New York Nanny

Posts : 6988

Sweet Jesus.
It’s bad enough the government wants to restrict what we eat or drink. Now they are restricting the size of the packaging of perfectly legal products. This should not be within the government’s purview – this is a matter between businesses and consumers – period.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/nyregion/bloomberg-plans-a-ban-on-large-sugared-drinks.html?_r=1

New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks

New York City plans to enact a far-reaching ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts, in the most ambitious effort yet by the Bloomberg administration to combat rising obesity.

The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.

Posts : 1328

They already have calorie counts on all menus.

Posts : 6988

Think first, Mr. Mayor - then speak.
In that order.

http://politicker.com/2012/05/mixed-message-with-soda-ban-and-national-donut-day-endorsements-video/

Worried About The Soda Ban? Fear Not, Bloomberg to Support ‘National Donut Day’

At Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s press conference touting his efforts to stop the sale of large soft drinks in restaurants, one reporter in attendance brought up the interesting fact that his administration also supporting “National Donut Day” tomorrow and inquired as to whether that muddled the mayor’s message on the issue.
Indeed, at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning, Entenmann’s will be unveiling “Custom-made Entenmann’s large donuts, 1-foot in diameter” at Madison Square Park at the same time they unveil a “Proclamation Letter by Mayor Michael Bloomberg.”
“The work of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene reflects the mayor’s public health agenda,” Deputy Mayor Linda Gibbs said about the possible donut conflict. “The message is that we will do what we need in our official capacity to protect the health of New Yorkers.”
“The celebratory events, the naming days in honor of individuals or items, or frivolities that are fun and [bring] exceptional joy are quite distinct from a public health agenda,” she added.

Posts : 3520

Jon Stewart nailed it tonight: "Draconian government overeach everybody loves combined with the lack of results everyone expects." I recognize obesity is a problem that we all pay for, but I don't see how anyone can think this is any sort of solution.

Posts : 6988

KarenT wrote:: They already have calorie counts on all menus.

Including calorie counts on a menu (or elsewhere) might be one of the best non-intrusive ways to encourage healthy eating. It shouldn't be mandatory for all restaurants, of course, but I for one personally appreciate the efforts of those restaurant owners who do make calorie counts available. Too many people eat mindlessly, without regard for caloric intake. If they could see the real numbers involved in what they're putting into their gut, it might lead them to make more healthful choices, whether consciously or sub-consciously.

Posts : 2214

happy jack wrote:: Sweet Jesus.
It’s bad enough the government wants to restrict what we eat or drink.

Could you point out an example of something we eat or drink that the federal government is restricting?

Posts : 6988

sparks wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Sweet Jesus.
It’s bad enough the government wants to restrict what we eat or drink.

Could you point out an example of something we eat or drink that the federal government is restricting?

I don't recall mentioning the federal government restricting what we eat or drink.
To paraphrase what I said earlier:

happy jack wrote:: Think first, ~~Mr. Mayor~~ sparks - then ~~speak~~ post.
In that order.

Posts : 2214

happy jack wrote:

sparks wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Sweet Jesus.
It’s bad enough the government wants to restrict what we eat or drink.

Could you point out an example of something we eat or drink that the federal government is restricting?

I don't recall mentioning the federal government restricting what we eat or drink.
To paraphrase what I said earlier:

happy jack wrote:: Think first, ~~Mr. Mayor~~ sparks - then ~~speak~~ post.
In that order.

OK, let's try again. You said government wants to restrict what we can eat or drink. How about a few examples of this?

Posts : 3520

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Posts : 6988

sparks wrote:

happy jack wrote:

sparks wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Sweet Jesus.
It’s bad enough the government wants to restrict what we eat or drink.

Could you point out an example of something we eat or drink that the federal government is restricting?

I don't recall mentioning the federal government restricting what we eat or drink.
To paraphrase what I said earlier:

happy jack wrote:: Think first, ~~Mr. Mayor~~ sparks - then ~~speak~~ post.
In that order.

OK, let's try again. You said government wants to restrict what we can eat or drink. How about a few examples of this?

http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/31/bloombergs-soda-ban-and-other-sweeping-health-measures-in-new-york-city/

2005: At the mayor’s urging, New York became the first city to force restaurants and other food vendors to phase out the use of artificial trans fats, which have been linked to obesity and heart disease. The initiative inspired other cities, including Philadelphia and San Francisco, to pass trans-fat bans of their own. Now entire counties and states are considering regulations that would take the fats out of their food.

Posts : 2214

happy jack wrote:

sparks wrote:

happy jack wrote:

sparks wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Sweet Jesus.
It’s bad enough the government wants to restrict what we eat or drink.

Could you point out an example of something we eat or drink that the federal government is restricting?

I don't recall mentioning the federal government restricting what we eat or drink.
To paraphrase what I said earlier:

happy jack wrote:: Think first, ~~Mr. Mayor~~ sparks - then ~~speak~~ post.
In that order.

OK, let's try again. You said government wants to restrict what we can eat or drink. How about a few examples of this?

http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/31/bloombergs-soda-ban-and-other-sweeping-health-measures-in-new-york-city/

2005: At the mayor’s urging, New York became the first city to force restaurants and other food vendors to phase out the use of artificial trans fats, which have been linked to obesity and heart disease. The initiative inspired other cities, including Philadelphia and San Francisco, to pass trans-fat bans of their own. Now entire counties and states are considering regulations that would take the fats out of their food.

So how do you feel about artificial trans fats being banned in some parts of the country?

Posts : 6988

sparks wrote:

happy jack wrote:

sparks wrote:

happy jack wrote:

sparks wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Sweet Jesus.
It’s bad enough the government wants to restrict what we eat or drink.

Could you point out an example of something we eat or drink that the federal government is restricting?

I don't recall mentioning the federal government restricting what we eat or drink.
To paraphrase what I said earlier:

happy jack wrote:: Think first, ~~Mr. Mayor~~ sparks - then ~~speak~~ post.
In that order.

OK, let's try again. You said government wants to restrict what we can eat or drink. How about a few examples of this?

http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/31/bloombergs-soda-ban-and-other-sweeping-health-measures-in-new-york-city/

2005: At the mayor’s urging, New York became the first city to force restaurants and other food vendors to phase out the use of artificial trans fats, which have been linked to obesity and heart disease. The initiative inspired other cities, including Philadelphia and San Francisco, to pass trans-fat bans of their own. Now entire counties and states are considering regulations that would take the fats out of their food.

So how do you feel about artificial trans fats being banned in some parts of the country?

I feel that if restaurant customers demonstrate a preference for food containing trans fats, and if restaurateurs feel it is in their best business interests to include on their menus foods containing trans fats, then the government should get the hell out of the way and allow restaurants to serve foods containing trans fats.

Posts : 2214

happy jack wrote:

sparks wrote:

happy jack wrote:

sparks wrote:

happy jack wrote:

sparks wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Sweet Jesus.
It’s bad enough the government wants to restrict what we eat or drink.

Could you point out an example of something we eat or drink that the federal government is restricting?

I don't recall mentioning the federal government restricting what we eat or drink.
To paraphrase what I said earlier:

happy jack wrote:: Think first, ~~Mr. Mayor~~ sparks - then ~~speak~~ post.
In that order.

OK, let's try again. You said government wants to restrict what we can eat or drink. How about a few examples of this?

http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/31/bloombergs-soda-ban-and-other-sweeping-health-measures-in-new-york-city/

2005: At the mayor’s urging, New York became the first city to force restaurants and other food vendors to phase out the use of artificial trans fats, which have been linked to obesity and heart disease. The initiative inspired other cities, including Philadelphia and San Francisco, to pass trans-fat bans of their own. Now entire counties and states are considering regulations that would take the fats out of their food.

So how do you feel about artificial trans fats being banned in some parts of the country?

I feel that if restaurant customers demonstrate a preference for food containing trans fats, and if restaurateurs feel it is in their best business interests to include on their menus foods containing trans fats, then the government should get the hell out of the way and allow restaurants to serve foods containing trans fats.

How about your house, does your family eat foods containing trans fats or avoid them?

Posts : 6988

sparks wrote:

happy jack wrote:

sparks wrote:

happy jack wrote:

sparks wrote:

happy jack wrote:

sparks wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Sweet Jesus.
It’s bad enough the government wants to restrict what we eat or drink.

Could you point out an example of something we eat or drink that the federal government is restricting?

I don't recall mentioning the federal government restricting what we eat or drink.
To paraphrase what I said earlier:

happy jack wrote:: Think first, ~~Mr. Mayor~~ sparks - then ~~speak~~ post.
In that order.

OK, let's try again. You said government wants to restrict what we can eat or drink. How about a few examples of this?

http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/31/bloombergs-soda-ban-and-other-sweeping-health-measures-in-new-york-city/

2005: At the mayor’s urging, New York became the first city to force restaurants and other food vendors to phase out the use of artificial trans fats, which have been linked to obesity and heart disease. The initiative inspired other cities, including Philadelphia and San Francisco, to pass trans-fat bans of their own. Now entire counties and states are considering regulations that would take the fats out of their food.

So how do you feel about artificial trans fats being banned in some parts of the country?

I feel that if restaurant customers demonstrate a preference for food containing trans fats, and if restaurateurs feel it is in their best business interests to include on their menus foods containing trans fats, then the government should get the hell out of the way and allow restaurants to serve foods containing trans fats.

How about your house, does your family eat foods containing trans fats or avoid them?

Truthfully, I don't even pay attention to such things. I generally check the labels for total fat grams and calories per serving, but that's about as far as I go.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:: Truthfully, I don't even pay attention to such things. I generally check the labels for total fat grams and calories per serving, but that's about as far as I go.

Yeah. Well I humbly suggest that you start paying attention, Jack. The consumption of trans fats is really, really bad for you and your family.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: The consumption of trans fats is really, really bad for you and your family.

Yes, and so was the consumption of coffee, salt, growth hormones in milk, alar on apples, mercury in fish.... etc., etc., etc. .... until it wasn't.

Posts : 2214

There is nothing wrong with the government making decisions that will improve our health.The staggering health costs of treating obesity,coronary disease and diabetes will undermine our future prosperity. I asked Jack about whether he fed trans fats to his family to show a point in this thread. Since he isn't concerned about the health of his own family, it's pretty easy to see why he's opposed to good public policy that will improve the health of all of us.

Posts : 6988

sparks wrote:: There is nothing wrong with the government making decisions that will improve our health.

Really?
Would you like the government to mandate that you ride a stationary bicycle for 2 hours every day, or that you walk or run at least 20 miles per week? That would certainly improve a person’s health, would it not?

sparks wrote:: I asked Jack about whether he fed trans fats to his family to show a point in this thread. Since he isn't concerned about the health of his own family, it's pretty easy to see why he's opposed to good public policy that will improve the health of all of us.

I’m quite concerned about my health and the health of my family. What I will not do, however, is jump on the bandwagon every time the “Poison of the Month” is featured on Oprah, nor will I run screaming from foods which have been consumed for years, but which have suddenly become some do-gooder’s personal crusade. I can take care of my health, and the health of my family, without the government micromanaging our diets. If you, and others like you, are too damned stupid to maintain your own health without medical mandates from Joe Biden, so be it.
But count me out.

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: The consumption of trans fats is really, really bad for you and your family.

[b]Yes, and so was the consumption of coffee, salt, growth hormones in milk, alar on apples, mercury in fish.... etc., etc., etc. .... until it wasn't.

Atta boy,Happy! Damn those Cardiologists,and no nothings from the New England Journal of Medicine that report studies that back up every thing Scorpion said. Full Speed Ahead! cheers

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: The consumption of trans fats is really, really bad for you and your family.

[b]Yes, and so was the consumption of coffee, salt, growth hormones in milk, alar on apples, mercury in fish.... etc., etc., etc. .... until it wasn't.

Atta boy,Happy! Damn those Cardiologists,and no nothings from the New England Journal of Medicine that report studies that back up every thing Scorpion said. Full Speed Ahead! cheers

Scorpion wrote:: The consumption of trans fats is really, really bad for you and your family.

The consumption of many things is " really bad" if such things are not consumed in moderation.
Too much water can kill you.
Ban it?
Or not?

In related news, Mayor Bloomberg has backed a plan to decriminalize open possession of small amounts of marijuana in order to cut down on the number of people police have to arrest during stops. Bloomberg recommends that if you’re carrying pot and want to avoid being questioned by police, do not transport your stash inside a cup larger than 16 ounces. People contacting the Mayor’s office to complain about the marijuana limit are being advised to buy two smaller joints instead of one big one.
**Written by Doug Powers

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: The consumption of trans fats is really, really bad for you and your family.

Yes, and so was the consumption of coffee, salt, growth hormones in milk, alar on apples, mercury in fish.... etc., etc., etc. .... until it wasn't.

Atta boy,Happy! Damn those Cardiologists,and no nothings from the New England Journal of Medicine that report studies that back up every thing Scorpion said. Full Speed Ahead! cheers

Scorpion wrote:: The consumption of trans fats is really, really bad for you and your family.

The consumption of many things is " really bad" if such things are not consumed in moderation.
Too much water can kill you.
Ban it?

At the risk of being impolite, that's just fucking ignorant. The dangers of consuming any artificial trans fats is well established.

I suggest that you educate yourself. Here is a page to get you started...

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AnB4bne7_rh5xeD.wfA1rCObvZx4?fr=yfp-t-521-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=why%20are%20trans%20fats%20bad

As far as a "ban" goes, I see no reason for it, as long as consumers are made aware of the dangers (but that seems to have failed in your case). Restaurants should be required to either clearly indicate that they are using artificial trans fats and clearly display the amounts on the menu or not use them at all.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: The consumption of trans fats is really, really bad for you and your family.

Yes, and so was the consumption of coffee, salt, growth hormones in milk, alar on apples, mercury in fish.... etc., etc., etc. .... until it wasn't.

Atta boy,Happy! Damn those Cardiologists,and no nothings from the New England Journal of Medicine that report studies that back up every thing Scorpion said. Full Speed Ahead! cheers

Scorpion wrote:: The consumption of trans fats is really, really bad for you and your family.

The consumption of many things is " really bad" if such things are not consumed in moderation.
Too much water can kill you.
Ban it?

At the risk of being impolite, that's just fucking ignorant. The dangers of consuming any artificial trans fats is well established.

I suggest that you educate yourself. Here is a page to get you started...

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AnB4bne7_rh5xeD.wfA1rCObvZx4?fr=yfp-t-521-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=why%20are%20trans%20fats%20bad

As far as a "ban" goes, I see no reason for it, as long as consumers are made aware of the dangers (but that seems to have failed in your case). Restaurants should be required to either clearly indicate that they are using artificial trans fats and clearly display the amounts on the menu or not use them at all.

I have a problem with the ban only, not with a consumer warning; it appears that we agree on this.
So why the profanity?

Posts : 2214

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: The consumption of trans fats is really, really bad for you and your family.

Yes, and so was the consumption of coffee, salt, growth hormones in milk, alar on apples, mercury in fish.... etc., etc., etc. .... until it wasn't.

Atta boy,Happy! Damn those Cardiologists,and no nothings from the New England Journal of Medicine that report studies that back up every thing Scorpion said. Full Speed Ahead! cheers

Scorpion wrote:: The consumption of trans fats is really, really bad for you and your family.

The consumption of many things is " really bad" if such things are not consumed in moderation.
Too much water can kill you.
Ban it?

At the risk of being impolite, that's just fucking ignorant. The dangers of consuming any artificial trans fats is well established.

I suggest that you educate yourself. Here is a page to get you started...

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AnB4bne7_rh5xeD.wfA1rCObvZx4?fr=yfp-t-521-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=why%20are%20trans%20fats%20bad

As far as a "ban" goes, I see no reason for it, as long as consumers are made aware of the dangers (but that seems to have failed in your case). Restaurants should be required to either clearly indicate that they are using artificial trans fats and clearly display the amounts on the menu or not use them at all.

I have a problem with the ban only, not with a consumer warning; it appears that we agree on this.
So why the profanity?

Maybe Scorpion is concerned about your health and thought a little profanity might get your attention.

Posts : 6988

sparks wrote:: Maybe Scorpion is concerned about your health and thought a little profanity might get your attention.

Well, it sure the fuck did.

Posts : 2214

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: The consumption of trans fats is really, really bad for you and your family.

Yes, and so was the consumption of coffee, salt, growth hormones in milk, alar on apples, mercury in fish.... etc., etc., etc. .... until it wasn't.

Atta boy,Happy! Damn those Cardiologists,and no nothings from the New England Journal of Medicine that report studies that back up every thing Scorpion said. Full Speed Ahead! cheers

Scorpion wrote:: The consumption of trans fats is really, really bad for you and your family.

The consumption of many things is " really bad" if such things are not consumed in moderation.
Too much water can kill you.
Ban it?

At the risk of being impolite, that's just fucking ignorant. The dangers of consuming any artificial trans fats is well established.

I suggest that you educate yourself. Here is a page to get you started...

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AnB4bne7_rh5xeD.wfA1rCObvZx4?fr=yfp-t-521-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=why%20are%20trans%20fats%20bad

As far as a "ban" goes, I see no reason for it, as long as consumers are made aware of the dangers (but that seems to have failed in your case). Restaurants should be required to either clearly indicate that they are using artificial trans fats and clearly display the amounts on the menu or not use them at all.

The only way to know whether a food contains trans fats is read the label. Manufacturers are allowed to claim their products have "zero" grams of trans fats as long as they contain less than half a gram per portion. Many consumers unknowingly eat more than the 2 gram limit on trans fats because of this loophole in product labeling.

» The <i>New York Times</i> needs <i>your</i> help
» The Proposed New York Mosque
» New York Times watch
» Things in New York on New Year's Eve,
» The New York Times - Still crazy after all these years