Comments on: Would you eat 2,900-calorie cheese fries?

By: Rich, former Chicago, IL

Rich, former Chicago, IL — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:00:02 +0000

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?

By: Gerry, Chicago IL

Gerry, Chicago IL — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:34:13 +0000

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.

By: John Baltimore, Maryland

John Baltimore, Maryland — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:12:28 +0000

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!"

By: Barbara Reitz, Hampton, NJ

Barbara Reitz, Hampton, NJ — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:21:25 +0000

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.

By: max loos, las vegas, NV.

max loos, las vegas, NV. — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:06:58 +0000

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.

By: Sandra, Mahwah, NJ

Sandra, Mahwah, NJ — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:50:45 +0000

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?

By: Lauren, Urbana, IL

Lauren, Urbana, IL — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:25:56 +0000

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.

By: Rob, st. louis, mo

Rob, st. louis, mo — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:30:12 +0000

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.

By: Jim, Houston TX

Jim, Houston TX — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:22:14 +0000

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.

By: Jane Moore Charlotte, NC

Jane Moore Charlotte, NC — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:09:14 +0000

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.

By: Ben Wood, Chicago, IL

Ben Wood, Chicago, IL — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:46:59 +0000

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.

By: Tom, Saint Paul, MN

Tom, Saint Paul, MN — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:26:39 +0000

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!

By: Bob, Somerville, MA

Bob, Somerville, MA — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:16:22 +0000

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

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:53:29 +0000

Yummm! bring em on! XD

By: Ben Porter, Houston TX

Ben Porter, Houston TX — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:12:27 +0000

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)

By: Boh, Richmond VA

Boh, Richmond VA — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:30:53 +0000

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!

By: Sarah, Annandale Va.

Sarah, Annandale Va. — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 03:42:01 +0000

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.

By: Eric, Zuerich, Switzerland

Eric, Zuerich, Switzerland — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:05:17 +0000

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.

By: Eric, Zuerich, Switzerland

Eric, Zuerich, Switzerland — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:59:25 +0000

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.

By: Eric, Zuerich, Switzerland

Eric, Zuerich, Switzerland — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:51:01 +0000

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.