If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
OT - LA Bans Fast Food
"Daniel Mahoney" wrote in message
news 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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
OT - LA Bans Fast Food
"CatNipped" wrote in message
... "Daniel Mahoney" wrote in message news 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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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.) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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.) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fast Food Delivery | Claude V. Lucas | Cat health & behaviour | 0 | August 20th 07 05:11 AM |
cat eating too fast | m4816k | Cat health & behaviour | 4 | November 28th 06 11:32 AM |
OT Calif. City Bans Smoking in Public Places | Matthew AKA NMR \( NO MORE RETAIL \) | Cat anecdotes | 89 | March 22nd 06 10:28 PM |
Oh, how fast they forget! | screedmonkey | Cat health & behaviour | 1 | April 25th 04 07:17 PM |