is even in the bread you eat–no wonder we are all obese. In the 70's, it wasn't even in use.
From Elsa T, Buffalo Grove IL Firstly, don't use a picture of butter when you write about banning trans fats and secondly raw milk is not the evil demon it is made out to be. I have used it for 5 years and find it nutritious and delicious. Go to http://www.realmilk.com for more information on raw milk. Educate yourself – it is the best defense.
From Jim W – Broken Arrow, Oklahoma The food police/Nazis need to back off and allow us to eat what we want and when we want it. We need to be accountable for our own decisions, be they good or bad. We already have too many fools making too many rules.
From Marie, Los Angeles At minimum, we should be told what ingredients are in the food. This disclosure could actually HELP business. There is some ingredient in some Indian food that gives me horrible headaches. I can't figure out what it is because I don't know what is in what I am eating, so I simply don't go out to eat at Indian restaurants.
If you have ever cooked at home and experimented with trying to alter dishes for specific dietary requirements, you can make a lot of changes to a dish to affect the nutrition without affecting the taste negatively. How are you to know what a restaurant did and what philosophy they are following? Maybe they are making things in a healthy manner. Maybe they are trying to fill the dish with as many cheap calories as possible. This is another reason why I usually just eat a home. I know what I put in my own food.
From Sara, Kansas City MO No one complained when they banned lead paint. Trans fat and high fructose corn syrup should have never been approved. Restaurants' loss of revenue is irrelevant. You can't make money selling poison to people just because they'll eat it.
From tg cape cod can't wait till they tell us what to wear, drive and listen to.
From Carole Read I think people should police themselves as to what they do or do not eat. The government is not a baby-sitter for people who are weak and/or have no will-power…
From Jason, Jacksonville Fl I'm for the disclosure however i don't think it will help much.
Schools around here have cut out PE and nutrition. So if by chance the kid can read he won't know what he is reading.
From Mike S, Columbia, MD How quickly we give up our freedoms anymore. Government intervention in business (oil prices, corn prices, toilet flushing, etc.) has proven so widely successful I guess I should not be surprised. I'm a restaurateur so I may be somewhat biased in my response. BUT . . . The analysis of food items is expensive for small operators and those costs will be passed on to the consumer in some fashion. But cost of the analysis is not the only issue. In reality, menu item analysis would be largely inaccurate. Our menu items are all made from scratch using only fresh ingredients and with very few exceptions are the ingredients exactly the same from one day to the next. As an example, we have to often alter the amount of our sour cream in our mashed potatoes based off of starch content in the potatoes (which can literally change with every batch of potatoes). The adjustments that we make provide very tasty meal selections but would quickly invalidate any previous analysis of the food item. I probably don’t need to explain that in today’s litigious society that providing inaccurate information can create much more liability than providing no information. I will go fighting and screaming along with this socialized practice.
From dan, brooklyn, ny I think that the Federal Gov't would probably overstep its Constitutional authority if it banned certain food items for health reasons. HOWEVER, a State (and by extention, a locality) is well within its authorized police powers to make laws for the general health and welfare of its citizens. I believe this probably includes food bans. If you don't like the law in your State, move to a different State or elect a legislature that better represents your interests. Personally, I say…ban on States. Many of the banned products are harmful to human health or the environment.
From Bill, New York NY I think it will make most diners think twice about what they order. Of course, restaurants will not be pleased. If I saw that some dinner I was ordering was over 1500 calories, I would step back to something with much less calories, and in turn, possibly far cheaper. Restaurants would still have diners to serve for the same period of time, but the bill amount would be less. It should be interesting to see what happens. We might see "correct portions" become more the norm, and see today's standard portions, which are huge, increased in cost.
From Mark P., Pompano Beach, Fl I agree that all ingredients used in food should be included on the food container labels as well as what countries where all components added during the processing of food come from. I also think that with all of the health problems and risks from chinese imports people should holding million citizen marches in Washington D.C. to convince the blow bags to stop so much importation of goods from asian manufacturers.
From Kimberly, Chino Hills CA I am thankful that this information is going to be available at most resturants. I am on trying to stick at a 1500 calorie diet that can get blown by eating the wrong foods out. For example, Honey Mustard dressing at Red Robin has 350 calories! If people saw how many calories are in the foods then I think everyone would make better choices.
From Layla, Florida Funny, obesity is caused by overeating, lung cancer by smoking. So here we are governing trans fats while the government makes big money on things like tobacco. I just don't get it. I do however admire the fact that someone is trying to do something.
From Ginny, Austin TX This is a great idea. I have juvenile diabetes, which involves a lot of food monitoring. The more information I have about what I ingest, the better. Personally- I would choose restaurants that took the guess work out of my daily routine.
From Tim, San Diego CA I don't think this law will have much impact on fighting obesity. People that are obese realize this fact and apparently don't care enough to make the effort and sacrifices required to change this. However for the people who want to control their weight nutritional information is valuable. I'm not sure that the government should be mandating this but from the restaurants' perspective I believe it's good business.
From jon h, kenova wv He's complaining about spending 2500 to get the nutritional content and his companies did 20 million dollars biz last year…? what a cheapA*S
From Bart Hawkins, San Antonio TX I have no particular problem with an eatery being required to disclose – within reason – the nutritional content if its offerings, provided those are science-based and not guesses.
I have enormous problems with such mandates being driven by local communities, every bit as much as I do with certain food items (foi gras) being banned by local governments. The former merely is expensive to comply with; the latter subjects the marketplace to artificial constraints based on the liberalism (or not) of the local city council.
Regulating liquor sales, zoning, etc. is a local issue and should be handled as such. Regulating food sales that are matters of preference and taste, as well as health, should be left to the Federal government.
There is absolutely no reason in the world why horse flesh should be banned in Illinois but legal in Washington state; that New York City should ban trans-fats, as part of its licensing procedures; that Chicago should determine whehter or not it is cruel to force-feed ducks & geese (it isn't – the procedure takes less than 30 seconds per bird and is both humane and comfortable) and so on.
Bottom line here is a bunch of fairly ignorant folks are expanding their power at the needless expense of commerce.
Raw milk? Yep, ban its sale. Foi gras? Not your place to make moral decisions for ME.
The power of intrusive and silly government over-regulation must be curbed.
From Mia Maitland, Binghampton,NY The people that eat this garbage could care less how many calories are in it. They will continue to eat it and the obesity problem in this country won't be affected one bit.
From Cynthia C Omaha NE I Love that many food establishments are getting on the "bandwagon" and letting us know what we are eating. I have virtually stopped going out to eat as I have a heart condition and must watch my salt. For me salt is poison. Not many places are careful as I have ordered items requesting no salt be added and they are full of salt. Turns out that many of the dishes, esp. meat are preped ahead of time and the salt is already in it (LONESTAR STEAKHOUSE). You can always add salt to a dish later, at the table but you can't take it out! List what's in the dishes and I will eat out more often.
From JeffB, Houston, Tex The government should not be telling me what I can and can't eat as long as it is prepared in the correct manner. Why not just ban french fries since everyone says they cause us to be fat. Anything in moderation is fine.
-
These 7 entrepreneurs are bringing tech, medical research and design jobs to the Detroit metro area. More -
Arson. Scrappers. Blackouts. It's part of business for the last tenant in Detroit's Packard Plant. More -
Inventing is the easy part. Marketing? Trickier. Experts tell how they'd advertise 5 hard-to-tout products. More -
Every restaurateur knows about Cursed Locations, the addresses where no venture survives. More -
Detroit's churches are plowing millions into redeveloping local housing and businesses. More
Boy am I happy I moved to Mexico many years ago.
A government that keeps it nose out of peoples business. What a concept!!
Raw milk from my local farmer twice a week right into my container.
Grass fed, hormone free beef, free range chickens and eggs, home made yogurt and cheeses, and an occasional Coca-Cola with cane sugar are all easy to come by as well as fresh fruits and veggies and yet obesity and diabetes is a huge and growing problem here in Mexico as well.
Explanations anyone?
I made my choice many years ago and moved to a country with some freedoms left.
When are the rest of you in the USSA going to wake up and do the same?