Shawn's letter writing campaign worked! -McD's
Dear Representative....
I think this is actually a pretty reasonable solution to the matter. Trusting people to make decisions is better than lawsuits or fat taxes IMNSHO.
Nick
I think this is actually a pretty reasonable solution to the matter. Trusting people to make decisions is better than lawsuits or fat taxes IMNSHO.
Nick
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
Dear Representative....
I think this is actually a pretty reasonable solution to the matter. Trusting people to make decisions is better than lawsuits or fat taxes IMNSHO.
Nick
Originally posted by BRussell
Unfortunately labels appear to do absolutely nothing. Since we've had them, Americans have gotten fatter at a much faster rate than ever before, and diabetes, even in children, is at epidemic proportions.
You don't say!
Next thing you know the government will have us all weigh in BMI taken and issue sanctions against each of us who exceed the governments requirements
LOL
Fellows
Originally posted by Scott
Isn't there an equal protection issue here? Why should, "Sammies" (fried pork chop sandwich anyone?) for example be exempt while starbucks has to comply?
The Feds. National corporations. A State could pass a similar law and then any company operating within state boundries would have to comply. As it stands, if the Feds pass a law then it's only those companies that work cross borders that would need to comply. Sammies would be exempt unless they're a franchise that exists in more than one state.
Originally posted by BRussell
Unfortunately labels appear to do absolutely nothing. Since we've had them, Americans have gotten fatter at a much faster rate than ever before, and diabetes, even in children, is at epidemic proportions.
I think schools need to start teaching nutrition at an early age, that's all. The labels are a good idea if there's the education to use them. Otherwise they might as well be written in chinese. So don't get rid of labels, but teach people how to use them. Once we do that the labels actually become fairly powerful. Hopefully.
Originally posted by BRussell
Unfortunately labels appear to do absolutely nothing. Since we've had them, Americans have gotten fatter at a much faster rate than ever before, and diabetes, even in children, is at epidemic proportions.
That's because labels are misleading. Want to make your shitty snack only have 100 calories? Increase the servings per container. What a crock. The calories for the whole bag of chips should be listed along side the servings. The American public is too f'in dumb to multiply.
Furthermore, people think that if something is low fat or fat free they can eat all they want. That's utter bullshit. Fat free foods still have calories. If you consume more calories than you burn you gain weight. Hell, if all you do is consume pure lard but consume less calories than you burn, you will lose weight on the 100% fat diet.
Plain truth of this is that if you are too stupid to realize that McD's is fatty food cooked in beef fat, and KFC is still fried chicken then you deserve the eventual hardening of your arteries and heart attack. You know that cookies are bad, so stop eating a whole damn box at a time. How about an occasional veggie or <gasp> salad?
Common sense is a powerful thing.
Originally posted by bunge
The Feds. National corporations. A State could pass a similar law and then any company operating within state boundries would have to comply. As it stands, if the Feds pass a law then it's only those companies that work cross borders that would need to comply. Sammies would be exempt unless they're a franchise that exists in more than one state.
No you missed my point. If you have 20 stores then you have to comply if you have less you don't. A company with 20 stores is not being treated the same as 19. It's arbitrary. It seems the law proposed is targeted at larger restaurants which imo is unfair. The small short order everything fried restaurant is just as guilty and therefor should comply with the same rules as McD'
Originally posted by Scott
A company with 20 stores is not being treated the same as 19.
How is this an equal protection case? A family with 20 kids gets treated differently by the IRS than a family with 19.
Obviously they're going after fast food restaurants with a homoginized menu and that's good. If it's illegal then they'll have to figure out a different way to do it.
Originally posted by Scott
Isn't there an equal protection issue here? Why should, "Sammies" (fried pork chop sandwich anyone?) for example be exempt while starbucks has to comply?
awwwwwwww, the poor little corporate chains restaurants are treated unfairly compared to privately owned, small restaurants. booooooohooooooooooooo
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
You don't say!
Next thing you know the government will have us all weigh in BMI taken and issue sanctions against each of us who exceed the governments requirements
LOL
Fellows
Your post is absolutely unintelligible to me, both grammatically and semantically.
Originally posted by bunge
I think schools need to start teaching nutrition at an early age, that's all. The labels are a good idea if there's the education to use them. Otherwise they might as well be written in chinese. So don't get rid of labels, but teach people how to use them. Once we do that the labels actually become fairly powerful. Hopefully.
I'm not sure what else can be done. We've had huge educational campaigns on labels and pyramids, and like others have said, it's really just common sense.
Originally posted by BR
That's because labels are misleading. Want to make your shitty snack only have 100 calories? Increase the servings per container. What a crock. The calories for the whole bag of chips should be listed along side the servings. The American public is too f'in dumb to multiply.
Serving sizes are controlled - they can't just increase the servings per package arbitrarily. That used to be a problem, but the new serving sizes are actually fairly reasonable.
Furthermore, people think that if something is low fat or fat free they can eat all they want. That's utter bullshit. Fat free foods still have calories. If you consume more calories than you burn you gain weight. Hell, if all you do is consume pure lard but consume less calories than you burn, you will lose weight on the 100% fat diet.
What you say is absolutely correct. The diet book industry fights against the common sense "calories make you fat" with all their "eat anything you want and still lose weight" crap.
But the (depressing) point I was trying to make is that information alone doesn't seem to change behavior when the incentives are so strong otherwise - if you dump very high-calorie, good-tasting, cheap, and easily and quickly available food on the market, people are going to get fat, no matter what kind of information they have. We like to believe that we can structure our society's incentives any way we want, with as trashy a culture as possible, tons o' guns, cheap cigs, etc. etc., and as long as people are well-informed, it'll all turn out alright. Sadly, that just appears to be empirically false. I wish it weren't false, but I think it's clear that it is.
Originally posted by BRussell
But the (depressing) point I was trying to make is that information alone doesn't seem to change behavior when the incentives are so strong otherwise - if you dump very high-calorie, good-tasting, cheap, and easily and quickly available food on the market, people are going to get fat, no matter what kind of information they have.
Well for starters maybe this is only going to be good for those people that care. Perhaps natural selection will help with the rest. Housing laws only effect those that care to buy a home, so I guess this will be the same.
Twinkie eaters will still eat twinkies. People that go to Chipotle thinking they're getting a healthy meal will now think twice. That's a good thing.
Cigarette makers should be required to list all of their ingredients as well.