No Soup For You!

[DonnaDuck]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22997073/wid/11915773

Honestly, I think it's a little much but that's not to say obesity isn't a problem in the US.

I don't think it's too much to require resturants to serve portion-controled meals. No one's telling them who they can and cannot serve, no one's dictating what consumers can and cannot eat but when they order a meal, they get a serving size of everything that's included. If they want more, they order more and they'll pay for it. Perhaps when people realize that what they're eating in one sitting could rightly feed a family of four (not to mention what they're paying to consume it), it could force people to reconsider their eating habits.

Many people don't realize that you don't need to diet to lose weight but they also don't realize that they don't have to consume an entire container of large fries either. My mom ordered a "meal" salad at one restaurant and it was overwhelmingly larger than the salad bowl set out at the family dinner at Thanksgiving that everyone takes from. And this is supposed to feed one person. I don't think restaurants have "portion" in their vocabulary.

[William Haskins]

businesses should be allowed to serve any food in any quantities at any price.

the market should dictate consumption.

[DonnaDuck]

But if people aren't willing to take their health into their own hands and are, in turn, taxing an already malfunctioning healthcare system, shouldn't the government step in? They should be protecting their people, even if it is from themselves. Or should we let everyone eat themselves into oblivion and let those of us healthy folk carry the burden of rising insurance premiums caused, in part, by the exponential rise in obesity?

If they won't control their eating in their own home, at least it can be moderately controled when they go out to eat.

[Jcomp]

I don't think restaurants have "portion" in their vocabulary.

I think that they have "larger portions" in their vocabulary in the category of "strong selling points." People can talk all day about weight issues in America, but as long as restaurants can grab more customers by advertising more food for your dollar, nothing will change.

Unless, maybe, people start actually getting active and exercising, God forbid...

[William Haskins]

But if people aren't willing to take their health into their own hands and are, in turn, taxing an already malfunctioning healthcare system, shouldn't the government step in? They should be protecting their people, even if it is from themselves. Or should we let everyone eat themselves into oblivion and let those of us healthy folk carry the burden of rising insurance premiums caused, in part, by the exponential rise in obesity?

depends on your views on the role of government, i suppose.

[DonnaDuck]

Unless, maybe, people start actually getting active and exercising, God forbid...

You mean aside from walking up to the counter for a second helping?

depends on your views on the role of government, i suppose.

I think it's the least they could do, especially if they sit on their thumbs about healthcare reform.

[RLB]

I agree restaurants should be able to serve whatever size portions they wish, but I still don't understand the choices some of these restaurants make. I work at a restaurant with ridiculously sized portions, and it's staggering how much uneaten food people have to throw away because they can't finish. And if they do finish, they're looking pretty uncomfortable and stuffed at the end. If they indicate to me before they order that they'll be having dessert, I usually suggest sharing entrees. Even then, it's hard to make it through a swimming-pool sized bowl of pasta.

I think the restaurant does it for the "wow" factor, but it just looks like a lot of unnecessary waste to me, and it encourages overeating.

[DonnaDuck]

I agree restaurants should be able to serve whatever size portions they wish, but I still don't understand the choices some of these restaurants make. I work at a restaurant with ridiculously sized portions, and it's staggering how much uneaten food people have to throw away because they can't finish. And if they do finish, they're looking pretty uncomfortable and stuffed at the end. If they indicate to me before they order that they'll be having dessert, I usually suggest sharing entrees. Even then, it's hard to make it through a swimming-pool sized bowl of pasta.

I think the restaurant does it for the "wow" factor, but it just looks like a lot of unnecessary waste to me, and it encourages overeating.

9 out of 10 times I leave a restaurant with the majority of my meal in a doggie bag and it'll last me for, at least 2 more meals. If it's Chinese, 4. They are experts of cramming way too much food into an impossibly small amount of space.

[William Haskins]

I think it's the least they could do, especially if they sit on their thumbs about healthcare reform.

well, i'm a libertarian on issues related to personal choice, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Andrhia]

I'm an adult, and my body is my responsibility, and not the government's.

If I want to smoke ten packs a day, it might kill me, but it's my life.

If I want to eat only ramen and cola, and plenty of it, I might die of scurvy, but that's my right too.

And if I'm *gasp* happy even though I might be fat... I'm still entitled to make my own eating choices, and businesses still have the right to sell me what I'm looking for.

Oh, and that 'burden on the health care system' thing is a myth: http://kateharding.net/2008/02/05/quick-hit-what-was-that-about-us-burdening-the-health-care-system/

[Jcomp]

You mean aside from walking up to the counter for a second helping? Word. You should at least take a lap around the restaurant before you go back to the buffet.

I think it's the least they could do, especially if they sit on their thumbs about healthcare reform.

I disagree here though, because I do think it's perfectly within your rights to overeat if you please. Besides which, it's pretty impossible to regulate without becoming the dietary Big Brother. Obese people tend to know how to cook for themselves too, so unless you're going to regulate how many groceries they can walk out of H-E-B (random Texas shoutout) with, and monitor friends and relatives to make sure they aren't sneaking them extra food when they think no one is watching, how would you even enforce such a regulation?

[Siddow]

I'll take the all-you-can-eat buffet, please.

[DonnaDuck]

Oh, and that 'burden on the health care system' thing is a myth: http://kateharding.net/2008/02/05/quick-hit-what-was-that-about-us-burdening-the-health-care-system/

While the site's blocked on my work's server, I'm going to have to disagree with the notion of it to begin with. The more people that siphon needs from health insurance companies, be they obese, invalid or whatever, the higher the rates go up in order to compensate for the rising medical costs. Insurance companies want to pay as little as possible so they pass the cost off to their policy holders in the form of premium hikes. Your rates don't go up because your carrier just felt like raising it. it went up because so many people are using their insurance (as oxymoronic as that sounds, insurance companies aren't thrilled when you use their services because that means they have to pay but love it when you're healthy and paying them).

[MelodyO]

Whenever my husband and I make the jaunt from Canada to the US, we're always shocked at the portion sizes in restaurants. We invariably share a meal, and my guy is a 220 lb hockey player, so it's not like he's willing to skimp. And it's STILL enough for both of us.

Having said that, you can't save people from themselves. We were eating at a cafe in California a few years back, and the woman next to us ordered a side bowl of melted butter so she could dunk her grilled cheese sandwich into it. Gah! There just aren't any laws that can protect you from that.

[DonnaDuck]

Word. You should at least take a lap around the restaurant before you go back to the buffet.

Jog in place while loading your plate up (preferrably with potatoes or other non-rolly fixings).


I disagree here though, because I do think it's perfectly within your rights to overeat if you please. Besides which, it's pretty impossible to regulate without becoming the dietary Big Brother. Obese people tend to know how to cook for themselves too, so unless you're going to regulate how many groceries they can walk out of H-E-B (random Texas shoutout) with, and monitor friends and relatives to make sure they aren't sneaking them extra food when they think no one is watching, how would you even enforce such a regulation?

The way I see it, it would just apply to restaurants. What you buy in a grocery store and cook in your own home is your perogative. And it would be enforced as the no smoking policy is enforced. You don't have watch dogs standing guard at the door but if you're caught, you get fined.

And I agree people have every right to overeat. In turn I also have the right to get pissed when people tax insurance companies with the costs of obesity-related illnesses (that could right be avoided with not overindulging and portion control) that cause my premiums to go up.

[DonnaDuck]

Whenever my husband and I make the jaunt from Canada to the US, we're always shocked at the portion sizes in restaurants. We invariably share a meal, and my guy is a 220 lb hockey player, so it's not like he's willing to skimp. And it's STILL enough for both of us.

Having said that, you can't save people from themselves. We were eating at a cafe in California a few years back, and the woman next to us ordered a side bowl of melted butter so she could dunk her grilled cheese sandwich into it. Gah! There just aren't any laws that can protect you from that.

*burp* Wow. I think I just vomited in my mouth a little.

There is definitely a stark difference in portion size between countries. I noticed that glaring difference when I was in Europe. They're more reasonable there. Still larger than a standard portion but the only bucket of liquid you get is a lager.

[Jersey Chick]

Just 'cause a restaurant loads a plate, doesn't mean you have to finish it. And what next - fat police to follow you into grocery stores and tell you what you can and cannot buy - after they weigh you of course. Step to the left to hop on the scale. If your weight is below this number, you may shop in all aisles. If it is above this number, step out of aisle three and Gunther the Fatblasting Mankiller will tackle you and make you do crunches until you pass out.

It's silly. Governments should not tell businesses whom they can and can't serve. Period.

[Saint Fool]

But -sputter, sputter - I like taking home the doggy bags for another meal or two.

Having been on the slow and steady weight-loss plan for over a year, I can pretty much estimate the calorie amounts of anything I eat at a restaurant (Olive Garden - easily 2,000 per entree and keep that bread basket at the other end of the table, thank you.)

I'd rather have the feds keeping an eye on the sources of our food rather than how much of the end result people stuff into their mouths.

I don't understand the ginourmous portions served at so many restaurants, though. I can only assume the profit margin is better with them.

[Gravity]

Having said that, you can't save people from themselves. We were eating at a cafe in California a few years back, and the woman next to us ordered a side bowl of melted butter so she could dunk her grilled cheese sandwich into it.

That is utterly disgusting!

She should have had enough melted butter there for TWO sandwiches...

[DonnaDuck]

I'd rather have the feds keeping an eye on the sources of our food rather than how much of the end result people stuff into their mouths.


This I do agree with. Half of the food we eat can't rightly be considered food by definition. The shock my body takes when I eat "normal" food is amazing. I grocery shop at Trader Joe's and Whole Foods and if I go out to eat, in my purse I carry with me a bottle of Immodium and a box of Zantac because while it tastes good, I'll be paying for it for days.

[Jcomp]

The way I see it, it would just apply to restaurants. What you buy in a grocery store and cook in your own home is your perogative. And it would be enforced as the no smoking policy is enforced. You don't have watch dogs standing guard at the door but if you're caught, you get fined.

I think smoking is different, because you are literally expelling a tangible element that is affecting other people's physical senses of taste and smell, and even sight to an extent. Smoking is unique in that it is a product that, by indulging yourself, you impose it on others (to what extent and whether or not that extent justifies smoking bans is debatable). Aside from the potential affect on health insurance (insurance not being a right, btw), overeating doesn't physically affect anyone except for the eater.

So the only reason to implement a law such as this would be to prevent overeaters from overeating and driving up healthcare for healthy people. But then the means are inadequate to meet that end because, again, you can't realistically regulate what people are eating all of the time. It would be pointless to even attempt it.

In defense (sort of) of the politician who started this, according to what he says in the article, he did it solely to call attention to the obesity problem in MS.

[DonnaDuck]

I think smoking is different, because you are literally expelling a tangible element that is affecting other people's physical senses of taste and smell, and even sight to an extent. Smoking is unique in that it is a product that, by indulging yourself, you impose it on others (to what extent and whether or not that extent justifies smoking bans is debatable). Aside from the potential affect on health insurance (insurance not being a right, btw), overeating doesn't physically affect anyone except for the eater.

So the only reason to implement a law such as this would be to prevent overeaters from overeating and driving up healthcare for healthy people. But then the means are inadequate to meet that end because, again, you can't realistically regulate what people are eating all of the time. It would be pointless to even attempt it.

In defense (sort of) of the politician who started this, according to what he says in the article, he did it solely to call attention to the obesity problem in MS.


I see your point. It's wishful thinking though.

And even he stated that he'd had a hard time eating out under his own bill since he was considered obese. Funny thing is, my BMI is 21 and a half, 3 and a half points from being considered obese but looking at me, one would probably think it's more around 13 or 15%. I was told when I was 12 to lose weight because I was too heavy even though I haven't grown (sadly) since then and I weigh the same. Obesity, in some people, is hard to determine, especially with the questionable accuracy of a BMI.

[C.bronco]

The restaurants' free styrofoam containers mean that I have lunch premade for the next day.

[blacbird]

I'll take the all-you-can-eat buffet, please.

Is that how the cat got a lime rind on its head?

caw

[Andrhia]

While the site's blocked on my work's server, I'm going to have to disagree with the notion of it to begin with. The more people that siphon needs from health insurance companies, be they obese, invalid or whatever, the higher the rates go up in order to compensate for the rising medical costs.

You could disagree, but the facts would be stacked against you. Here's the relevant AP article: http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/general/2008/02/05/Obesity.Cost/

And for bonus points, here's the actual study: http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0050029&ct=1

[Jcomp]

I see your point. It's wishful thinking though.

And even he stated that he'd had a hard time eating out under his own bill since he was considered obese. Funny thing is, my BMI is 21 and a half, 3 and a half points from being considered obese but looking at me, one would probably think it's more around 13 or 15%. I was told when I was 12 to lose weight because I was too heavy even though I haven't grown (sadly) since then and I weigh the same. Obesity, in some people, is hard to determine, especially with the questionable accuracy of a BMI.

Precisely.

[AnneMarble]

But -sputter, sputter - I like taking home the doggy bags for another meal or two.

Having been on the slow and steady weight-loss plan for over a year, I can pretty much estimate the calorie amounts of anything I eat at a restaurant (Olive Garden - easily 2,000 per entree and keep that bread basket at the other end of the table, thank you.)
I love taking food home, too. :hooray: I did that even when I was eating too much, and I do it even more now that I weighed less. Also, what about people who share plates? If restaurants are forced (ugh!) to cut back on portions, does this mean they will now be forced to order two separate meals? What about people who eat less all day just to "save up" for a big meal at a favorite place? Guess they're gonig to be screwed now, too. What about people with higher metabolisms or very active people (or potheads ;)) who can eat the whole plate?

At WeightWatchers meetings, we learn that one of the best ways to eat at a restaurant is to cut the food in half (or thirds or whatever) even before you start. Then you know what to take home and what to eat there. One of the leaders even asks for a container when she orders the meal. That way, she can put away the food as soon as it comes -- out of sight, out of mind.

The important thing is that all these are options that people take by understanding and addressing their own issues. Some people are unwilling or unready to do that. However, that doesn't mean they should be slapped down by stupid rules. I wasn't ready to address all of my own issues for many years. But I was still an adult with the right to eat crap. :D No one ever helped me by nagging. You can't change unless you want to. Forcing change will backfire.

[DonnaDuck]

You could disagree, but the facts would be stacked against you. Here's the relevant AP article: http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/general/2008/02/05/Obesity.Cost/

And for bonus points, here's the actual study: http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0050029&ct=1

The flaw in your theory--

With a simulation model, lifetime health-care costs were estimated for a cohort of obese people aged 20 y at baseline. To assess the impact of obesity, comparisons were made with similar cohorts of smokers and “healthy-living” persons (defined as nonsmokers with a body mass index between 18.5 and 25). Except for relative risk values, all input parameters of the simulation model were based on data from The Netherlands.

The Dutch, as you may have already figured, are not Americans. They are on a universal health care system with different costs so the numbers, while statistically ideal, can't rightly be compared to the American health care sytem nor can the subjects be comapred to the average American citizen. Does The Netherlands have a 64% obesity level amongst all their citizens? A Dutch study using Dutch systems based in a Dutch (read: universal) healthcare system are irrelevant to a conversation about American obesity amongst American citizens in America. Show me a study based in America using Americans with numbers from the privatized American health insurance companies and then I'll believe that it's more beneficial to be fat and die young than healthy and live longer. Not to mention, if you're healthy, you're not using you're insurance for anything more than annual check-ups to make sure you stay healthy. What are the instances of obese people not visiting a doctor regularly? That would certainly cut costs for insurance. Essentially that study is saying obese people aren't as taxing on the EU health insurance system because they die younger. Little backwards, don't you think? Is their message 'get fat, it'll cost us less'?

[IdiotsRUs]

Whenever my husband and I make the jaunt from Canada to the US, we're always shocked at the portion sizes in restaurants. We invariably share a meal, and my guy is a 220 lb hockey player, so it's not like he's willing to skimp. And it's STILL enough for both of us.

Same here. When I go to the states it constantly amazes me the sheer amount if food you get given. My 7 year old ordered a kids pizza, and it turned up big enough it would have fed me AND my two kids. After the Denny's Incident ( I'll have something small I think, french toast, it came on two, TWO plates, with half a pig) I only ordered kids meals. And still left stuff on the side.

Now considering at home most kids are told to 'eat up what's on your plate' etc, I don't find it surprising that some people feel they should eat what's put in front of them. And surely you could limit the food wastage ( and hence up the resteraunts profits) by selling smaller portions, so if someone really wants a lot, they can order two.

[DonnaDuck]

FYI, Andrhia, here are the obesity rate comparisons for The Netherlands and the United States in 2005 from the WHO--

The Netherlands--

http://www.who.int/ncd_surveillance/infobase/web/InfoBasePolicyMaker/reports/Reporter.aspx?id=1

Showing roughly 10.5% for men and 11.5% for women.

The United States--

http://www.who.int/ncd_surveillance/infobase/web/InfoBasePolicyMaker/reports/Reporter.aspx?id=1

Showing roughly 35% for men and 42.5% for women.

That's nearly three and four times the percentage between the two countries, respectively male and female. Hardly comparable for healthcare costs.

ETA--Ok, the graphs disappear on relink. Just plug the countries into the dropdown menu and it'll give them to you.

[Roger J Carlson]

I think the government should not only regulate our portions of food, it should:

Regulate what we eat. A balanced diet is vital to proper health.
Regulate how much sleep we get. Statistics show that people who get 8 hours of sleep are healthier.
Regulate what we do for a living. Too many of us are over-weight because we sit at a desk all day. We should spend at least a portion of our work day doing manual labor.
Regulate how much time we spend in recreation and also what kind of recreation. Again, forced physical activity is good for you.
Regulate how much electricity we use. Greenhouse emissions being what they are, the government to should take it upon itself to decide how much time we can spend watching television and how long our lights should be on. This will feed back into 1 and 3.Now, where can you go where they will regulate not only what food you eat, but how much? Where they'll tell you when to sleep, eat, recreate? Where they'll tell you how long you'll work and at what job?

That's right. Welcome to prison.

[Menyanthana]

Honestly, I cannot see what is wrong with smaller portions.

If I went to a restaurant in the USA, I would probably be too shy to ask for a bag to carry the rest home, so I would end up paying a lot more money than the food I actually ate was worth.

Would not be fair, in my opinion.There should at least be a portion size an underweight person like me is able to eat. ;)

[Tiger]

I think the government should not only regulate our portions of food, it should:

Regulate what we eat. A balanced diet is vital to proper health.
Regulate how much sleep we get. Statistics show that people who get 8 hours of sleep are healthier.
Regulate what we do for a living. Too many of us are over-weight because we sit at a desk all day. We should spend at least a portion of our work day doing manual labor.
Regulate how much time we spend in recreation and also what kind of recreation. Again, forced physical activity is good for you.
Regulate how much electricity we use. Greenhouse emissions being what they are, the government to should take it upon itself to decide how much time we can spend watching television and how long our lights should be on. This will feed back into 1 and 3.Now, where can you go where they will regulate not only what food you eat, but how much? Where they'll tell you when to sleep, eat, recreate? Where they'll tell you how long you'll work and at what job?

That's right. Welcome to prison.

Well, you know the privatization of food service has been a disaster waiting to happen.

Government knows best.

[Jersey Chick]

Honestly, I cannot see what is wrong with smaller portions.

If I went to a restaurant in the USA, I would probably be too shy to ask for a bag to carry the rest home, so I would end up paying a lot more money than the food I actually ate was worth.

Would not be fair, in my opinion.There should at least be a portion size an underweight person like me is able to eat. ;)

Most restaurants ask if you'd like them to wrap up the remaining portions - so you don't need to be shy :)

There's nothing wrong with them offering up smaller portions - my problem is the government mandating it.

[Tiger]

There's nothing wrong with them offering up smaller portions - my problem is the government mandating it.

My problem is with people who want government to step in and regulate other peoples' behavior. Never their own, better, healthier, more moral ways of doing things... Just, those others.

[Roger J Carlson]

Would not be fair, in my opinion.There should at least be a portion size an underweight person like me is able to eat. ;)Well, there are. When you go to MacDonald's, you can order a hamburger, small fry, and small drink or you can order a double-quarterpounder, large fry and a large drink. You control your own portions.

If you go to a fancy restaurant, you can order a 6 oz filet or a 9 oz filet. You can ask for an appetizer to begin the meal or skip it. You can order dessert at the end or not. You can ask for a single side dish rather than the two that come with the meal. Or (as I often do) ask for two side salads rather than more fat-laden sides like fries.

There's no reason anyone has to over eat at a restaurant. My problem is about who is to decide what portion I get. My wife is 5'3" and 115 lbs. I am 6'1" and 195 lbs. My nephew is 6'8" and 255 lbs. All of us are quite trim for our heights. For whom should the portion be sized?

[Jcomp]

Suddenly I could really go for the lemon pepper fish dinner @ Sea Island.

[johnnysannie]

9 out of 10 times I leave a restaurant with the majority of my meal in a doggie bag and it'll last me for, at least 2 more meals. If it's Chinese, 4. They are experts of cramming way too much food into an impossibly small amount of space.

A friend and I went out for Thai food yesterday; between our two lunch specials, I could have easily fed my family of 5. Huge portions and really at a moderate price.

But I don't think restaurants should limit what they serve to who, either, though.

Some restuarants are beginning to offer "lighter" or "smaller" entrees and that's good. We should have a choice, large or small.

[clintl]

businesses should be allowed to serve any food in any quantities at any price.

the market should dictate consumption.

I agree. But they should also stop whining and playing the "personal responsibility" card when the government tells them that they are required to provide nutritional and calorie information about the meals they serve. Consumers can't really practice personal responsibility when the information they need is being withheld.

[William Haskins]

i have no problem with that.

[Robert Toy]

How the hell did we ever make it for over 200 years without being told what to eat?

[Bird of Prey]

I agree. But they should also stop whining and playing the "personal responsibility" card when the government tells them that they are required to provide nutritional and calorie information about the meals they serve. Consumers can't really practice personal responsibility when the information they need is being withheld.

The citizens of this country - fat and skinny alike - better start utilizing their brains and take real personal responsibility. I don't agree that restaurants should be forced to provide caloric and nutritional information to their patrons. If people want that, they should eat at home or eat at restaurants that volunteer it.

[IdiotsRUs]

If you go to a fancy restaurant, you can order a 6 oz filet or a 9 oz filet. You can ask for an appetizer to begin the meal or skip it. You can order dessert at the end or not. You can ask for a single side dish rather than the two that come with the meal. Or (as I often do) ask for two side salads rather than more fat-laden sides like fries.

True, but if you don't eat burger or steak in said restraunt, you get what you're given. No measurements.

I soon learned that unless I went for a kids meal, I should have no entree, no side dishes and no dessert or risk a busted gut at the leviathan portions I was being given.

And the trouble with that is, I like entrees and dessert. I missed out on yummy stuff because the sheer food wastage appalled me, I couldn't leave half the dinner on my plate ( my mum would have given me a clip round the ear). Depriving me of chocolate cake is Not Fair.

Why not have the portions smaller, then the greedies can order as many side dishes as they want?

[Robert Toy]

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l253/RT_2006/KeefeM20050821.jpg

[Tiger]

How the hell did we ever make it for over 200 years without being told what to eat?

Hey, the next hunnert'l be the ones that count.

[IdiotsRUs]

How the hell did we ever make it for over 200 years without being told what to eat?

because for ninety percent of that time, you didn't have people trying to shove a whole cow down your throat? :D

[chartreuse]

But if people aren't willing to take their health into their own hands and are, in turn, taxing an already malfunctioning healthcare system, shouldn't the government step in? They should be protecting their people, even if it is from themselves. Or should we let everyone eat themselves into oblivion and let those of us healthy folk carry the burden of rising insurance premiums caused, in part, by the exponential rise in obesity?



Okay, well, then, why don't we just install controls at supermarket checkout stands, and stop people from buying too much beer or wine, or sugar-filled cereals, or processed foods of any sort, all of which contribute to ill health. Keep in mind that we don't want folks trying to get around the system by making multiple trips, so we'd better eliminate cash entirely and force everyone to use a special card that keeps track of all food purchases so that a computer system can calculate exactly what we're allowed to eat to ensure optimum health.

Let's also start MANDATING visits to the gym, cause lack of exercise is certainly a major cause of obesity. Of course, an article came out a couple of months ago claiming that even two hours of exercise a day cannot undo the harmful effects of working a desk job, so perhaps we'd better eliminate all desk jobs as well.

What else? Oh yes, TELEVISION. We are a nation of couch potatoes and our health is suffering for it. Better come up with some sort of television ration system, or better yet, retrofit all TV's so that they only stay on as long as someone is running on a treadmill.

And then there's stress, causing all those nasty ulcers and heart attacks and strokes. Better find a way to regulate stress levels, too. I guess we'll have to simply give everyone enough money to pay all of their bills each month and provide free (but mandatory) couples and family counseling.

Gotta tell you though...living like that would kill me. You probably don't care, though, as it wouldn't cause your premiums to go up.

[Jersey Chick]

Bring on Gunther the Fatblasting Mankiller! :D

[Jcomp]

Okay, well, then, why don't we just install controls at supermarket checkout stands, and stop people from buying too much beer or wine, or sugar-filled cereals, or processed foods of any sort, all of which contribute to ill health. Keep in mind that we don't want folks trying to get around the system by making multiple trips, so we'd better eliminate cash entirely and force everyone to use a special card that keeps track of all food purchases so that a computer system can calculate exactly what we're allowed to eat to ensure optimum health.

Let's also start MANDATING visits to the gym, cause lack of exercise is certainly a major cause of obesity. Of course, an article came out a couple of months ago claiming that even two hours of exercise a day cannot undo the harmful effects of working a desk job, so perhaps we'd better eliminate all desk jobs as well.

What else? Oh yes, TELEVISION. We are a nation of couch potatoes and our health is suffering for it. Better come up with some sort of television ration system, or better yet, retrofit all TV's so that they only stay on as long as someone is running on a treadmill.

And then there's stress, causing all those nasty ulcers and heart attacks and strokes. Better find a way to regulate stress levels, too. I guess we'll have to simply give everyone enough money to pay all of their bills each month and provide free (but mandatory) couples and family counseling.

Gotta tell you though...living like that would kill me. You probably don't care, though, as it wouldn't cause your premiums to go up.

Yeah... I think that horse of "we disagree with Donna" has been beaten to death and beyond...

[els]

Restaurant portions are the least of the problem. This is just stupid. Most people don't eat out at restaurants every single day, anyway, I wouldn't think, at least the nicer ones, and the cheap fast food places have other problems.

I get really tired of the "look how fat we/those Americans are" that seems to be so prevalent today. There are a lot of factors that play in to the high rate of obesity in the States. Heres just one factor-
Annoying personal story to follow... but it might help someone else.

For me, I was always an active person, and for a lot of my life was underweight. After I got married though, things went haywire physically. I had trouble conceiving, had trouble carrying, and started gaining weight like crazy when I was eating next to nothing. I know about healthy portions, and was always a bit of a health nut. Gaining weight and being unable to lose it really, really bothered me.

After a while my appetite started to increase, too, and my energy level went down. About last year, at the ripe age of 32, I was pretty sure I wouldn't see 35. Had no idea what was going on. By then I was, in my opinion, and I'm sure a lot of other people's, really fat and certainly unhealthy. I thought I was a nasty glutton, because by then I was gorging and never, ever felt like I wasn't starving.

About May of last year, the light came on. Something wasn't right. So I started researching, and then went to the doctor and asked to be tested for celiac disease, which is an intolerance to wheat and other grains with gluten. The tests came back positive.

The thing is, 1 out of roughly 120 Americans are estimated to have this disease (most are unaware of it), and what they are finding in some reports is that malabsorption issues in the intestine cause the body to recognize the actual need for more food. But you aren't getting the nutrients from it- too much damage to the villi. The other thing is, many celiacs react to grain containing gluten as if it is an opiate- you crave the very thing that's killing you. But who would ever think you could actually be addicted to wheat? So you are starving and addicted. Great combination there.

A majority of restaurants serve bread or breading on nearly everything they serve. Government imposed portion control isn't going to help a person with unrecognized food intolerances to lose weight.

I've since found out that I'm also intolerant of potatoes and rice, which basically totally shut down my metabolism.

When I went on a gluten free diet (GF) I dropped 35 lbs right off the bat. Started losing a lot more when I found the rice and potato intolerances. I no longer overeat- a lot of the time now I forget to eat.
Europe on the whole is much better at screening for celiac disease than America is.

So when people crave these huge portions at restaurants and home, it may not be because they are pigs who are purposely throwing their lives down the drain (they may be- I don't discount that), but because some of them may have severe, undiagnosed food intolerance issues. Or other health problems.


And restaurants are supposed to be fun. I think if you are paying for it, you should be allowed to get as much food as you want.

[chartreuse]

Yeah... I think that horse of "we disagree with Donna" has been beaten to death and beyond...

But I just got to the party. I get to smack the horse at least once!

[DonnaDuck]

Gotta tell you though...living like that would kill me. You probably don't care, though, as it wouldn't cause your premiums to go up.

Wow. You a sci-fi writer? I never said any of that, darling. I was just talking about portion control. I thought I have a spiraling imagination. But guess what? In New York, it's illegal for restaurants to cook with trans fatty acids (the phase out ends this year, I believe), a step in the direction of the government mandating what we eat. Uh oh! Hide under the couch! The gov'ment is encroaching! Boogity Boogity!

Yeah... I think that horse of "we disagree with Donna" has been beaten to death and beyond...

Actually, I think there's a space, right around its left butt cheek that could still use a good spanking flogging for anyone that's interested.


When I went on a gluten free diet (GF) I dropped 35 lbs right off the bat. Started losing a lot more when I found the rice and potato intolerances. I no longer overeat- a lot of the time now I forget to eat.
Europe on the whole is much better at screening for celiac disease than America is.


I pity anyone that has Celiac disease. That's such an awful thing to have since there's gluten in so much of our food supply. I have stomach issues and that's one thing I was never tested for and, honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if I did have it but, really, I don't have the symptoms for it (for me, though, that doesn't mean much). I hope you're on a good diet though because normally people with Celiac aren't the most healthy looking people since their choice of foodstuff is pretty low.

[els]

I pity anyone that has Celiac disease. That's such an awful thing to have since there's gluten in so much of our food supply. I have stomach issues and that's one thing I was never tested for and, honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if I did have it but, really, I don't have the symptoms for it (for me, though, that doesn't mean much). I hope you're on a good diet though because normally people with Celiac aren't the most healthy looking people since their choice of foodstuff is pretty low.

Yes, gluten is in EVERYTHING. But I am on a very decent diet, and for the first time in years I'm looking and feeling healthy. I think the big problem with some people living GF is when they go all out trying to find safe alternatives to junk food. It'll cost you an arm and a leg, and is disgusting for the most part. (Well, except for a few lovely things I can think of...) celiac brings with it many other health problems, so yeah, they'd look very unhealthy. If you are willing to eat a nice diet of veggies and beans and alternative grains like quinoa and millet, and non-injected meats, and stay away from processed stuff, it's a fabulous diet (probably better than most Americans eat!) :)
I'd just be really grumpy right now if I went into Outback or Unos (which have GF menus) and they turned me away because I'm still too chubby. Grrrr.

[Jersey Chick]

Don't get me started on the trans-fat thing. It tees me off. Can't wait until the next "oh no, that's bad for you" phase. Soon we'll be eating tree bark and grass clippings because that's all that gov't will "allow".

[Bird of Prey]

Yeah... I think that horse of "we disagree with Donna" has been beaten to death and beyond...


We're hearing an awful lot about beating horses these days and we don't like it.

We will be reporting all of you to the appropriate agencies and you will be dealt with accordingly.

There will be no phrasing in this country that encourages - openly or subliminally - acts of cruelty toward animals.

Also, please be aware that all individuals with a BMI of over 22 will be directed to the Weight Management Agency and will have restricted intake in accordance to Amendment 54.

Please resume in a more congenial manner, children, watch your diet and rest well knowing that:

Big Brother and Aunt Nanny are Watching.

Thank you. . . .

Aunt Nanny.

[els]

Soon we'll be eating tree bark and grass clippings because that's all that gov't will "allow".

Hey, I had that for supper!

[Jersey Chick]

See!! It's happening already! :D

[chartreuse]

Wow. You a sci-fi writer? I never said any of that, darling. I was just talking about portion control. I thought I have a spiraling imagination. But guess what? In New York, it's illegal for restaurants to cook with trans fatty acids (the phase out ends this year, I believe), a step in the direction of the government mandating what we eat. Uh oh! Hide under the couch! The gov'ment is encroaching! Boogity Boogity!



No, you never said any of that. But you did state a particular position on this issue, which implies a particular philosophy, and under that philosophy, any of those examples I gave are not just possible, but perfectly sensible.

Personally, I prefer to treat people like adults, and let them make their own choices when it comes to personal behavior. I'd rather preserve that freedom and pay higher health insurance premiums than pay the price (which none of us can afford) of having the government control every aspect of our lives.

[InfinityGoddess]

Don't get me started on the trans-fat thing. It tees me off. Can't wait until the next "oh no, that's bad for you" phase. Soon we'll be eating tree bark and grass clippings because that's all that gov't will "allow".

Trans fat causes cancer. So it's not just a matter of making you fat; it can actually poison you.

It's one thing to control what you eat; it's another when they are deliberately putting what is literally poison into your food. Rutgers is currently ending the use of trans fat for this and other reasons in their dining halls.

[MelodyO]

Trans fat causes cancer. So it's not just a matter of making you fat; it can actually poison you.

It's one thing to control what you eat; it's another when they are deliberately putting what is literally poison into your food. Rutgers is currently ending the use of trans fat for this and other reasons in their dining halls.

FWIW, they banned trans fats in either Calgary or Alberta (can't remember which), and the restaurants were all "OMG THEY ARE TAKING AWAY YOUR FREEDOMS". Then when it turned out customers were glad the government did it, the restaurants said, "We care about your health - that's why we got rid of trans fats. No, really. We swear."

They use trans fats because it's cheaper. The end. There wasn't even a taste difference as far as I could ever tell. Nobody misses it except the accountants. :)

[Robert Toy]

Don't get me started on the trans-fat thing. It tees me off. Can't wait until the next "oh no, that's bad for you" phase. Soon we'll be eating tree bark and grass clippings because that's all that gov't will "allow".
There is a congressional sub-committee in session with the EPA, Sierra Club and Green Peace discussing the types of trees that should be exempted from eating.

This is not a free for all, and telling someone to “go bite a tree” will be considered a Federal crime.

[Bartholomew]

Eating out is the biggest waste of money.

[Roger J Carlson]

Eating out is the biggest waste of money.According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes350000.htm), 11 million people are employed in the food serve industry. They might disagree.

[Jcomp]

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes350000.htm), 11 million people are employed in the food serve industry. They might disagree.

But if you're constantly dining out it is a hefty drain on the wallet.

[InfinityGoddess]

They use trans fats because it's cheaper. The end. There wasn't even a taste difference as far as I could ever tell. Nobody misses it except the accountants. :)

They use all kinds of things that are bad for you healthwise because it's cheaper. Many of those things are particularly dangerous to the human body (moreso than others), and those are the things that need to be banned completely from the food supply.

[Jersey Chick]

And yet - how many pounds of meat are recalled? How many animals are pumped full of garbage and yet find their way onto store shelves? Remember the spinach recall? Hell, I just read an article in yesterday's Newark Star-Ledger about the things they put in plastic baby bottles that make them dangerous!!

Maybe, instead of the government worrying about restaurant portions, they should concentrate on making sure that what we can eat won't effing kill us or poison us or mutate us.

My problem isn't doing something healthier for me - it's being told that I have to do it because apparently I'm too stupid to think for myself. Not to mention that once gov't interferes with how one sector runs its business, it opens the doors to all kinds of interventions "for the greater good." It's too scary to think about.

[Gravity]

It's Bush's fault (somebody had to say it).

[InfinityGoddess]

Maybe, instead of the government worrying about restaurant portions, they should concentrate on making sure that what we can eat won't effing kill us or poison us or mutate us.


That's exactly what they should be doing. Unfortunately, it's not going to happen, so long as we have politicians who are way too cozy with Big Business in charge.

[Jersey Chick]

It's Bush's fault (somebody had to say it).


I KNEW it! :D

[AnneMarble]

It's Bush's fault (somebody had to say it).
We go from eating trees to mentioning Bush.
:ROFL:

[DonnaDuck]

We go from eating trees to mentioning Bush.
:ROFL:

At least it's not mentioning eating Bush . . . :Wha: You know what I mean . . . I think he'd be stringy . . . pervs . . .

A good way to avoid poison in food is eat organic. Sad that the pure food costs more but it'll save you the hassle of things like death and genetic mutations down the road. And the detox is fun. Funny thing is, though, companies have been caught slapping the USDA/Orangic label on their products when they weren't organic. Bastards.

[Roger J Carlson]

A good way to avoid poison in food is eat organic. Not necessarily. From this article: http://www.leandraganko.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/ribbing.jpg

Let us look at one study that took a single product and directly compared organic and conventional. One of the mycotoxins is a chemical named patulin, which occurs in apples;this mycotoxin is always present in apple products but at varying levels of concentrations. The study purchased samples of conventionally produced apple juice and organic apple juice, and then analyzed the samples to determine the concentrations of patulin.

The conventional apple juice had patulin ranging from 244 micrograms per liter up to 3993 micrograms per liter. On the other hand, the organic apple juice had patulin at rates up to 45,000 micrograms per liter. This study suggests that the use of artificial pesticides and concentration of patulin are inversely correlated.

Readers should not take this as an indictment of organic food but rather an attempt to force them into looking at these issues from a comparative risk perspective. There is no absolutely safe food supply.

[Roger J Carlson]

Sad that the pure food costs more but it'll save you the hassle of things like death and genetic mutations down the road. Er. Did you really mean to say that organic foods will save you from death?

[DonnaDuck]

Not necessarily. From this article: http://www.leandraganko.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/ribbing.jpg

I guess I'm lucky since I'm allergic to apples so no toxins for me there. But I get the point.

Er. Did you really mean to say that organic foods will save you from death?

No. I think more people would be eating organic if that were the case. Considering what's in a "normal" food supply, all those chemicals and such, going organic detoxes your body from all of that crap and thus takes out the risk that such chemicals could potentially cause.

[Monkey]

My husband is 6'8", and over 200 pounds...how much over varies by how much time he's had to work out. (He's heavier when he works out more - muscle mass and all)

I, on the other hand, am 5'1" and barely 100 pounds.

Our kids are 6'4", 180 pounds, a 3-year-old that's at just over 30 pounds, and a 1-year-old that's at 24 pounds.

We almost always go out to buffets. We eat until we are full. Friends who go out with us have noted that we eat A LOT, so we started counting plates...rarely do any of us except the two smallest stop before we've had at least 5 fully loaded plates. :D The little ones usually mash at and take bits of two plates and then a dessert.

Part of it is genetic, part of it is activity level, part of it is food choice...



I'm sure that "smaller portions" would mean that only the 3-year-old and the 1-year-old could still get full at a restuarant. I sometimes have trouble as it is. A related issue:

When I go to Dairy Queen (Texas burger place), I order a hamburger with cheese, french fries, and usually a dessert and am still hungry. The meal sets me back about 4 bucks for the hamburger, 2 for the fries, and 4 for the dessert. That's 10 bucks, man! I can go to a buffet for that, or I could go to a nicer restuarant, get the 8 dollar lunch special, and have much better food. People here have said that food is cheap and the portions are huge, but I've found that the "cheap" food ends up costing more than the "nice" stuff, and unless we go to a buffet, my family is hungry soon after we eat.

But then, I eat like a cow.

Well, not really. Grass sucks. Maybe I should say, "I like to eat a cow." :D

[AnneMarble]

But then, I eat like a cow.

Well, not really. Grass sucks. Maybe I should say, "I like to eat a cow." :D
You should tell them "I eat like a bird. Twice my body weight every day." ;)

Enjoy the buffet. :) The only one I dare try now and then is Mongolian Grill, because they have lots of vegetables. And you can (chili oil) add your own (minced garlic) spices and (curry) oils to (Warriors Sauce) the bowl (cilantro).

* Anne looks back and adds more chili oil. And cilantro. *

[DonnaDuck]

Trans fat causes cancer. So it's not just a matter of making you fat; it can actually poison you.


So does smoking, and not only to the person sucking on the stick yet cigarettes are still very legal.

I guess the lobbyist for trans fats sucked at his job, huh?

[Tiger]

That's exactly what they should be doing. Unfortunately, it's not going to happen, so long as we have politicians who are way too cozy with Big Business in charge.

I guess we'll have to put someone into office who will make sure you're force fed only what you want to eat.

[Bird of Prey]

I guess we'll have to put someone into office who will make sure you're force fed only what you want to eat.

And hear.

Well said, Tiger.

[Jersey Chick]

I guess we'll have to put someone into office who will make sure you're force fed only what you want to eat.

Oy. That would make us a nation of geese.

i don't like the geese...

[InfinityGoddess]

I guess we'll have to put someone into office who will make sure you're force fed only what you want to eat.


I meant certain poisons that are being dumped into our food supply, such as trans fat, aspartame, sodium benzoate, growth hormones, and the like need to be banned from our food supply because they are poisonous. They can kill you. That's not the same as "Big Brother". It's simply a matter of regulation to protect the interests of the people who are ingesting these products.

Unfortunately, government has been more interested in protecting the business interests who put these poisonous things into our food than protecting us from the business interests. Sure, they put these products on the labels of the packaging, but that doesn't stop people from buying them because the labels just don't tell you what these things will do to your system. They need to be banned because they never should have made it into our food supply to begin with.

So does smoking, and not only to the person sucking on the stick yet cigarettes are still very legal.

I guess the lobbyist for trans fats sucked at his job, huh?

Most likely.

[Roger J Carlson]

Everything is poisonous. It's a matter of dosage.

[Bird of Prey]

Everything is poisonous. It's a matter of dosage.


True. And I know a great place to get organic cariari. . . .

[Jcomp]

Everything is poisonous. It's a matter of dosage.

Realistically though, some poisons are more potent than others. Which is why they're rightly labelled as "poison."

[DonnaDuck]

Realistically though, some poisons are more potent than others. Which is why they're rightly labelled as "poison."

You mean 3 drops of aresenic won't clear my sinuses?

[Roger J Carlson]

Realistically though, some poisons are more potent than others. Which is why they're rightly labelled as "poison."which trans fat, aspartame, sodium benzoate, and growth hormones are not.

[InfinityGoddess]

which trans fat, aspartame, sodium benzoate, and growth hormones are not.

Just because they haven't been labeled as poison officially, doesn't mean they aren't. Aspartame, I have the most question with because of the shady manner by which it was approved by the FDA. Since then, I've learned that it basically turns your insides into something as if they've been exposed to thamaldihide. Not a pretty picture.

Sodium benzoate and trans fats are carcinogens. Trans fats also have the added disadvantage of causing obesity, heart disease, and other related problems.

Growth hormones I contend are questionable because they may screw with your hormones and make you more prone to certain cancers of the breast, ovaries, testicles, prostate, and uterine.

[NikeeGoddess]

saw this on 60 Minutes a couple of months ago --

some corporations are actually paying their employees more for being healthy.
ie - they sign up to exercise at least 3 times a week. they get paid like $200 to quit smoking. stuff like that.

it's a hidden way of paying them back for not taking sick days they would otherwise incur for being unhealthy.

[Roger J Carlson]

Just because they haven't been labeled as poison officially, doesn't mean they aren't. Aspartame, I have the most question with because of the shady manner by which it was approved by the FDA. Since then, I've learned that it basically turns your insides into something as if they've been exposed to thamaldihide. Not a pretty picture.

Sodium benzoate and trans fats are carcinogens. Trans fats also have the added disadvantage of causing obesity, heart disease, and other related problems.

Growth hormones I contend are questionable because they may screw with your hormones and make you more prone to certain cancers of the breast, ovaries, testicles, prostate, and uterine.Yes, and if you take too much Tylenol, it can destroy your liver. As I said. A matter of dosage.

[Tiger]

I meant certain poisons that are being dumped into our food supply, such as trans fat, aspartame, sodium benzoate, growth hormones, and the like

I understand what you meant. But, what you're saying is inaccurate. If the government were feeding people poison, then I would not now be middle-aged. What's more, what's called middle-aged now, would not have been old age, three centuries ago.

need to be banned from our food supply because they are poisonous. They can kill you.

That's not the same as "Big Brother". It's simply a matter of regulation to protect the interests of the people who are ingesting these products.

I see: it wouldn't be a case of the government deciding what goes into people because it's smart and the people are stupid; it would be the smart people forcing the stupid government to decide what goes into people (because it's smart and the people are stupid).

Unfortunately, government has been more interested in protecting the business interests who put these poisonous things into our food than protecting us from the business interests.

Yes, it's a greedy, awful, rapacious government...

...that you would have the rest of us empower up the wazoo to look after every part of our lives.

Sure, they put these products on the labels of the packaging, but that doesn't stop people from buying them because the labels just don't tell you what these things will do to your system.

I can see why you're in favor of bans as opposed to labels. It occurs to me that the only way labels with the information you require will fit onto food containers, is if the containers were a minimum of one gallon in size.

That would kind of go against the portions size argument that started this thread.

[InfinityGoddess]

I understand what you meant. But, what you're saying is inaccurate. If the government were feeding people poison, then I would not now be middle-aged. What's more, what's called middle-aged now, would not have been old age, three centuries ago.

These poisons kill slowly. As in, it could be years before you feel any serious effects.


I see: it wouldn't be a case of the government deciding what goes into people because it's smart and the people are stupid; it would be the smart people forcing the stupid government to decide what goes into people (because it's smart and the people are stupid).

No, it's a matter of forcing corporations to stop cutting corners when they sell a product. Has nothing to do with people's intelligence.


I can see why you're in favor of bans as opposed to labels. It occurs to me that the only way labels with the information you require will fit onto food containers, is if the containers were a minimum of one gallon in size.


I'm all for food labeling laws, however, there are certain chemicals that just don't have any business whatsoever being in things we ingest or put onto our skin, because they cause serious problems down the line. Those are the things that need to be taken out of the products we use and banned.

I'd feel much safer if the food we eat didn't contain a lot of these things. Because I don't want to worry about what I'm putting into my stomach.

And for the record, I'm not for laws that control how many portions one eats. I think that it would be prudent of the restaurants to provide portion size according to the needs of an individual. But it shouldn't be a requirement.

[InfinityGoddess]

Yes, and if you take too much Tylenol, it can destroy your liver. As I said. A matter of dosage.


And sometimes the "dosage" doesn't matter. It would still kill you.

And I might add that we eat more food than we do Tylenol, which is usually taken when you feel pain?

[Jersey Chick]

Well - technically, anything burned is a carcinogen. So should we enforce no over-cooking? Oops, wait - then there's the danger of bacteria in under-cooked meat.

Either way - I don't want the government telling me what I can and can't ingest, or what sized portion I should have. Alcohol and tobacco can kill you, yet I don't see anyone proposing legislation to make them illegal.

[Robert Toy]

Alcohol and tobacco can kill you, yet I don't see anyone proposing legislation to make them illegal.
Not only that they kill other people as well.

Tobacco, soon to go. Alcohol...never the government makes too damn tax money to screw with it.

[Jersey Chick]

Yanno - I wish they would make tobacco illegal - I've tried quitting three times. Would be easier if I couldn't break down and buy them.

As for alcohol - it'll never be made illegal - and Prohibition proved it most likely would never work.

[Jcomp]

Well - technically, anything burned is a carcinogen. So should we enforce no over-cooking? Oops, wait - then there's the danger of bacteria in under-cooked meat.

Either way - I don't want the government telling me what I can and can't ingest, or what sized portion I should have. Alcohol and tobacco can kill you, yet I don't see anyone proposing legislation to make them illegal.

The government already tells us what we can and can't ingest. Go try buying some magic mushrooms or some Ex from an undercover and see what happens...

[Jersey Chick]

Well, you know what I mean. Smart ass ;)

[Jcomp]

Well, you know what I mean. Smart ass ;)

Ha! Just sayin'...

[InfinityGoddess]

Either way - I don't want the government telling me what I can and can't ingest, or what sized portion I should have.


Again, the government wouldn't be telling you so much what you can and cannot eat, as much as they would be forcing corporations to stop cutting corners and putting questionable and possibly dangerous chemicals into our food supply simply because they're "cheaper" than the natural, healthier stuff. That's what regulation is all about; telling corporations what they can and cannot do.

Food labels only tell you so much; they don't tell you the danger in the ingredients therein. And worse still, things like aspartame is at the top of the list of things on the labels (where the stuff with the most quantity goes).

[Tiger]

The government already tells us what we can and can't ingest. Go try buying some magic mushrooms or some Ex from an undercover and see what happens...

Ah, c'mon... Narc wouldn't have any fun unless he let you make your purchase.

[Jcomp]

Ah, c'mon... Narc wouldn't have any fun unless he let you make your purchase.

True. But you won't have any fun since he won't let you consume what you purchased. Damn dude, can I at least get a refund if you're going to arrest me?

[Tiger]

True. But you won't have any fun since he won't let you consume what you purchased. Damn dude, can I at least get a refund if you're going to arrest me?

You need quick hands... It'll make your time in the klink so much more entertaining:

"What're you lookin' at?"

"Uh... Nuthin, man. Just watching the bars breathe..."

[DonnaDuck]

saw this on 60 Minutes a couple of months ago --

some corporations are actually paying their employees more for being healthy.
ie - they sign up to exercise at least 3 times a week. they get paid like $200 to quit smoking. stuff like that.

it's a hidden way of paying them back for not taking sick days they would otherwise incur for being unhealthy.

Actually it's a means to cut down on rising health care costs the companies are accruing due to overweight employees adding up the bills. The incentives, in the long run, cost less for the company to dole out than paying out medical bills, and subsequent rising health care costs, and it gets the employee healthy, a measure that, in theory, will keep the medical bills at bay, at least for obesity-related illnesses.

Well - technically, anything burned is a carcinogen. So should we enforce no over-cooking?

Dammit. There's goes my cooking. Perhaps if I realized that salmon doesn't turn white when it's cooked, I wouldn't have dined on a piece of rubber. Yeah, the Italian cooking gene bypassed me somewhere along the line.

[Jersey Chick]

You need quick hands... It'll make your time in the klink so much more entertaining:

"What're you lookin' at?"

"Uh... Nuthin, man. Just watching the bars breathe..."

I knew a guy who saw his mom melt once. Imagine that freak out in jail when the cop started melting. :D

[Tiger]

I knew a guy who saw his mom melt once. Imagine that freak out in jail when the cop started melting. :D

I'm sure not nearly as bad as what's happening to him due to his unregulated diet of donuts and coffee. He may live to be a hundred, but we all know that he'll be dying the whole way there...

[Jenan Mac]

But if people aren't willing to take their health into their own hands and are, in turn, taxing an already malfunctioning healthcare system, shouldn't the government step in?


No thanks. Because then they'll figure they can "protect me" from bad decisions about other things, like who I shouldn't date, whether I reproduce, and what religions I should avoid.

[dmytryp]

Sodium benzoate and trans fats are carcinogens. Trans fats also have the added disadvantage of causing obesity, heart disease, and other related problems.



We've been through this, but just for the off chance somebody is reading this -- Sodium Benzoate is not and have never been suspext as a carcinogen. It can produce benzene together with another chemical called ascorbic acid (vitamin C). Usually this happens in safe dosages, but just in case the use of these two chemicals together is prohibited. In other cases there is absolutely no danger of using sodium benzoate.

[Roger J Carlson]

And sometimes the "dosage" doesn't matter. It would still kill you. You're not making any sense here. Dosage ALWAYS matters. If it did not, then even a little bit of asparatame (which you are calling a "poison") would kill you and clearly it does not. So the amount you take (dosage) matters.

And I might add that we eat more food than we do Tylenol, which is usually taken when you feel pain?And here, you are directly contradicting your statement above. You say we "eat more food than we do Tylenol". What you're talking about is dosage. Let me explain.

Some things (like Tylenol) when taken in high doses, can be poisonous. However, when taken in lower doses, the body safely metabolizes them -- completely metabolizes them. No matter how much of it you ingest, if you don't take it faster than your body can metabolize it, it's safe for you. It's NOT a poison. So it's incorrect to talk about it being a poison unless you also talk about dosage.

Consider this study of asparatame (http://www.rense.com/general68/moreproof.htm). It certainly does indicate that aparatame is a carcinogen and at levels below (20mg/Kg) average adult intake (40mg/Kg). BUT it STILL depends on dosage. Below that dosage, aparatame IS NOT poisonous.

So should asparatame be removed? Quite possibly. But I'd also argue that people have the right to use it or not. And as more people learn about it, consider the risks, and stop buying products made with it, manufacturers will move away from using it.

Everyone has the same opportunity to learn about the dangers as you do. Some people will choose to ignore those dangers. You really don't have the right to make this choice for them.

[Jcomp]

Folks, the government already "protects" you from certain poisons that may exist in what you ingest. What you're actually arguing is "extent." Saying "I don't want the government protecting me" is silly. You already have the government doing this, that's why the FDA exists. To enforce government laws ranging from the content of the food and medicine you consume to the sanitation of the places where the food or medicine is consumed.

[Tiger]

Folks, the government already "protects" you from certain poisons that may exist in what you ingest. What you're actually arguing is "extent." Saying "I don't want the government protecting me" is silly. You already have the government doing this, that's why the FDA exists. To enforce government laws ranging from the content of the food and medicine you consume to the sanitation of the places where the food or medicine is consumed.


This is to say that you're for the government regulating the portion size of what you get in a restaurant?

[Jcomp]

This is to say that you're for the government regulating the portion size of what you get in a restaurant?

Not at all. I don't think it's even feasible, and I've said as much earlier in the thread. The conversation turned from portion size to content of food, and I'm merely pointing out to people who say that the government shouldn't tell food producers what they can and can't put in food that the government is already doing just that. So at that point, again, we're now just arguing about how far the government should go. Just trying to inject a (non-poisonous) dose of reality into the discussion.

[Tiger]

I'm merely pointing out to people who say that the government shouldn't tell food producers what they can and can't put in food that the government is already doing just that.

I don't think anyone's argued for the complete cessation of government involvement in food.

In my case, when the shift occurred, I just took issue with factoids about food additives and government conspiracies--and the way they're being passed around like a notes from a sixth grader.

[DonnaDuck]

Not at all. I don't think it's even feasible, and I've said as much earlier in the thread. The conversation turned from portion size to content of food, and I'm merely pointing out to people who say that the government shouldn't tell food producers what they can and can't put in food that the government is already doing just that. So at that point, again, we're now just arguing about how far the government should go. Just trying to inject a (non-poisonous) dose of reality into the discussion.

Just to tap back into the original conversation, what with the notion that the government, however slightly, is dictating what we consume by saying what goes in our food, plus the fact that trans fat is on its way to being banned in restuarants of all kinds, shouldn't people be worrying about spiraling freedoms already instead of spiralling from proposed "what if" scenarios? First it's regulating chemicals, then it's regulating fat content. Hell, they already regulate portion size in many public schools. The downward spiral that many people have proposed has been in effect for quite some time already so what is the next step? Really, regulating portion size and further inhibiting the fat content of food isn't as far behind as many think considering how far the government has their hand in things already.

[Jcomp]

I don't think anyone's argued for the complete cessation of government involvement in food.

In my case, when the shift occurred, I just took issue with factoids about food additives and government conspiracies--and the way they're being passed around like a notes from a sixth grader.

I dig what you're saying, but it was blanket statements such as...

Everyone has the same opportunity to learn about the dangers as you do. Some people will choose to ignore those dangers. You really don't have the right to make this choice for them.

...that inspired me to make my post. I'm not even sure that Roger means it the way it reads, but just in case, I felt like I should say something...

[Tiger]

I dig what you're saying, but it was blanket statements such as...



...that inspired me to make my post. I'm not even sure that Roger means it the way it reads, but just in case, I felt like I should say something...

Point taken. But, it seemed as though you passed right by jewels such as:


Unfortunately, government has been more interested in protecting the business interests who put these poisonous things into our food than protecting us from the business interests.


On your way to the one that made sense.

[Jcomp]

Point taken. But, it seemed as though you passed right by jewels such as:

On your way to the one that made sense.

Well, to be perfectly honest I do think that certain people in high places are more interested in the almighty dollar than doing their job in regard to looking out for the citizenry. I don't think it's some wide ranging government conspiracy as much as it is just greedy people being what they are. History indicates that it's nothing new and will probably carry on for as long as people in high places exist. It just is what it is.

[Tiger]

Oh, I'm not a government apologist. I'm just a guy with a vote and a free will.

:D

[Jcomp]

Oh, I'm not a government apologist. I'm just a guy with a vote and a free will.

:D

With the right to eat until your stomach bursts. I'll drink to that!

[Bird of Prey]

Well, if every neighborhood had an organic garden, can you imagine?

It's not just hypothetical, either. There are sections of New York that actually have summer gardens, fenced and tended by volunteers. I'm not sure about other cities, but I think it's an excellent use of abandoned lots. Now, that's something I'd dedicate a little tax money to.

[InfinityGoddess]

You're not making any sense here. Dosage ALWAYS matters. If it did not, then even a little bit of asparatame (which you are calling a "poison") would kill you and clearly it does not. So the amount you take (dosage) matters.

I meant that sometimes even one dose of poison is one dose too many. There are always the slow-killers, which take effect over time and depends upon the amount you take on any given day.

And here, you are directly contradicting your statement above. You say we "eat more food than we do Tylenol". What you're talking about is dosage. Let me explain.

No I did not contradict myself. I said that there are some poisons that can kill instantly, and some that don't.

Consider this study of asparatame (http://www.rense.com/general68/moreproof.htm). It certainly does indicate that aparatame is a carcinogen and at levels below (20mg/Kg) average adult intake (40mg/Kg). BUT it STILL depends on dosage. Below that dosage, aparatame IS NOT poisonous.

Except that it's usually listed at the top of any ingredients list, where they put that which has the most quantity in the product. So for someone who is a habitual drinker of diet soda (or any other food product with the stuff in it, for that matter), that's not a very good thing at all. It's one big reason why I stopped drinking diet soda and avoid anything else with the stuff in it as much as I can.

So should asparatame be removed? Quite possibly. But I'd also argue that people have the right to use it or not. And as more people learn about it, consider the risks, and stop buying products made with it, manufacturers will move away from using it.

Everyone has the same opportunity to learn about the dangers as you do. Some people will choose to ignore those dangers. You really don't have the right to make this choice for them.

Except that not everyone does do the research, and it would be a long time before the "marketplace" forces corporations like Coca-Cola and Pepsi to stop using it when people stop buying it. The marketplace really cannot regulate itself precisely for this reason. Therefore, government has to regulate it. This is not telling consumers what to do, so much as it's telling the corporations what they can and cannot sell and by doing so, protecting consumer safety in the process.

[HeronW]

No says you need to order an appetizer, pre-dinner alcoholic aperitif--talk about empty calories-- or eat the bread before the main meal comes. You don't need to order wine or beer with the meal, or dessert either, and you can leave off the after dinner drink too. No one is making you clean your plate, or order something fried and covered in cream sauce vs a lighter dish that is broiled or baked.

If you can't control what you eat, telling the restaurant owner to do it for you won't solve your problem. You'll still overeat at home, overeat at friends' homes, go shopping and buy all the uhealthy choices. You want that legislated too?