 |
New York is enacting the newest stage of their Nanny State legislation as regards food along with what and how New Yorkers decide what to have for breakfast, lunch or dinner.
The state of New York has decided all New Yorkers need more information about the caloric content of their dietary intake outside the home. You may eat nothing but deep fried cheese sticks with ranch dressing wrapped in crispy bacon at home, but when you go to a chain restaurant in New York beginning this month you will have the opportunity to choose your meal knowing how many calories that meal is packing.
First was the Great Society and the War on Poverty (WOP) which really updated and revamped Franklin D Roosevelt's New Deal, the next great struggle was the War on Drugs (WOD). Now the opening salvos are being fired in New York over the War on Obesity. (WOO)
The Battle of the Bulging Belly has begun. The new law gives the Health Dept. the ability to issue Notices of Violation which will be tied to fines beginning July 18, 2008.
The depth of the nanny state mentality is shown by part of the language in the new regulation:
1. While some food service establishments (FSE) make calorie information available through websites, posters, wrappers, or tray liners, the new requirements will help enable customers to see this information at the point of purchase, where it can help them make more informed choices.
2. New Yorkers get a third or more of their calories away from home. The lack of readily available calorie information in FSE's makes it easy to consume too many calories without realizing it. Just 100 calories every day adds up to 10 pounds a year. Extra pounds can lead to obesity and diabetes, two major health problems on the rise in New York City as well as heart disease.
The full posting of the regulation is here
All of this s probably a good idea, on a personal level. I'm not disputing the blimpiness of Americans in general. That would be hard not to notice just walking down the street or walking through a mall.
But why in the name of Kirstie Allie and Rosie O'Donnell is it the job of a city government to regulate the eating habits of its citizens ? Or in the case of New York City, its denizens.
The science behind the push toward mandated menu calorie notification is sloppy at best and at its worst is very questionable as regards the efficacy.
Christopher Flavelle from Slate.com did a survey of customers of eateries in Times Square and found that most of the people, even those who read the available information regarding labeling, just didn't care what the calorie counts were. They, as most people might, bought the food they wanted because it was what they wanted to eat! Go figure.
The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, (NLEA) was foisted off on the American public in 1994 by a CONgress with too much time on their hands and too little to do of any real importance apparently.
In the article in Slate is a study by two researchers which found:
nutrition labeling did reduce obesity but only among a single demographic: white, non-Hispanic women. For all other demographics—Hispanic and black women and men of every ethnic group—they found no significant impact after nutrition labeling became required.
which in my not so humble opinion was a given even before the study. White girls paranoid about putting on as little as 8oz. of weight which might make their thong bikini bulge in exactly the wrong place are going to be consumed by angst over all caloric intake. Trying to emulate the Olsen twins, who look like real life stick figures is never easy I suppose, but most especially if a person is actually eating real calories, as opposed to dining on cardboard, crack cocaine and vanity.
The state of Washington is going to take a whack at dietary laws too, not as strict as the ancient Hebrew laws, but with more relevance to today's youth I'm sure.
Julia Patterson is the chairwoman of the board of health in King County, Wash., where menu labeling will go into effect on Jan. 1. Asked whether King County had studied the link between menu labeling and obesity, Patterson rejected the very premise.
"When we made the decision to warn people about the fact that cigarettes can cause cancer on a pack of cigarettes," she said, "nobody demanded that a study be done to determine whether or not that information would have an impact on smoking habits of Americans."
Translation? The state of Washington doesn't care one iota if the new law changes the eating habits of a single person on the entire planet, not to mention anyone in the State of Washington. The concept is simply to plow more money into garbage legislation, allowing an annual growth pattern to a bloated bureaucracy equal to the growth rings on an Old Growth Redwood and making life more difficult for business'.
Meanwhile back in Gotham,
The restaurant industry isn't waiting for the numbers to come in. "They have absolutely no scientific backup for any of their claims," said Chuck Hunt, executive vice president of the New York State Restaurant Association
On the other hand neither do we have indisputable evidence that the planet we live on will be here when tomorrow rolls around, but we still make our plans as if it might at least have a good chance of being there when we fling ourselves out of bed in the morning looking for a place to plant our feet. I for one nearly always set my alarm clock as if it has a chance of being a useful task.
Nanny State, a War on Bulging Bellies, or War on Obesity
WOO
-
It should be left to the individual, but I hope they eat properly.
-
This problem is bigger than just a nanny state.
What class of people are most likely to get obesity related illnesses? The poor.
Who needs to turn to the state for medical care because of illness? The poor.
Why do the poor have diabetes and other obesity related illnesses? Because healthy food is not affordable on many budgets, and they work so much they don't have time to go sweating at the gym.
Calories are going to do shit, if they really want to fight obesity, they will think with thier heads and not thier asses and either do something about food prices OR take some of that money they are pissing away on bridges to nowhere and build community centers with free gyms in every town.
Once you give people the opportunity to live healthier lifestyles, and there is still a huge problem, then you can start other measures. If you don't give people the choices first then you aren't solving anything.
-
@ Samantha A. Torrence
This problem is bigger than just a nanny state.
What class of people are most likely to get obesity related illnesses? The poor.
Who needs to turn to the state for medical care because of illness? The poor.
Why do the poor have diabetes and other obesity related illnesses? Because healthy food is not affordable on many budgets, and they work so much they don't have time to go sweating at the gym.
Calories are going to do shit, if they really want to fight obesity, they will think with thier heads and not thier asses and either do something about food prices OR take some of that money they are pissing away on bridges to nowhere and build community centers with free gyms in every town.
Once you give people the opportunity to live healthier lifestyles, and there is still a huge problem, then you can start other measures. If you don't give people the choices first then you aren't solving anything.
You're contradicting yourself here. First you say "they work so much they don't have time to go sweating at the gym" and then you go on and say that gyms should be built in every town.
And what do you mean by this: "Once you give people the opportunity to live healthier lifestyles, and there is still a huge problem, then you can start other measures. If you don't give people the choices first then you aren't solving anything"
What other measures and why? Whose business is it anyways? Don't you think it's about time government stop dictating how people should live their lives and allow individuals to "free choice?" -
As I understand it, NY consumers continue to enjoy as much choice of products at their local Starbuck's, etc., than they did in the past. Nobody is being forced to order low-fat muffins or the skim-milk lattes. Nobody is being forced to change their eating habits, but anyone who wants a bit more nutrition information before making their purchase now has it readily available to them.
So how exactly does requirement of menu labelling constitute state regulation/dictation of private eating habits? How does it actually interfere with "free choice," if the available range of choices remains precisely the same as before?
If provision of information constitutes such an egregious violation of our personal freedoms, perhaps we should also demand removal of nutrition labels in our cereal boxes, safety warning labels on our kids' toys, and the "made of" tags on our clothes.
-
@ SEAR
As I understand it, NY consumers continue to enjoy as much choice of products at their local Starbuck's, etc., than they did in the past. Nobody is being forced to order low-fat muffins or the skim-milk lattes. Nobody is being forced to change their eating habits, but anyone who wants a bit more nutrition information before making their purchase now has it readily available to them.
So how exactly does requirement of menu labelling constitute state regulation/dictation of private eating habits? How does it actually interfere with "free choice," if the available range of choices remains precisely the same as before?
If provision of information constitutes such an egregious violation of our personal freedoms, perhaps we should also demand removal of nutrition labels in our cereal boxes, safety warning labels on our kids' toys, and the "made of" tags on our clothes.
Don't try logic on the looney toon right. They are the mindless minions of the corporations and find ANY regulation designed to help the consumers signs of an "intolerable nanny state."
Why should ignorance be considered a "right?" No one is forcing anyone to actually read the labels, much less act on them, but the wing nuts think that "ignorance is bliss." -
@ 666divine
You're contradicting yourself here. First you say "they work so much they don't have time to go sweating at the gym" and then you go on and say that gyms should be built in every town.
And what do you mean by this: "Once you give people the opportunity to live healthier lifestyles, and there is still a huge problem, then you can start other measures. If you don't give people the choices first then you aren't solving anything"
What other measures and why? Whose business is it anyways? Don't you think it's about time government stop dictating how people should live their lives and allow individuals to "free choice?"
You are right it is a bit of a contradiction. The difference I am thinking of is that some who do have the opportunity to go can't afford it. Also a community center would help by allowing parents to bring children to have fun, so it can serve as a family thing. Many times people don't have time because they have to take care of thier children. This would help immensly. Being in the situation myself I think I am spot on with one way to help fight obesity.But honestly that is the only thing that can be done unless you want real restriction.
The other measures I talk about is giving people information like caloric intake. Sorry but giving people information is not infringing on anyone's rights.
And if people want to live with free choice, they can't expect me to pay for thier mistakes. While we have state insurance for the poor we are paying for them. That means as sucky as it is, that there are conditions for societal help. So in this case, if you are relying on the government, the government is in control of you. I would rather the government focus on things that actually help people being independant. I stopped too soon on my rant, but going back, you can't fight obesity if you don't fight poverty. And you can't fight poverty by throwing money at it that is just used and then gone. You need stable solutions. The current welfare system is not helping anyone get ahead and make thier own choices.
The government regulating so much is the cause of the ills we have at this point. However, you can't just drop everything and press reset as much I would like that. So you need to think of regulations that can actually help promote self sufficiency instead of hurting it like the current system does. -
@ SEAR
As I understand it, NY consumers continue to enjoy as much choice of products at their local Starbuck's, etc., than they did in the past. Nobody is being forced to order low-fat muffins or the skim-milk lattes. Nobody is being forced to change their eating habits, but anyone who wants a bit more nutrition information before making their purchase now has it readily available to them.
So how exactly does requirement of menu labelling constitute state regulation/dictation of private eating habits? How does it actually interfere with "free choice," if the available range of choices remains precisely the same as before?
If provision of information constitutes such an egregious violation of our personal freedoms, perhaps we should also demand removal of nutrition labels in our cereal boxes, safety warning labels on our kids' toys, and the "made of" tags on our clothes.
Sear, it does hurt restaurant businesses. The cost of making new menues, of having each meal calculated for caloric intake, etc. There is also the slippery slope issue. Once they have calories placed out there for all to see, what is next, will the government tell a private business that they can only cook things under so many calories? It does infringe on the operation of businesses, that affect the restaurant owners all the way down to the employee. -
@ lensman67
Don't try logic on the looney toon right. They are the mindless minions of the corporations and find ANY regulation designed to help the consumers signs of an "intolerable nanny state."
Why should ignorance be considered a "right?" No one is forcing anyone to actually read the labels, much less act on them, but the wing nuts think that "ignorance is bliss."
I hope you're not grouping me in with the "looney toon right." I don't think there is anything wrong with placing labels on products. But in referrance to "nanny state" I was thinking what happened when warning labels were first put on cigarette packages and of the chain reaction. -
@ Samantha A. Torrence
You are right it is a bit of a contradiction. The difference I am thinking of is that some who do have the opportunity to go can't afford it. Also a community center would help by allowing parents to bring children to have fun, so it can serve as a family thing. Many times people don't have time because they have to take care of thier children. This would help immensly. Being in the situation myself I think I am spot on with one way to help fight obesity.But honestly that is the only thing that can be done unless you want real restriction.
The other measures I talk about is giving people information like caloric intake. Sorry but giving people information is not infringing on anyone's rights.
And if people want to live with free choice, they can't expect me to pay for thier mistakes. While we have state insurance for the poor we are paying for them. That means as sucky as it is, that there are conditions for societal help. So in this case, if you are relying on the government, the government is in control of you. I would rather the government focus on things that actually help people being independant. I stopped too soon on my rant, but going back, you can't fight obesity if you don't fight poverty. And you can't fight poverty by throwing money at it that is just used and then gone. You need stable solutions. The current welfare system is not helping anyone get ahead and make thier own choices.
The government regulating so much is the cause of the ills we have at this point. However, you can't just drop everything and press reset as much I would like that. So you need to think of regulations that can actually help promote self sufficiency instead of hurting it like the current system does.
Yep, the poor do not have the luxury of getting ill. -
@ Samantha:
"Sear, it does hurt restaurant businesses..."
Yes, there are added costs to businesses, but they are mostly one-time only, and they are generally modest (especially as the NY bylaw applies only to chains with 15+ outlets). As well, many implicated businesses already test their products' nutritional content (only to post the info in less-than-convenient places, e.g., websites) and thus won't incur any additional lab-test costs.
As to the slippery slope point, that's indeed something to be considerate of when designing and implementing new policies, but in itself it needn't (and shouldn't) be a deal-breaker. Otherwise, any proposed policy/regulation/law (whether pro-gun/anti-gun, pro-abortion/anti-abortion, pro-regulation/anti-regulation, etc.) would be easily derailed by taking the "well, if X happens, then eventually Y will happen" argument to absurd extremes.
"It does infringe on the operation of businesses..."
No doubt, but the real question is, are they unduly infringed? As a society, which shall we privilege and prioritize--the interests of businesses or the interests of consumers? Have nutrition labels on boxes of crackers and cartons of juice unduly infringed on the operations of Nabisco and Tropicana, or do these companies just consider them the costs of doing business?
-
@ Samantha A. Torrence
You are right it is a bit of a contradiction. The difference I am thinking of is that some who do have the opportunity to go can't afford it. Also a community center would help by allowing parents to bring children to have fun, so it can serve as a family thing. Many times people don't have time because they have to take care of thier children. This would help immensly. Being in the situation myself I think I am spot on with one way to help fight obesity.But honestly that is the only thing that can be done unless you want real restriction.
The other measures I talk about is giving people information like caloric intake. Sorry but giving people information is not infringing on anyone's rights.
And if people want to live with free choice, they can't expect me to pay for thier mistakes. While we have state insurance for the poor we are paying for them. That means as sucky as it is, that there are conditions for societal help. So in this case, if you are relying on the government, the government is in control of you. I would rather the government focus on things that actually help people being independant. I stopped too soon on my rant, but going back, you can't fight obesity if you don't fight poverty. And you can't fight poverty by throwing money at it that is just used and then gone. You need stable solutions. The current welfare system is not helping anyone get ahead and make thier own choices.
The government regulating so much is the cause of the ills we have at this point. However, you can't just drop everything and press reset as much I would like that. So you need to think of regulations that can actually help promote self sufficiency instead of hurting it like the current system does.
Community centers provided by whom, Mrs. Torrence? -
Sear,
I agree about the slippery slope, I personally don't really like using that argument very often. It depends on how steep the slope is. In this case I see it as a gentle slope that a sled ride would be slow and not so fun on. Still if you don't at least try to cover your bases there are people who attempt to stick you.
I think asking for calories to be put on menus isn't horrid or anything. However there are more important things that can be done IMO.
-
@ Jedediah Redman
Community centers provided by whom, Mrs. Torrence?
Jed hun, What would you rather have your taxpayer dollars spent on, a bridge to an island with 50 people on it or a community center? -
Remember who you're talking to.
I think taxes are a cool way to a better life for all of us.
I had been of the opinion that you and TAT were in favor of using them to bring democracy to Iraq...
-
@ Samantha A. Torrence
Jed hun, What would you rather have your taxpayer dollars spent on, a bridge to an island with 50 people on it or a community center?
Depends on whose island it is. :)
Sorry Sam I couldn't resist and you know I am joking. -
@ Samantha A. Torrence
Sear,
I agree about the slippery slope, I personally don't really like using that argument very often. It depends on how steep the slope is. In this case I see it as a gentle slope that a sled ride would be slow and not so fun on. Still if you don't at least try to cover your bases there are people who attempt to stick you.
I think asking for calories to be put on menus isn't horrid or anything. However there are more important things that can be done IMO.
What is more important than truth in packaging, Mrs. Torrence? -
The question too hard to answer Jed? When you find your guts and can answer a simple question, I may just answer yours. =)
you see I don't know who I am talking to, you have made it very difficult to tell who is who anymore. If your answer is that either would be fine, then cool.
-
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
Depends on whose island it is. :)
Sorry Sam I couldn't resist and you know I am joking.
lol -
@ Jedediah Redman
What is more important than truth in packaging, Mrs. Torrence?
When it comes to congress, state or otherwise, legislating there are other things that are more important than asking someone to redo a menu. There I threw ya a bone. =) -
What is more important than truth in packaging, Mrs. Torrence?
Get that flamin' radical outta here!
Seriously, if it's got people thinking and talking about it more, it can't be a bad thing. As big a culprit, I suspect, is the sedentary lifestyle many have fallen into. While diet is extremely important, I imagine we're able to absorb all sorts of junk if we maintain a certain level of physical activity. -
@ skeptikool
Get that flamin' radical outta here!
Seriously, if it's got people thinking and talking about it more, it can't be a bad thing. As big a culprit, I suspect, is the sedentary lifestyle many have fallen into. While diet is extremely important, I imagine we're able to absorb all sorts of junk if we maintain a certain level of physical activity.
We definitely wouldn't be as susceptible to disease if we were more active and ate better. =) -
@ Samantha A. Torrence
Sear,
I agree about the slippery slope, I personally don't really like using that argument very often. It depends on how steep the slope is. In this case I see it as a gentle slope that a sled ride would be slow and not so fun on. Still if you don't at least try to cover your bases there are people who attempt to stick you.
I think asking for calories to be put on menus isn't horrid or anything. However there are more important things that can be done IMO.
as Will used to say, "Thereib doeth lie the rub"
Why is a city government spending tx $$ on this when there are still potholes to fill? -
@ lensman67
Don't try logic on the looney toon right. They are the mindless minions of the corporations and find ANY regulation designed to help the consumers signs of an "intolerable nanny state."
Why should ignorance be considered a "right?" No one is forcing anyone to actually read the labels, much less act on them, but the wing nuts think that "ignorance is bliss."
Nope, The people who want labeling can get it through a Business model is not the same.
Let business do business, and let the gov. stay out of the way, all customers will be served with what they are looking for. -
@ Samantha A. Torrence
The question too hard to answer Jed? When you find your guts and can answer a simple question, I may just answer yours. =)
you see I don't know who I am talking to, you have made it very difficult to tell who is who anymore. If your answer is that either would be fine, then cool.
Not to worry about guts, Mrs. Torrence. It is brains we're really talking about.
I said what I meant to say... -
Well we all know where men keep thier brains. =P
Guess we can't fault you.
-
@ Gar Swaffar
as Will used to say, "Thereib doeth lie the rub"
Why is a city government spending tx $$ on this when there are still potholes to fill?
I don't think Will said anything like that. -
@ Samantha A. Torrence
Well we all know where men keep thier brains. =P
Guess we can't fault you.
Just go out and watch traffic for awhile.
It won't be that long before another catchy bumper sticker goes by... -
Oh Oh!! I don't need to watch traffic, I have whole websites for that kind of fun!!
You should try it sometime.
-
@ Jedediah Redman
I don't think Will said anything like that.
maybe - thereiN? -
pssst. Gar, * hands him copy of Hamlet*
-
whoo hoo - bout darned time a consumer can "see" what they are consuming....:o)
Nannyish? Methinks not. Information available at fingertips.
I want a bowl of cereal, I can look on the box, see what 3/4 C will provide - add 1/2 C skim milk and 1 slice whole grain toast (o butter) and 1/2 C fresh squeezed OJ and I can stay on track.
Do any traveling and I am all jacked up with calorie laden crap because restaurants like to "add" secret ingredients to their foodstuff so that their shit tastes better.
I want to know what shit I'm eating so I can SEE at point of sale what shit I'm eating. This is GREAT!!!!!
Will it deter the avg joe fatass from eating the supersized burger and jumbo fries and supersized coke? Oh, hell no. Because that mentality could care less what they are slamming into their face regardless of calorie count. But for those who care and try (all sizes and weights aside), this is not a bad thing and takes the burden off the consumer from having to request information or go on the web to find stuff and print it off etc...
Awesome article.
-
How about the need to reduce in size and numbers the FAT HEADS of BIG Nanny Nancy COM RATS.. those Bone Head!
That would be the type of Diatery " CHANGE" that would really Trim Down the Size of Gov't and lean out the loons!
-
@ Samantha A. Torrence
pssst. Gar, * hands him copy of Hamlet*
OK, but he should have!
LQ -
@ 666divine
I hope you're not grouping me in with the "looney toon right." I don't think there is anything wrong with placing labels on products. But in referrance to "nanny state" I was thinking what happened when warning labels were first put on cigarette packages and of the chain reaction.
It was made for Individuals to read and decide... NOT a " nanny" enforced practice as it seems that it is where we are heading.. Lens no matter what claim to have to contribuite.. Originality seems to excape you on a constant basis... LOONS are From Left Lake Chaos.. This is an OLD Story.. Really Get it strainght for once! -
@ Jedediah Redman
I don't think Will said anything like that.
HOW can you claim that you can " THINK" How absurd! Add a Comment
|
 |
|
|
Email
Print
Share
Opinion: War on Obesity or High Calorie Nanny State?
