This is INSANE

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shannow next time your in town eat at Au Lac in Dickson. It will change your whole concept of food. Did for us and the mother-in-law. We only eat organic anyway so weree way in frot of average Joes as the Americans say. Canberra Region Farmers Market is a mind blower. Lazy people buy at supermarkets, we don't. The U.S has fantasic farmers markets I read about them a lot. Find your nearest and use it. If your wife/girlfriend is too lazy go yourself, I do..
 
sprint, I don't think that a framer's market will supply us with a month's worth of food, or we have to drive 120km for a weekly...an advantage of living in the bush I guess.

Better hald is far from lazy...walks the kids 4km daily hunting and gathering at the local shops. We do get good meat from a butcher who does a bit of the slaughtering himself.
 
I sure wan't talking about you. We are blessed in Australia and now Canberra with awesome product. I work for an IT company and you would expect my co-workers would buy superior food but it's the opposite. I've realised people are just plain lazy wherever they live in the Western world. Poor countries actualy eat better than rich countries. Supermarkets are the pits, give 'em a wide berth (if you can).
 
So let me get this right. Several of you (Pablo leading the charge) think it would be a problematic intrusion on the rights of US citizens if the government passed a law that forced restaurants to print the calorie and fat content of menu items right on the menu? Are you guys for real?

jeff
 
This works a lot better for chain restaurants than it does for mom and pops or one off places. I can't imagine requiring every local restaurant or bar or hotdog stand to have this information available. They change menu items often and vendors for things even more often. Portion sizes are inconsistent and change depending on who's working. And many of them don't even have menus, it's printed on a sign on the wall for instance. Anything that they did write down would be pure fiction.

I find this whole idea to be well down on my list of things that matter. I'm pretty sure battered chicken that's deep fried is fattening. Knowing it's calorie content to the nearest calorie, or fat content to the 1/10 of a gram is hardly required for me to know it's probably bad for me...
 
Forced is the key word. I never said anything about "intrusion on the rights of US citizens".

Where is this covered in our federal constitution?

If a restaurant wants to voluntarily publish their nutritional information, fine. If a state wants to pass a state law requiring it, fine.

Why on the menu? To "scare" the ignorant or something?

quote:

Recent consumer choice studies suggest that the effect of nutritional information on diet in FAFH settings may be modest. For example, a Pennsylvania State University study of food intake among normal-weight women found that explaining the concept of energy density (amount of calories per gram of food) and providing nutrition information on labels during meals in a laboratory setting had no impact on subjects’ energy intakes. A restaurant study in England found that providing nutrition information had no effect on overall energy and fat intake of patrons. In fact, the presence of “lower fat” information was associated with fewer restaurant patrons’ selecting the target dish. Another study in an Army cafeteria found no significant difference between sales before and after nutrition labeling for either average “healthy” (labeled, containing less than 15 grams of fat and 100 milligrams of cholesterol per serving) entrée sales or the proportion of healthy entrée to total entrée sales.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/June05/Features/ObesityPolicy.htm

I'm for real! Are you? And I'm not leading any charge - it's sickening that people actually think that such laws will actually improve the health of Americans. There is not one shred of evidence such a law will help - in fact studies have shown the contrary (do a search!) as stated. People eat what they want - because they think it tastes good, or they are hungry, or they are in a hurry - no more "feel good" laws are necessary! The money wasted enforcing such laws is a real drain on the US economy and sometimes even worse they aren't enforced. How stupid are you?
 
Pablo, you nail it!!!
worshippy.gif
 
People typically go out to enjoy the food they normally do not eat on regular bases.
If menu states that the dish I’m about to order has 2000 calories and it taste excellent vs. 800 calories dish with marginal taste, guess what I will order? You are wrong it will be
2000 calories dish.
It is because I go out with my wife ones in 2 weeks. Rest of the time she cooks healthy meals.
 
http://www.totalobscurity.com/mind/news/2003/fastfood-labels.htm

Here is the bill. Pablo the only stupid one appears to be you. So watch who you call stupid.


quote:

A poll released on Tuesday by the Center for Science in the Public Interest - which supports nutritional labelling - suggested that more than two-thirds of Americans support such a move

quote:

The CSPI said many consumers had no idea that typical dinners such as lasagne, burritos and even foods marketed as "low fat" still contain excessive amounts of fat and salt. .

Your out numbered Pablo. I guess you selectively chose a study and concluded it's the end all be all. Just like a true Amsoil rep....good job.

So I guess oil should just say Motor Oil. It shouldnt tell you what specs it meets or whether it's synthetic or API approved? I guess Amsoil should then just put Synthetic Oil for Long Drains. LOL.
 
Obviously a Liberal vs Conservative debate.

Buster you said "People DONT know what they are eating, hence my point in the first place." Most know what they are eating or they are too stupid to care or read the ingredients- thats the way it is.

JHZR2 said it best "As a thinking person, I know that when I go to a restaurant, Im typically NOT getting food that is cooked by mom to be both nutritious and good-tasting... Im getting food thats designed to taste as good as possible while costing as little as possible to make a huge portion to appeal to people."

Horses will literally eat themselves to death if given too much grain. This protectionist mondset that you suggest (IMHO) will do about as much good as putting a sign in front of that Horse as he is eating himself to death.

I'm soo sick of this mentality..its the same mentality that puts 12 warnings and cautions on a 4 ft. step ladder. This country doesn't have long to go.
frown.gif
 
I like to know what I'm eating. I guess the ingrediants shouldn't be posted on the box right? Just trust that the food your eating is good and healthy? Just trust those big corporations right? You would be surprised how many SALADS have over 25 grams of fat. I bet so many people say "Oh I'm just eating healthy today. Just a salad.". Pablo, wake up.

Al, people don't know what they are eating. You would be VERY surprised.

This country will eat and consume itself to death. Conservatives don't conserve a **** thing and the far left liberals are too hung up on regulation. Many assume that people will make better choices on their own and are responsible. My opinion is that most people aren't.

Conservatives want to tell people how to live. See any hypocrisy? But it's not ok for the government to help the consumer against large corporate chains to prove more information? ARE YOU JOKING?

Pablo, next time you buy a stock, just pick it because it looks good. Screw the financials. Who cares about EPS, Cash Flow and Balance Sheet figures. Just buy it because it "tastes good". Lets see how far your mentality goes.
wink.gif


[ June 20, 2006, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: buster ]
 
Buster, its plain and simple. The market rules. If people wanted that info that bad they would get it. You cannot legislate this. Seems to me like you would have more impact joining Richard Simmons and doing some deep knee bends on national tv.
 
Buster, when I go to a restaurant I know that steak has a lot of fat. I know that vegetables have a lot of salt, I know that most blue cheese has a lot of fat. Honestly this is not that difficult. I know as a person that is concerned with healthful living what food is good for me and what is not.

You are thinking that there are people out there that fall between a person like me (that cares) and the overweight person who could care less and wouldn't read or understand the information that you propose in a miolion years.

There are not a lot of people in this middle catagory (IMHO). You may be one of the rare ones. But really I think as a lberal thinking person you believe (and this is certainly your right) that everyone needs Government Help and regulation to survive..and we all need to pay for that.
 
quote:

http://www.totalobscurity.com/mind/news/2003/fastfood-labels.htm

Here is the bill. Pablo the only stupid one appears to be you. So watch who you call stupid.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A poll released on Tuesday by the Center for Science in the Public Interest - which supports nutritional labelling - suggested that more than two-thirds of Americans support such a move
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CSPI said many consumers had no idea that typical dinners such as lasagne, burritos and even foods marketed as "low fat" still contain excessive amounts of fat and salt. .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your (SIC) out numbered Pablo. I guess you selectively chose a study and concluded it's the end all be all. Just like a true Amsoil rep....good job.

So I guess oil should just say Motor Oil. It shouldnt tell you what specs it meets or whether it's synthetic or API approved? I guess Amsoil should then just put Synthetic Oil for Long Drains. LOL.

quote:

US Congress mulls calorie count
Wednesday, 5 November, 2003, 17:37 GMT
BBC News

A bill ordering many chain restaurants to include nutritional information on menus is to be proposed in US Congress.

The bill would require restaurants with at least 20 outlets to show the calorie count of their meals.

Although many chains already provide the information, few display it publicly for customers to see.

Almost two-thirds of Americans are either overweight or obese, according to the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

'Unworkable'

Democratic congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, who is introducing the bill, said the information was essential for people and their health.

"People shouldn't have to dig for [the information]," she told MSNBC News channel.

Under the bill, the nutritional information would be prominently displayed on menus and possibly on food packaging.

However restaurant owners - despite mostly supporting some form of labelling on a voluntary basis - say the system is flawed and patrons already have access to such information.

"It's just completely unworkable," the president of the National Council on Chain Restaurants, Terrie Dort, told the news channel.

"When you get into mandates, you take away the company's options for them to figure out... what's best."

A poll released on Tuesday by the Center for Science in the Public Interest - which supports nutritional labelling - suggested that more than two-thirds of Americans support such a move.

The CSPI said many consumers had no idea that typical dinners such as lasagne, burritos and even foods marketed as "low fat" still contain excessive amounts of fat and salt.

Last month the US Food and Drug Administration also revealed it was investigating proposals to put nutritional labels on restaurant foods.

Buster you truly are an idiot. Just like the other sheep. CSPI has all kinds of misleading "POLLS"

Buster, go back to sleep. That's not a bill, it's a 2003 press report.....and you've yet to make your point that putting this info. in people's faces will improve their health. I have no doubt that a majority of people favor a lot of lousy feel good laws.

Then you bring up Amsoil again. Sort of losing steam aren't you?
 
Funny how they take a skewed poll of probably 5 people in San Fransisco then build their whole argument on a false premise. 3/4ths of Americans could give a rats @ss about this.
 
This thread is out of control. LOL. My last words on this subject are, if people want it, then it should happen. If not enough people want it, then forget about it. Time to move on.
 
quote:

Originally posted by buster:
But even better would be to disclose it on the menu itself.

People still wouldn't likely read it.

No, I think the solution here is obvious:

If you order something, you are to be given a test. You are to be asked how many calories it has, how much fat, how much sodium, etc. and if you don't pass the test, you can't order.

The test can be open-book.
smile.gif
 
I personally think the whole nutritional label idea is misguided. You're encouraging people not to think for themselves and trust the information given to them by whatever entity provides it. Those nutritional labels can be very misleading. Compare the "serving size" with the amount you consume. I think most people would be surprised.

I think the obesity problem is cultural at heart and can't be legislated away. We have way too many laws as it is. We're constantly being offered HUGE amounts of food and are encouraged to consume it at a rapid pace, whether it's at a restaurant, a stadium, a grocery store or whatever. Education is the key and people need to start calling for smaller portions and slowing down their eating. I'm not talking about new laws, either, I'm talking market forces. People need to use their collective clout to encourage food providers to scale things back. Only then will you see things change. You can eat the most nutritious food in the world and still be fat if you're woofing down triple portions all the time.
 
I actually try to buy food that has the most total nutritional content (calories, protein, fat, carbs, vitamins, minerals, etc.) for the money. If I can get 2000 calories in a meal for the same price as 1000, I'd rather save money and get the bigger one, provided the calories are reasonably healthy. Otherwise, I'd just need to eat more later to get the calories I need. Am I strange (or possibly just ridiculously cheap) or does anyone else view food this way?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom