On Sunday’s CBS "60 Minutes," anchor Lesley Stahl began a segment on calorie labeling for fast food by making this alarmist proclamation: "Obesity rates continue to spiral out of control in this country and nutritionists say one main reason is how dependent we've become on eating out." Enter the big government hero:
Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden is in charge of regulating New York City's $11 billion restaurant market...the chains are up against a formidable foe, because Frieden has a record of making big industry bend to his will. He's the one who forced smoking out of city bars and artery-clogging trans fats out of city restaurants. Both those bans spread nationwide, which is also happening with his new crusade.
Frieden’s latest "crusade" is to force big fast food chains nationwide to label the calories of all of their products, which were exempt from doing so. As Stahl explained, "Now, one of the most powerful health officials in the country wants to change that by forcing chain restaurants like McDonald's and Wendy's to spell out exactly how fattening their food is right when you decide what to order."
In addition to Stahl's depiction of obesity as being "out of control," both her and Frieden depicted the average consumers as morons. Frieden condescendingly remarked that, "You might think that tuna salad, because it says it's salad, is healthier." Stahl later introduced Cornell Professor Brian Wansink, a marketing and nutritional expert, who studied mall food courts to monitor people’s calorie consumption from fast food. Stahl summed it up in this way: "He uses the mall as a laboratory, observing the food-court crowd like other scientists study rare tribes." She followed by mentioning that Wansink was also the author of "Mindless Eating." If people really are this dumb, it would make sense to have the government take control.
Apparently, not only are consumers too stupid to know that fast food is fattening, but they are also incapable of using modern technology as well. At least according to Frieden:
What restaurants are doing now is a sham. They're putting information on web sites, and they know perfectly well that very few people see it there. They put it there so they can say they're doing something good.
Taking her cue from Frieden, Stahl pressed Wendy’s spokesperson, Denny Lynch, on the issue:
STAHL: What do you say to parents who are concerned that their children are overweight and they want this information?
LYNCH: I say to them that if you have a computer, log on to our web site, and you can see that information...
STAHL: That's not easy! You're going to go take your kids out to dinner, you've worked all day, and you're going to... you're telling them to go to a computer?
Actually it only took a simple Google search and three clicks, about thirty seconds, to find a printer-friendly Wendy’s nutrition chart. It was precisely because of this on-line information that big fast food became a target, as Stahl admitted: "The chains were singled out because they already publish nutritional information about their food-- the idea being they've already done the calculating." As Lynch accurately pointed out: "In essence, you are penalizing the restaurant chains that are voluntarily providing information to consumers."
Of course for Stahl, the fast food chains were motivated by the same thing that motivates all evil corporations, money:
But what's healthy for consumers may not be healthy for business. In 2003, the chain Ruby Tuesday tried listing calories on its menus and sales dropped. Soon, most calorie numbers vanished. Aren't you truly afraid that, by listing the calories, you're going to lose money?
Viewers will remember that the next time they see a fast food commercial on CBS.
Stahl gave Frieden the final word on the issue, who ended the segment with the same hyped up rhetoric with which it began:
Obesity is a terrible epidemic. We don't understand all the causes of it, but we do know that it is undermining the health of our society in so many ways. We need to take action. This is one measure that we think will make some progress in this area. It's not going to solve the problem, but it's part of a solution.
Meanwhile, government remains power hungry with no sign of getting its fill anytime soon.
Here is the full transcript of the segment:
LESLEY STAHL: Obesity rates continue to spiral out of control in this country and nutritionists say one main reason is how dependent we've become on eating out. When you cook at home, most ingredients in your cupboard have mandatory F.D.A. Nutrition labels, but restaurants are exempt. So when you place your order, you can only guestimate how many calories you'll be putting in your mouth. Now, one of the most powerful health officials in the country wants to change that by forcing chain restaurants like McDonald's and Wendy's to spell out exactly how fattening their food is right when you decide what to order. The idea is gaining support nationwide, but also fierce opposition from the restaurant industry itself. It all started last December, when New York City passed a regulation requiring chain restaurants to post the calories of their food right on their menus or menu boards.
THOMAS FRIEDEN: We think it will encourage people to choose lower-calorie options because that information will be available to them.
STAHL: Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden is in charge of regulating New York City's $11 billion restaurant market. These restaurants do not want to do this.
FRIEDEN: They really hate it.
STAHL: They hate it.
FRIEDEN: There's no question about that.
STAHL: Now, most of the chains have the nutritional information somewhere.
FRIEDEN: Usually on a web site hidden somewhere, or on the package liner or the tray liner after you've bought the product.
STAHL: Why isn't that enough? If you care about the calories, you can find out.
FRIEDEN: No one is going to check a web site, then go to the local burger joint and decide what to buy. People do look at the menu board. The menu board is the most prominent thing within a fast food restaurant.
STAHL: The regulation would cover mainly big chains like the colonel, the king and the clown. McDonald's?
FRIEDEN: Absolutely.
STAHL: K.F.C.?
FRIEDEN: Yep.
STAHL: Starbucks?
FRIEDEN: Yep.
STAHL: He wants people to see, as they order, that some combo meals, like this one from Burger King, pack 2,200 calories-- more calories than many adults need in a day. Some Starbucks drinks are more fattening than Big Macs. And even what seems good for you might be anything but.
FRIEDEN: You might think that tuna salad, because it says it's salad, is healthier. But you might see it's many more calories than a roast beef sandwich. And you might prefer the roast beef sandwich, too. You were having the tuna salad because you thought it was healthy.
STAHL: Brian Wansink is a nutrition and marketing professor at Cornell.
BRIAN WANSINK: Would you mind if I ask you a few questions?
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: No.
STAHL: He uses the mall as a laboratory, observing the food- court crowd like other scientists study rare tribes.
WANSINK: Well, how many calories do you think is in that?
UNIDENTIFED WOMAN B: I have no idea.
STAHL: Wansink, who even wrote a book called "Mindless Eating," finds that people always underestimate calories, but they get it especially wrong when they're eating something they think is healthy. Today, he's concentrating on meals from Subway...
SUBWAY COMMERCIAL ANNOUNCER: This is Jared.
STAHL: ... Which markets itself as the healthy fast-food alternative.
JARED: So he created the Subway diet.
STAHL: Here, he asked people to estimate the calories of an especially caloric combo: A foot-long Subway with mayo, chips and juice.
WANSINK: Now, for this, you estimated that it had about 300 calories.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Right.
WANSINK: In reality, it has 1,390.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Wow.
WANSINK: It's 1,390 calories.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN C: Oh, goodness, God.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN B: That's more than half you eat in... you're supposed to eat in a day, yeah?
WANSINK: Yeah, it is. When people are eating in a restaurant that they think is healthy, people grossly underestimate how much they eat by about 50%.
STAHL: So, they eat much more than they think they're eating?
WANSINK: By about twice as much. That mayonnaise you ate probably was not healthy. The extra cookie you ate probably wasn't that healthy. The chips probably weren't that healthy. Well, let's say, for instance, that we would have had the calories listed on the menu when you ordered something like that. Would that influence what you ordered?
UNIDENTIFIED MAN C: Absolutely. I don't think I would have gotten it. I mean, 1,350 calories for a Subway. I mean...
STAHL: The calorie labeling in New York would not apply to calorie Meccas like Chinese restaurants, delis, and fancy French bistros. The chains were singled out because they already publish nutritional information about their food-- the idea being they've already done the calculating. Wendy's spokesperson Denny Lynch say's that's unfair.
DENNY LYNCH: In essence, you are penalizing the restaurant chains that are voluntarily providing information to consumers.
STAHL: But if you weren't already providing it, you were exempt?
LYNCH: Yes.
STAHL: The industry feels you're picking on the chains because they were doing something positive, and they get whacked for it.
FRIEDEN: We're saying, if you're doing it, put it where people will actually see it. Empower your consumers.
STAHL: But what's healthy for consumers may not be healthy for business. In 2003, the chain Ruby Tuesday tried listing calories on its menus and sales dropped. Soon, most calorie numbers vanished. Aren't you truly afraid that, by listing the calories, you're going to lose money?
LYNCH: Absolutely not.
STAHL: Not?
LYNCH: If we were afraid to provide the information, why would we voluntarily provide it?
FRIEDEN: What restaurants are doing now is a sham. They're putting information on web sites, and they know perfectly well that very few people see it there. They put it there so they can say they're doing something good.
STAHL: What do you say to parents who are concerned that their children are overweight and they want this information?
LYNCH: I say to them that if you have a computer, log on to our web site, and you can see that information...
STAHL: That's not easy! You're going to go take your kids out to dinner, you've worked all day, and you're going to... you're telling them to go to a computer?
LYNCH: We think that the poster is a good solution.
STAHL: The poster-- last year, Wendy's introduced a poster with lots of nutritional numbers, calories amongst them. But as opposed to other displays in bright colors, the poster is drab and easy to miss.
LYNCH: If people are interested in calories or they're interested in...
STAHL: But what if they're not interested in calories?
LYNCH: They're probably not going to look anywhere for it. If they're not interested...
STAHL: Well, if it's on the menu board, there it is. They won't have to look for it.
LYNCH: If you can provide accurate information.
STAHL: He says that because Americans love to customize, adding cheese or extra mayo, providing accurate information is nearly impossible and would certainly take the fast out of fast food. He showed us a Wendy's menu board that lists the combos.
LYNCH: Well, at Wendy's, we offer five substitutions for the fries, and then three types of drinks. So you can order a combo 234 different ways.
STAHL: Oh, my God. He then showed us what it would look like.
LYNCH: And, obviously, it's... no one can read it, and you would have to see this from eight feet away.
STAHL: Let me see. This is... this is absurd. Oh, my gosh. This problem isn't unique to Wendy's. Consider Starbucks, where you can order drinks 87,000 different ways. A cup of joe can be five calories, but order a vente white chocolate mocha, add milk and whipped cream, and it nears 800 calories. Dunkin' Donuts made a mocked-up menu board to show Commissioner Frieden it would be unreadable.
FRIEDEN: This is what they said they would have to do.
STAHL: Okay. Well, that is pretty tiny, and I think, if I were in the store and that was way up high, I would have trouble seeing it.
FRIEDEN: Very hard to read. So, we asked our print shop at the Health Department, couldn't you do this more clearly? And in just a couple of hours, they came back with this.
STAHL: ( Laughs ) So, this is from your own... oh, man! And that has all the same information on it?
FRIEDEN: All the same information. No different.
STAHL: While the battle of the mock-ups was being waged, Subway decided to do it for real. Over the summer, they began posting calorie values on their menu boards in New York City. Bill Schetinni, head of marketing at Subway, came with me to order my first calorie-informed sub. Oh, I can really see the calories. It's very clear. The board is not cluttered, but would it reflect my order? Roast chicken, listed at 310 calories. I want a foot-long Italian bread. But the calorie number on the board is for a six-inch sub, so I need to double the number in my head. Where do I see calories on the bread?
BILL SCHETTINI: Hold on. The calories on the bread are figured into the sandwich.
STAHL: I got it, okay. I want mayo. I like mayo. Good. Now, how do I check on my calories?
SCHETTINI: That kicks it up 110 more calories.
STAHL: Where do I see that?
SCHETTINI: Well, it would be on the sneeze-guard cling back here.
STAHL: The sneeze-guard cling was a separate posting. But where was the mayo?
SCHETTINI: Sorry, it's not in there, but it is in the brochure.
STAHL: Already, I'm confused. My sandwich actually came in at over 700 calories. No matter how you slice it, complying could take the fast, out of fast food. But Subway's determined to try, unlike the rest of the industry, which argues calorie labeling is not only confusing, it's downright condescending to you, the customer.
LYNCH: We've given you the option to find this information, to look up this information, to use this information. You're telling me that you're not taking the choice, but that is your choice.
STAHL: But the chains are up against a formidable foe, because Frieden has a record of making big industry bend to his will. He's the one who forced smoking out of city bars and artery- clogging trans fats out of city restaurants. Both those bans spread nationwide, which is also happening with his new crusade. Do you think you're going to have to go in and fight this in Seattle, in California and in the other states that are now seeming to want to have their own regulations like this?
LYNCH: We are engaged in conversations in each one of those markets because...
STAHL: Separately.
LYNCH: Separately.
STAHL: And so, for the chains, it's war, which they're fighting with lawyers and lobbyists. In California, the industry convinced Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto menu labeling, calling it impractical. And in New York, the State Restaurant Association successfully sued to stop calories from going up on the board because the city had singled out those voluntarily providing the information. But Dr. Frieden is now rewriting the regulation and is certain it will pass.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN D: Okay, tasty meal with cheese. Big Mac meal.
STAHL: There's still the ultimate question: Will the menu board labeling work? Professor Wansink says his research shows there's a possibility it could backfire. Do you ever see people ordering the low-fat meal, main course, and then saying, well, I didn't eat anything, and then ordering a hot fudge sundae for dessert as if...
WANSINK: ( Chuckles ) Oh yeah, absolutely. And actually, this is called calorie compensation.
STAHL: Oh, there's a name for this.
WANSINK: Yes, yes. And... and what happens is you think you're doing yourself good, and so you reward yourself later on. So, for instance...
STAHL: People do that?
WANSINK: Absolutely, they do. If they believe they ate this nice, healthy lunch, they're more likely to eat snacks and eat more calories of it later on in the day.
STAHL: There's little scientific evidence that posting calories will make people eat less, but Commissioner Frieden says it's worth the try and, he says, there's the shame factor. He hopes that restaurants will be embarrassed into being more responsible.
FRIEDEN: Obesity is a terrible epidemic. We don't understand all the causes of it, but we do know that it is undermining the health of our society in so many ways. We need to take action. This is one measure that we think will make some progress in this area. It's not going to solve the problem, but it's part of a solution.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
There seems to be a ramp up
November 19, 2007 - 17:58 ET by Chris NormanThere seems to be a ramp up of the "America is obese" stories lately in the media. I guess now they've exhausted the smoking issue (for the time being), their "caring" eyes have turned elsewhere. Those caring eyes never seem to tire, looking for some behavior to regulate, for people's "own good"...
Just a matter of time...
November 19, 2007 - 18:15 ET by arbin82With the switch from the smokers to obesity I wonder when the libs will try to begin to "tax" big fast food. Think of the windfall of new programs that could be instituted and how ironically bloated the government can get off of fast food taxes...mmmmm government...
Oh, I'm sure that's in the
November 19, 2007 - 18:22 ET by Chris NormanOh, I'm sure that's in the hopper, ready to be excreted, at some point. The proposal to ban new fast food restaurants in South Central LA is just the first of the 6th grade social studies class - type proposals to combat the "crisis".
First They Came For The Smokers
November 19, 2007 - 17:44 ET by misterbee241I have a rather excentric friend who wanted to build a wall around his house, about 12 feet high with razor wire and spot lights on top and gun ports all around. I used to think him a little nuts in a harmless kind of way, but now that I've gotten older, and I'm one of those dangerous obese Americans, I can certainly see his point. He wasnt excentric, just ahead of his time.
First they came for the smokers but I wasnt a smoker so I didnt speak up...
Obesity
November 19, 2007 - 17:49 ET by MichiganManYes, according to the government more than half the nation is over weight or even obese. The obesity obsession seemed to have started around the time the Body Mass Index was widely introduced. They have some small form you fill in on a web page with your height and weight and it spits out your BMI. My BMI is 26 or 27. Makes me over weight, right? I am six feet tall and weigh around 190 plus or minus five pounds or so and I am 48 years old. My body fat hovers in the 10 - 15% range (pretty good for a person my age), but I would be considered in the over weight category by the MSM. I would guess that if they actually went out and measured people instead of using this inane measurement, the obesity "epidemic" would be cut in half.
BMI is flawed
November 19, 2007 - 19:09 ET by taterall the bmi takes into account is height and weight...it doesn't take into account what that weight is...fat or muscle.
I'm 6'4" and 220...I work out everyday and probably have way more muscle than fat, BMI says I'm overweight at 27.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
My main point about BMI is...
November 20, 2007 - 15:20 ET by MichiganManthat it is often the only measure used when talking about the obesity "epidemic" and it, as you said is a flawed measurment. It is simple to keep your weight under control, work out regularly or at least be active and watch your portion size.
Too many calories in + not enough activity to burn them = Large waist size.
Funny how the Libs are the
November 19, 2007 - 17:55 ET by mattmFunny how the Libs are the ones who claim to be the champions of individual freedom, yet they are the first ones to restrict it. You can't legislate morality, they say, but you can sure regulate the crap out of almost every aspect of people's lives...
Sure you can regulate
November 19, 2007 - 18:43 ET by misterbee241Sure you can regulate morality. It's immoral to kill, steal, rape, etc and all those things are illegal.
Pretty soon a Big Mac meal will rate up there as immoral and pretty soon illegal.
Yep...we normal everyday
November 19, 2007 - 17:57 ET by bigtimerYep...we normal everyday people are so dumb we need the nanny state to make sure and take care of us...regular everyday exercise and common sense meals are something we all don't know we should have if you have an IQ of room temperature.
Yep...people are going to walk into a KFC, Taco Time or McDonalds to rush over to the wall and read the calories posted for what they already know they want...
Yesiree....trial lawyers having been trying for years to have class action lawsuits...they are who really want to benefit.
Just like tobacco....
Our grandparents and beyond have to be shaking their heads with sadness at this babyfied, sissified, nanny state nation we are becoming in more ways than one.
Patriot Act Tommy Frieden
November 19, 2007 - 18:17 ET by Lame CherryTommy Frieden is health terrorist plain and simple. He extorts money and compliance from American industry and citizens in no different form than Hamas putting the leverage on Fatah.
All of these food and smoking industries should simply file lawsuits under the Patriot Act on this entire lot from Henry Pig Nose Waxman to this terrorist Frieden.
The United States has a few words, "LIFE, LIBERTY and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS". One is at liberty in their life to smoke till they turn blue in the pursuit of cigarettes, snoose and cigars. I would never touch them and have never taken one bit of dope in my life........but that is what the Constitution says.
In additional points, you will never once hear Frieden EVER TALK ABOUT REAL HEALTH KILLERS in all the hybrid corn, soy and rape seed flooding the markets with nitrites and nitrates added AS IT IS HIS ROCKEFELLER bosses who control that bio ag industry poisoning Americans with auto immune diseases based in these engineered "foods".
Second point: I would really like Newsbustsers to POINT OUT THE POISONOUS FOODS COMING INTO AMERICA which Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, the Democrats and our cartel buddies in Rockefeller and Rothschild are poisoning us with right now.
The basis is Rothschild of the European cartels have now bought up loads of India land which is poisoned with arsenic..........AND ARE EXPORTING THE TAINTED VEGETABLES TO THE UNITED STATES with high levels of arsenic.
Gee Frieden never says one word about this........I WONDER WHY??????????
America is being food terrorized by these Frieden types. Implement the Patriot Act and arrest them.
Friday, November 2nd, 2007...6:52 pm
World food supply will be rooted in India’s troubled soil
http://parallelnormal.com/2007/11/02/from-india-to-your-dinnerplate/
The Rothschild family is pushing Indian produce onto the global
market. Also: How Evelyn met Lynn, at Bilderberg, with a little help
from Henry.
Whose peas are these? Many of the Rothschild’s Indian farms are in
areas where arsenic has poisoned much of the soil and groundwater.
Tomatoes and carrots from Rajasthan.
Zucchini and baby corn from Kashipur.
Europeans and the Japanese will soon be eating Western-variety
vegetables, grown in parts of India where people get sick just from
drinking the water.
The Rothschild family is preparing to make India one of the world’s
largest exporters of produce, at costs likely to push native farmers
in many countries off the farm.
In a fawning, almost surreal, October interview with Lynn Forester de
Rothschild (see link and excerpt, below), Condé Nast Portfolio reports
the Rothschild family plans to “grow and export Indian fruits and
vegetables for markets in Europe and Asia.”
The Portfolio interviewer, Lloyd Grove, also relates how Lady de
Rothschild first met her husband, Sir Evelyn Rothschild. Henry
Kissinger, Grove writes, brought the two together at the 1998
Bilderberg meeting.
Japan and the the United States already serve as test markets for
Indian produce.
India exports tens of thousands of tons of mangoes annually to Japan, as well as Britain and other European countries.
The United States in May began accepting shipments of irradiated
mangoes from India–the first U.S. imports of irradiated fruit.
Also, USDA-certified organic food products–grown in India and
certified by Indian agents, mind you–will soon be flowing into the
U.S., according to the U.S. State Department.
The Rothschilds’ Indian produce firm, FieldFresh Foods, is leasing
tens of thousands of acres throughout India, including some in areas
where arsenic has poisoned the soil and groundwater. The company
predicts it will be growing on 100,000 acres by 2010.
Field Fresh says its operations comply with multiple food safety
standards, but enforcement in developing countries is notoriously
weak.
Some Indian scientists, meanwhile, are trying to develop genetically
modified rice and other vegetables that will absorb less arsenic from
contaminated soil and irrigation systems.
______________________________
World According to …
by Lloyd Grove
Lynn Forester de Rothschild
the chief executive of E.L. Rothschild, the holding company that she owns with her third husband to manage investments in the Economist and various enterprises in India. Those include FieldFresh, http://www.fieldfresh.in/ a startup that will grow and export Indian fruits and vegetables for markets in Europe and Asia
____________________________
FluxRostrum
http://mobilebroadcastnews.com/
November 7th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Monsanto vs Schmeiser
Canadian Farmer sued by Monsanto for growing GMO canola without a liscense. In reality, Monsanto INFECTED his canola with cross pollination; he was unaware of the gene rape and was an unwilling participant.
video
http://fluxrostrum.blogspot.com/2005/06/biotech-2005-percy-schmeiserfarmer.html
other farmers speak about GMO food production
http://fluxrostrum.blogspot.com/2005/06/biotech-2005-farmers-speak-outand.html
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
I somehow was able to
November 19, 2007 - 18:19 ET by rimskyI somehow was able to endure this entire segment last night.. barely..
Frieden needs to stay the hell outta of our restaurants. Especially the ones that have voluntarily displayed nutritional data, either in their stores or online. How arrogant can he get, and what an absoulute slap in the face to the Wendy's and Mac's of the world for actually DOING something. I'll be the first to admit that the menus at these fast food joints is not in all ways healthy. BUT... I can also proudly say that it has been MY CHOICE to avoid fast food almost all the time, for years and years, and I know I'm not alone. We don't need the help of some uptight socialist like Frieden whose only real objective is to build a resume for higher office, any damn way he can.
Fatness
November 19, 2007 - 18:54 ET by FranksamFrieden claims expertise, but states that we don't know all the causes of it.Well, how about if you consume more calories than you burn, you'll gain weight? Do that on a chronic basis, and you'll become obese. Are there actually any other causes?
Gotta go. It's almost dinner time!
Problems
November 19, 2007 - 18:57 ET by JDWDo you realize what an epidemic success in Iraq has created?
What kind of market effects will we see if a lib is elected and taxes are changed and investors are forced to sell short?
Think ahead and ask yourself what an infection socialized medicine will created for the libs broad based trial attorneys.
Obviously our constitutional freedoms are being denied. Evidence is being withheld and that's lying, it's illegal.
DNA decides how one's body will react to food/fat/cholesterol... Many people can eat as they so chose without worrying about big government lies.
When will second hand cholesterol be introduced?
JDW
Sen Clinton: Distinguished Founder of Media Matters
For those who want the info
November 19, 2007 - 19:03 ET by ChaitealoverA good website to check the nutrition info for a lot of fast food restaurants is:
http://www.dietfacts...
Select "Restaurants" from the list across the top, then there's an alphabetized list of restaurants. Click on the one you're interested in and it brings up the restaurant's menu listing. Click on the item you're interested in and it shows you a page that looks like a nutrition label from a package. There is a separate listing for brand name foods. They even list "unofficial points" for the Weight Watchers among us.
Chai
In explaining any puzzling Washington phenomenon, always choose stupidity over conspiracy, incompetence over cunning. Anything else gives them too much credit. Charles Krauthammer
Labels
November 19, 2007 - 19:03 ET by jmad627Does anyone really read these labels? I for one don't. If these changes come to fruition, the fast food restaurants will probably raise the prices by a nickel or a dime to cover the expenses of all for additional printing.
I do
November 19, 2007 - 21:05 ET by ChaitealoverI read the labels to learn the amount of sodium and fat the item contains because I have hypertension and try to keep my intake of both low. Or at least 'spend' my daily allotment on something that tastes good :o)
Chai
In explaining any puzzling Washington phenomenon, always choose stupidity over conspiracy, incompetence over cunning. Anything else gives them too much credit. Charles Krauthammer
Stop eating out and elect a dem
November 19, 2007 - 20:24 ET by acumenOther commenters have disected the government nanny state promotion this piece brings to mind much better than I. However, something fishy (grilled - only 140 calories/serving) caught my attention at the very beginning of the article.
".....how dependent we've become on eating out." followed by; "New York City's $11 billion restaurant market..."
Not bad for an economy that has supposedly been teetering on the brink of an inflationary disaster for the last 7 years (who became Prez then?), a housing bubble promised to burst any second now and gas prices so out of control talking heads of major news organizations are searching for loans simply to keep their limo gas tanks fed (which has always made me wonder what they must do to cop some aviation fuel for jetsetting about).
And what about poor gramps who is forced to choose between dog food and prescriptions because of our premium addiction to eating out? Or was that because of callous conservative indifference?
Regardless, if we're going to push this doom and gloom economy to get Herself in the White House, you people are going to have to quit spending billions on eating out.
Let's assume it's true that
November 19, 2007 - 20:40 ET by motherbeltLet's assume it's true that obesity is a nationwide problem. And it probably is true. They say more and more of us are overweight. The movie theaters have started making their seats bigger; clothing in 3X is easy to find now, and look at how many huge people you see in stores riding on those carts simply because they are so big it's hard to walk. I heard not long ago that some Congressman wants to add obesity to list of disabilities.
That being said, regulation is not the answer.
Fast food places serve huge portions because that's what people want (more for the money?). We have more fat free food in this country than anyone can imagine, and still we (as a country) keep getting fatter, because people eat more of it, thinking fat-free is guilt free. They don't realize those fat-free cookies are loaded with more sugar to make up for it. Look at the label- the fat-free cookie probably has only 20 calories fewer than the regular; yet people will eat 3 or 4 instead of 1 because they are "fat free."
If they regulate the size of a hamburger, people will just order two. People don't realize that you can't eat twice as much fatfree frozen yogurt as ice cream. We all know the drill, we can all come up with similar examples, so I won't go on about that any more.
For these reasons, the answer has to be education, education, education. Until people change the way they eat, the restaurants won't change what they serve.
Although I don't believe in government regulating it, I for one, wish restaurants would allow you to order the smaller lunch-size serving at suppertime too...most don't. And I wish they would cut the size of the regular serving and reduce the price; or at least offer a smaller-size portion. But I still think the key is education.
Why only pick on restarants
November 19, 2007 - 20:49 ET by MidAmericaWhy only pick on restarants where the 'common' people eat?
Are we to assume algore eats too many times at McDonalds?
Big Business, small business
November 19, 2007 - 21:30 ET by bocaratomI think it's fair to mention that the restaurant industry employs more people in this country(or so I've read) than any other industry. So it's another cash cow for them to indulge in.
"When I'm president I want to take those profits from....(fill in the blank)"
Gov't meddling
November 19, 2007 - 23:54 ET by nkviking75Having the government up to its elbows in our healthcare system (Medicare, Medicaid) gives these tyrants the justification to meddle in these matters, or so they think. Imagine when they have total control over the health care system. Do you suppose obese people will be able to get health care? Will they be pressured into bariatric surgery? Denied bypass operations because their weight contributed to the problem?
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
My cousin was over last
November 20, 2007 - 01:43 ET by fitzfongMy cousin was over last night to watch the Patriots-Bills game. As the game became a blowout, he took the remote and turned the channel. For some reason, he regularly watches this 60 Minutes crapfest on Sunday nights. Anyway, I was subjected to this nauseating little piece. Leslie Stool should be embarrassed by her pathetic little story. The flattering praise she gave this Stalinist creep was simply too rich for words. Of special note was the lame ordering charade she conducted at Subway...the goofy, "surprised" expression when she "realized" that mayonaise added calories and fat. I guess that writers strike even trickles down to West 57th.