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

***

There are already lots of fast food places in that area. They aren't
affected at all. The ban is on *new* fast food places in the area. Nothing
is being taken away from the people who live there.

Joy

Joy wrote:
"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

***

There are already lots of fast food places in that area. They aren't
affected at all. The ban is on *new* fast food places in the area.
Nothing is being taken away from the people who live there.

Joy

Exactly, Joy. It's on NEW places because the area is already way too
flooded with fast-food restaurants.

kili

I agreed with most of these posts about Mc Donalds supper club. Except
there is one comment I take exception with. That was the word "cheap". I
took my son, DIL and the two kids to Mickie D"S and, I could have fed all of
us with the same of less money at the Mom and Pop place in the town near me.
Hadn't been out to eat at Micki D's for awhile and won't again.
"Daniel Mahoney" wrote in message
news
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

"CatNipped" wrote in message

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??!

Who does it hurt? Your employer when you have more days off sick, your
family & friends who have to look after you when you are sick and who are
distracted when they worry about you, and of course there's the cost to the
government providing extra medical care to unhealthy, obese and malnourished
people who are too sick to hold a regular job, and the extra cost to make
everything bigger to accomodate those who are too large to sit in regular
seats, use regular toilets, etc etc.

The inherant problem is that fast food is often far cheaper than fresh
veggies, fruit & meat, and that anyone juggling two or three minimum wage
jobs just to get by is unlikely to feel the urge to shop, store and cook
from scratch each day, and thus poor people turn to fast food that at least
fills them up, is cheap, quick, and easy to get. I am guilty of falling into
the same trap. Buying a meal at the local chicken shop isn't that much more
expensive than I can prepare myself, and if we hadn't been shopping for a
while, becomes quite attractive *especially* when its my turn tocook and I'm
exhausted from work.

Banning fast food outlets won't work. What would work is encouraging fast
food outlets to sell healthy food at the same price as the junk. For
example, Subway is hardly junk food (its healthy, and was designed to be
that way) but bythe defintion given in the article above, it would be banned
too.

Yowie

I heard somewhere McDonalds uses styrofoam for burger filler.
We never eat there anyway and IF we get a 'to go' burger, we go to the Evil
Clwon place.
Kyla
"Granby" I agreed with most of these posts about Mc Donalds supper club.
Except
there is one comment I take exception with. That was the word "cheap". I
took my son, DIL and the two kids to Mickie D"S and, I could have fed all
of us with the same of less money at the Mom and Pop place in the town
near me. Hadn't been out to eat at Micki D's for awhile and won't again.
"Daniel Mahoney"
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

On Jul 31, 2:47*pm, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
wrote:
CatNipped wrote:
This just left me gobsmacked!

http://news.smh.com.au/world/los-ang...new-fastfood-o...

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.)

Then ban corn syrup. Check the labels. It is added to almost all
boxed/canned/bottled food and drinks these days.
Norma

"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.

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

Its such a shame too. One of the things we liked about California
when we moved here was the lack of unnecessary regulation. At least
compared to the DC area where I grew up. It was pretty much anything
goes as long as you weren't hurting anyone else.

Now everyone thinks their opinions should be law and those law should
be enforced. In the mean time there is no one to enforce the don't
hurt anyone else rules.

Jo

"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 had a steak at Ruth's Criss a few weeks ago that had to be as
unhealthy as anything Mickey D's ever came up with. It tasted
wonderful.

So somebody want's to tell someone who can only afford a five dollar
lunch what to eat, but if they can afford fifty (I can't) they are OK
to make their own choices.

Jo

Yowie wrote:

Banning fast food outlets won't work. What would work is encouraging
fast food outlets to sell healthy food at the same price as the junk.
For example, Subway is hardly junk food (its healthy, and was
designed to be that way) but bythe defintion given in the article
above, it would be banned too.

Yowie

I just did a check on deli-type subs, as in Subway, Jimmy John's, Quizno's,
etc. and some of the calories on a few of their subs are higher than a Big
Mac. There's one deli sub from Jimmy John's that contains, 1008.38
calories, 54.6 g of fat, 180.27 mg cholesterol, 3782.8 mg sodium, 59.53 g
carbohydrates and 66.89 g protein.

Now in comparison, a Big Mac is: 540 calories, 29 g of fat, 75 mg of
cholesterol, 1040 mg of sodium, 45 g carbohydrates and 25 g of protein.

Not all deli-type sandwiches may be healthier than a fast-food sandwich.
Scary, isn't it?

kili

Kyla, for heven sake, if that were true, people would be dropping like
leaves in September. Your body wouldn't process it and, oh well....stay in
and stay cool.
"Kyla =^. .^=`" wrote in message
. ..
I heard somewhere McDonalds uses styrofoam for burger filler.
We never eat there anyway and IF we get a 'to go' burger, we go to the
Evil Clwon place.
Kyla
"Granby" I agreed with most of these posts about Mc Donalds supper club.
Except
there is one comment I take exception with. That was the word "cheap".
I took my son, DIL and the two kids to Mickie D"S and, I could have fed
all of us with the same of less money at the Mom and Pop place in the
town near me. Hadn't been out to eat at Micki D's for awhile and won't
again.
"Daniel Mahoney"
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