OT - LA Bans Fast Food
 

This just left me gobsmacked!

http://news.smh.com.au/world/los-ang...0730-3n34.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/5hkvhx

Now Big Brother is telling us what we can and can't eat??!!!

The smoking ban was tough on smokers, but at least there was some rationale
that the non-smoking public was put at risk by second-hand smoke. But who
does it hurt when we eat a Big Mac??!

Hugs,

CatNipped

OT - LA Bans Fast Food
 

Now Big Brother is telling us what we can and can't eat??!!!

The smoking ban was tough on smokers, but at least there was some rationale
that the non-smoking public was put at risk by second-hand smoke. But who
does it hurt when we eat a Big Mac??!

The arguments I've heard from Food Nazis is that it hurts the entire
country, in that the public ends up paying for the increased medical costs
associated with an obese public.

However, to me that sounds like a flimsy excuse for another way for
government in it's various flavors to interfere in our lives. Indeed, if I
*want* to do stop at McDonalds for a Big Mac, that should be my choice. I
personally detest their greasebombs, but that's a personal preference, AS
IT SHOULD BE.

The article also says that trans fats will be outlawed in CA from 2010 on.
Am I remembering incorrectly that all fats become at least partially
trans fat as soon as they are heated to cooking temperatures? If so then a
cooking oil that was legal to use when it was poured out of the jug would
become illegal as soon as it hit the fryer. What's wrong with that picture?

Sure, nowhere is free of unreasonable government regulations, but I'm
still very glad to be free of California.

Dan

OT - LA Bans Fast Food
 

"Daniel Mahoney" wrote in message
.. .
Now Big Brother is telling us what we can and can't eat??!!!

The smoking ban was tough on smokers, but at least there was some
rationale
that the non-smoking public was put at risk by second-hand smoke. But
who
does it hurt when we eat a Big Mac??!

The arguments I've heard from Food Nazis is that it hurts the entire
country, in that the public ends up paying for the increased medical costs
associated with an obese public.

I know, the article mentioned that but I'm not buying it. Last time I
checked the US does *not* have national health care so these claims seem
pretty specious to me. You could make that same argument for just about
anything you want that doesn't involve people staying at home with their
heads under the covers!


However, to me that sounds like a flimsy excuse for another way for
government in it's various flavors to interfere in our lives. Indeed, if I
*want* to do stop at McDonalds for a Big Mac, that should be my choice. I
personally detest their greasebombs, but that's a personal preference, AS
IT SHOULD BE.

Yep. When government starts interferring with what we eat, that's about as
totalitarian as you can get!


The article also says that trans fats will be outlawed in CA from 2010 on.
Am I remembering incorrectly that all fats become at least partially
trans fat as soon as they are heated to cooking temperatures? If so then a
cooking oil that was legal to use when it was poured out of the jug would
become illegal as soon as it hit the fryer. What's wrong with that
picture?

Sure, nowhere is free of unreasonable government regulations, but I'm
still very glad to be free of California.

Dan

I know! I'm so tired of government trying to tell me what's good for me!
They are just not taking into consideration that most people are what they
are because of genetics rather than what they eat. My grandmother ate
fatty, "bad-for-you" food her entire life (what other kind is there in New
Orleans) and died at the age of 104 (but *not* from a bad heart)!

Hugs,

CatNipped

OT - LA Bans Fast Food
 

CatNipped wrote:
This just left me gobsmacked!

http://news.smh.com.au/world/los-ang...0730-3n34.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/5hkvhx

Now Big Brother is telling us what we can and can't eat??!!!

The smoking ban was tough on smokers, but at least there was some
rationale that the non-smoking public was put at risk by second-hand
smoke. But who does it hurt when we eat a Big Mac??!

Hugs,

CatNipped

They're just banning the opening of NEW fast food restaurants in that area
because they're claiming that there's currently too many. But, yes, the
entire state of California is banning trans-fats in all commercially sold
products. That includes baked goods/bakeries. We'll see what happens.

kili

OT - LA Bans Fast Food
 

"CatNipped" wrote in message
...
"Daniel Mahoney" wrote in message
.. .
Now Big Brother is telling us what we can and can't eat??!!!

The smoking ban was tough on smokers, but at least there was some
rationale
that the non-smoking public was put at risk by second-hand smoke. But
who
does it hurt when we eat a Big Mac??!

The arguments I've heard from Food Nazis is that it hurts the entire
country, in that the public ends up paying for the increased medical
costs
associated with an obese public.

I know, the article mentioned that but I'm not buying it. Last time I
checked the US does *not* have national health care so these claims seem
pretty specious to me. You could make that same argument for just about
anything you want that doesn't involve people staying at home with their
heads under the covers!

We don't have national health care, but county hospitals have to treat
patients who can't pay. The public pays for that.

Joy

OT - LA Bans Fast Food
 

Daniel Mahoney wrote:

The arguments I've heard from Food Nazis is that it hurts the entire
country, in that the public ends up paying for the increased medical costs
associated with an obese public.

There are a lot of things wrong with this rationale, not the least of
which is that unhealthy food can be bad for you without you gaining a pound.
We see fat and thin people and we assume that the thin people are healthy,
and that they eat healthy, but it ain't necessarily so.

But also, what are poor people supposed to eat??! They depend on places
like McD's for cheap and *convenient* food. How'd you like to come home
after 8 hours at your minimum-wage job, have some kids to feed and no
spouse to help out, and you have no time or energy to cook, plus you
don't have a car and the nearest supermarket is 2 miles away. You're
going to take a bus to buy some vegetables?? Don't think so. You're going
to take your kids to Mickey D's!

I'm not saying this is a healthy scenario, but people depend on it, so
you can't just take it away from them without offering an alternative.
Because you can bet that while the gov't is happy to ban things right
and left, they're not going to spend a penny making sure that people have
other choices in its place. Oh, sorry, it's not government's job to *take
care* of its citizens - you're on your own, bub.

But I wonder if this is really going to fly? There was a major groundswell
of support for banning cigarette smoke in public places. Will there really
be support from the public for this? And what about the fast food lobby -
didn't they try to fight it?

Is this an April fool's joke that got stuck somewhere in cyberspace? :)

The article also says that trans fats will be outlawed in CA from 2010 on.

This one doesn't bother me so much, because it puts limits on the
manufacturers rather than on individual people. Why should companies be
allowed to put all sorts of unhealthy crap into our food just because
it's cheaper for them?

Am I remembering incorrectly that all fats become at least partially
trans fat as soon as they are heated to cooking temperatures?

Different fats become trans fats at different temperatures - it's called
the "smoke point". Olive oil, for example, has a low smoke point, so it's
not a good cooking oil. I use grapeseed oil to cook with, as it has a
much higher smoke point. There might be even better ones that I don't
know about - maybe the cooks here can suggest something?

Sure, nowhere is free of unreasonable government regulations, but I'm
still very glad to be free of California.

Meanwhile, we're still being exposed to pesticide spraying and toxic
waste, but by god, we're gonna be thin!!

--
Joyce ^..^

(To email me, remove the X's from my user name.)

OT - LA Bans Fast Food
 

CatNipped wrote:
This just left me gobsmacked!

http://news.smh.com.au/world/los-ang...0730-3n34.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/5hkvhx

Now Big Brother is telling us what we can and can't eat??!!!

The smoking ban was tough on smokers, but at least there was some rationale
that the non-smoking public was put at risk by second-hand smoke. But who
does it hurt when we eat a Big Mac??!

Given the near epidemic prevalence of obesity in children and teen-agers
in the U.S., practically EVERYONE! (At least indirectly.)

OT - LA Bans Fast Food
 

On Jul 31, 10:29*am, Daniel Mahoney wrote:
snipped
The arguments I've heard from Food Nazis is that it hurts the entire
country, in that the public ends up paying for the increased medical costs
associated with an obese public.

snipped
Dan

This is the part that seemed to jump off the page to me. If I
understaood correctly, this poor, mostly-black-and-hispanic area is
the only area affected right now. So,
what's the reason for that? That the more affluent suburbs have better
health care insurance policies and the government *does* have so much
increased costs?

This is just weird, weird and disturbing. A big slab of prime rib
isn't exactly healthy, either. Are upscale restaurants going to be
next? Taxed, maybe, for serving unhealthy items on the menu? Sheesh.
There are greasepoon diners everywhere that make McDonald's look like
health food. This is just crazy.

Sherry

OT - LA Bans Fast Food
 

"Sherry" wrote in message
...
On Jul 31, 10:29 am, Daniel Mahoney wrote:
snipped
The arguments I've heard from Food Nazis is that it hurts the entire
country, in that the public ends up paying for the increased medical costs
associated with an obese public.

snipped
Dan

This is the part that seemed to jump off the page to me. If I
understaood correctly, this poor, mostly-black-and-hispanic area is
the only area affected right now. So,
what's the reason for that? That the more affluent suburbs have better
health care insurance policies and the government *does* have so much
increased costs?

This is just weird, weird and disturbing. A big slab of prime rib
isn't exactly healthy, either. Are upscale restaurants going to be
next? Taxed, maybe, for serving unhealthy items on the menu? Sheesh.
There are greasepoon diners everywhere that make McDonald's look like
health food. This is just crazy.

Sherry

==================================================

I think that the fast food places are more popular in the poorer parts of
town because you can get food there *cheaply* (how many times have you seen
a commercial about a "dollar menu"). It's all well and good to say you want
"sit down restaurants" so people will start eating healthier, but that
doesn't do a darn bit of good if people can't afford to eat at them. I have
a hard time believing that fast food joints are the *only* restaurants in
town, but I think a large part of their popularity is that they're
affordable to people making minimum wage!

Hugs,

CatNipped

OT - LA Bans Fast Food
 

There are a lot of things wrong with this rationale, not the least of
which is that unhealthy food can be bad for you without you gaining a pound.
We see fat and thin people and we assume that the thin people are healthy,
and that they eat healthy, but it ain't necessarily so.

Ain't that the truth. I go out of my way to avoid fast food as much as
possible - I'd estimate I end up eating fast food two or three meals a
week. And as much as I dislike cooking, I do cook dinner most every night
(I get home before Nancy does, so I get to take care of dinner). I like
to think that we eat reasonably healthy, but it has still taken more work
than I care to remember to lose 25 pounds over the last year. I am sure
that fat old me eats better than a fair number of skinny people but I'm
still a long way from getting skinny.

But also, what are poor people supposed to eat??! They depend on places
like McD's for cheap and *convenient* food. How'd you like to come home
after 8 hours at your minimum-wage job, have some kids to feed and no
spouse to help out, and you have no time or energy to cook, plus you
don't have a car and the nearest supermarket is 2 miles away. You're
going to take a bus to buy some vegetables?? Don't think so. You're
going to take your kids to Mickey D's!

I'm not saying this is a healthy scenario, but people depend on it, so
you can't just take it away from them without offering an alternative.
Because you can bet that while the gov't is happy to ban things right
and left, they're not going to spend a penny making sure that people
have other choices in its place. Oh, sorry, it's not government's job to
*take care* of its citizens - you're on your own, bub.

Yep. Another example of government seeming to think they can legislate
"better" (for some values of "better") behavior without considering the
social conditions that drive the behaviors.

But I wonder if this is really going to fly? There was a major
groundswell of support for banning cigarette smoke in public places.
Will there really be support from the public for this? And what about
the fast food lobby - didn't they try to fight it?

I'm hoping that it is going fail due to public outrage. Assuming that the
public can rouse themselves out of the widespread apathy that seems to
define "public" these days.

Meanwhile, we're still being exposed to pesticide spraying and toxic
waste, but by god, we're gonna be thin!!

And tainted Chinese imports, and mercury in our fish, etc. but Big
Government will save us from those evil ClownBurgers :)