| View previous topic :: View next topic |
|
| Author |
Message |
|
Pragmatica
Uh, Can I Add Sugar?
Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Posts: 8
Location: Canada
|
 Posted: Jul 21, 2007 5:38 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Thanks for the welcome, and the info on hot tea likely having more nutrients than cold tea... I guess I'll have to buy a kettle for work after all. 
| syntheticpanda wrote: | | I don't see why the first move has to be a ban. Posted signs or placards would be effective in warning people what they are eating, and it doesn't take away our right to enjoy delicious, unhealthy food in a restaurant because of a minor inconvenience to some. There could always be legal repercussions if the restaurants didn't comply. Like Karen said earlier, this isn't botulism here. |
Oh I agree the first step *should* have been legislating posted placards or info on the menus with all the nutritional information - that should have been done years ago. But, since that wasn't done, when choosing between the two evils I'd rather see a ban on trans fats than a continuation of the status quo/complete lack of information on the part of the restaurants.
It's also not fair at all to grocery food producers to have to pay for labeling if restaurants don't have to. Even with the ban, the restaurants should be posting nutrition information anyway about their products, just like everyone else has to.
Whether it's a trans fat ban or the requirement for reprinted menus and durable placards posted everywhere, the restaurant owners will take a financial hit so they'll resist either way.
Perhaps the lawmakers are pushing bans in the USA because of the very unhealthy status of its population compared to Western Europe, Canada, and Japan. The USA rates 27th on the list of health & longevity of its citizens, down there with some pretty rough countries, and its meagre spot in the list is apparently due to lifestyle factors (relating to terrible diets and inadequate exercise levels). The people trying to ban trans fats appear to have a *legitimate* concern about the dietary health status of the US population. Even Cubans live longer than Americans. I've been across Europe as well as to the USA, and the health & fitness difference and weight difference of the population is readily apparent. Europe's penchant for food rules appears to have paid off and the US legislators no doubt want to help the US citizens in turn.
So again it falls back to a personal preference of "let the gluttonous and uneducated erase themselves out of the gene pool/every man for himself" vs. "put in place some rules to uplift the health status of a country's population".
It boils down to a battle of ideology: Libertarian versus democratic socialist, basically. Personally I wish any form of government would poll its citizens more often on what they want. In cases that aren't totally clear cut, run an educational campaign with facts only, then let the citizens decide if they want a ban, placards/menu warnings, or nothing done. Majority rules.
It's important to note though, that the healthiest countries do something, they don't just leave everyone to fend for themselves. All the developed countries ranking better than the USA also have universal health care, not privatized profit-driven care. If that means someone's mother lives an extra four years or someone's brother has a heart attack two years later than they would have otherwise, I think that's worth the inconvenience of an imperfect muffin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
wehayley
2nd Degree Black Belt
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 206
Location: Under the Basket
|
| Posted: Jul 21, 2007 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
A couple of perhaps minor problems with some of the arguements here: First, posting nutritional information in eateries. While groceries are fairly generic and the formulae is repeated over and over again, restaurants menus are constantly in flux. I can see where the cost could easily run some of the small businesses out of the market. That would leave us at the door of the big chains and fast-food places where the menu is pretty standard, blah, blah, blah, day in and day out. Nicer eateries tend to have a rotating menu and even then, the day chef maight chose to make a dish slightly different (ingrediant wise) than the night chef. They would have to factor in every single ingrediant and each and every adjustment. A lot of work...
On the other side we have to consider that while most developing countries are plagued by diseases of poverty (sanitation for instance), most modernized countries are plagued by diseases of affluence (over-induldging and then laying in front of the boob-tube). The problem with allowing those who wish to eat whatever they want is that it drives up the cost of health care for all of us, and the government keeps raising taxes in order to support those who choose to do so.
I know there are some exceptions and that this is a very broad statement, but I also believe it is generally true. I don't want to pay for someone else's bad habits... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
syntheticpanda
2nd Degree Black Belt
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 198
|
| Posted: Jul 21, 2007 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Oh I agree the first step *should* have been legislating posted placards or info on the menus with all the nutritional information - that should have been done years ago. But, since that wasn't done, when choosing between the two evils I'd rather see a ban on trans fats than a continuation of the status quo/complete lack of information on the part of the restaurants. |
Here you make it sound like we've passed some point of no return, where we must now choose between two evils instead of trying a decidedly less evil alternative first. I think we are in agreement about it being a good first step, but I don't see how it could ever not be an option like you say.
| Quote: | | It boils down to a battle of ideology: Libertarian versus democratic socialist, basically. |
I think you've hit the nail on the head here, and in doing so explained why this thread is so awfully long (not like I'm helping ). I guess the ideal solution for me would be one where concerned citizens have a convenient method of researching the healthiness of their food, be it from grocery stores or restaurants, without compromising the rights of others to indulge.
It is absolutely our responsibility and duty to inform everyone about health risks and proper nutrition, but it isn't our responsibility to force them to eat a certain way. The last time I checked, we have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Why should we compromise the latter two in order to enforce the first with an iron fist, when there are unexplored options that could preserve all three?
Sure, its disgusting to look at the poor health of some Americans, but I only feel sympathy if they actually care about their problem and honestly can't find a solution. If someone knows full well what he is doing is unhealthy (or doesn't know but doesn't care about his obviously self-destructive habits) and continues anyway, I couldn't be less concerned.
But, once again, it all comes down to ideology, and it is quite futile to try and change that. Still, at least we are having a civilized debate instead of the idiotic name-calling and childishness going on throughout many governments today. Civilized debate may not be productive or change anyone's mind, but at least it's not counter-productive and driving us further apart. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
syntheticpanda
2nd Degree Black Belt
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 198
|
| Posted: Jul 21, 2007 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
I know posting nutritional details would be unreasonable. Rather, I would support having a system where a restaurant could post a government-certified sign saying "we do not cook with trans fats" or "we provide nutritional information upon request," or something to that effect. Not all restaurants would be required to comply, but there would be obvious economic benefits for those who do.
I also don't want to pay for those people's problems, but that's a whole other issue even more off-topic than this debate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
wehayley
2nd Degree Black Belt
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 206
Location: Under the Basket
|
| Posted: Jul 21, 2007 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I understand what you mean about this topic drifting here and there, but part of what was being discussed was the NYC ban on transfats. As I understand the issue, and maybe I'm wrong, part of the reason for imposing the ban was to avoid having to spend future tax dollars to take care of the medical problems caused by folks ingesting such "toxic" stuff... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
wehayley
2nd Degree Black Belt
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 206
Location: Under the Basket
|
| Posted: Jul 21, 2007 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
PS... well, I'm off to dinner and perhaps a deep-fried Twinkie or two... Just kiddin'  BURP! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
syntheticpanda
2nd Degree Black Belt
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 198
|
| Posted: Jul 21, 2007 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, that's why I said it would lead to more off-topic conversation, as debates about taxes often do, heh.
Deep fried twinkie... ewww... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Karen
Black Belt
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: Jul 21, 2007 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chip wrote: | | Hmmm, nutrition gestapo??? A little heavy handed don't you think? |
No.
| Quote: | | I think we live in a very free country, full of free choices, yet with a moderate level of protection that I can appreciate. I actually wish more was being done to protect Americans. |
The level of protection is become progressively less moderate and more invasive.
| Quote: | | Perhaps a restuarant could receive a special certification if they comply with certain guidelines. The certification could be a part of their marketing and signage. If a restuarant chooses not to participate, fine, but at least consumers could make educated decisions and there would be a level of accountability. |
But wouldn't this certification have to originate from a government agency in order to have any currency? Then taxpayers would have to foot the bill in order to fund either a new agency or the additional manpower necessary to supplement an existing one.
There's another problem. Let's say that the trans fat illuminati decree that certain foods, restaurants, etc. have met the trans fat criteria. Does this necessarily mean that the food in question is healthful? It might be full of sugar, likely refined. In fact, it probably contains refined carbs which turn to library paste in the intestines. The fact of the matter is that people will think they're eating well because they've eliminated hydrogenated fats (in the form of cooking oil) from their diets when in fact, they're most likely not due to the fact that they're willing to jump on The Current Big Thing rather than expend the effort to determine what's good for them/easiest to prepare. People claim to want to know about good nutrition--it's not true. They want validation that it's okay to eat what they want. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
wehayley
2nd Degree Black Belt
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 206
Location: Under the Basket
|
| Posted: Jul 21, 2007 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Good point Karen. Many foods that shout "low-fat" maintain their taste thanks to additional sugar, while others fool a naive public by hiding their sugar content in the form of high fructose corn syrup, etc... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Karen
Black Belt
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: Jul 21, 2007 7:26 am Post subject: Re: Cold tea |
|
|
| Pragmatica wrote: | Letting their customers know the damage they are doing to themselves isn't high on the priority list of restaurants, just like cigarette companies had to be forced to put the dangers of their products on the packages. As a result, something needs to be legislated to force these restaurants to provide the information so people really know what they are consuming when they eat there. In many cases it's like eating a day or two's worth of calories and fat in one sitting, regardless of whether it's trans fat or not.
It has always puzzled me that food purchased in grocery stores now has all the nutritional info and yet restaurants don't have to provide a single thing in plain view. It's very inconsistent and if that information was provided (as it should have been all along) perhaps the trans fat ban would have never happened in the first place because of the outrage and consumer reaction to those numbers would have forced some restaurants to change for the better long ago. |
Do you have any idea of what this would cost in time, effort, and money?! Not to mention the fact that reliability would be suspect because restaurants don't measure oil before putting it on a griddle, count lettuce leaves, exactly measure garnishes, etc. And what about specials? Print up new menus every day? Not every restaurant is Chanterelle. Come on!
It's great that this appears on packaged food, but to hold restaurants, which already have the highest failure rate of just about any business, to this standard is just not practical, besides which eating out isn't just about the food, i.e., it's about getting out, getting together with friends, celebrating, etc. If your needs at restaurants aren't being met, eat at home.
| Quote: | | As for the ban, like smoking bans, I'm for it personally as health is my priority, not whether a muffin has the perfect texture or not. |
Well, my priority is good food. The health aspect is met by knowing what's good and what isn't--AS THE RESULT OF MY OWN EFFORTS--and not overdoing what I know to be bad. If health were my only concern I'd adhere to a vegan diet. I don't because I'm very serious about good food, including tea. I think the health benefits of tea are frosting on the cake, so to speak. It's the TASTE of the tea and its quality that are important to me.
| Quote: | | Seeing as restaurants don't provide the info for me to make healthy eating decisions, I'd much rather see a ban of the worst substances than nothing done at all. In the mean time I just avoid restaurants 90% of the time as I already know that for the most part they offer over-oiled, over-fatted unhealthy fare and ridiculously large serving sizes (at least in the West). Even when I order what seems to be healthier fare, they always use *huge* amounts of butter, oils, and salt compared to what I'd prepare at home for the exact same dish. I want to know what the calorie, sodium, and fat hit is of all the extra crap and sauces, especially if they promote the dish as the ever-vague and misleading 'lighter/healthy choice' on their menu. |
I tend to agree. Which is why I depend on myself to know what's healthful and what isn't.
Last edited by Karen on Jul 21, 2007 7:52 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Karen
Black Belt
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: Jul 21, 2007 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| syntheticpanda wrote: | Yeah, that's why I said it would lead to more off-topic conversation, as debates about taxes often do, heh.
Deep fried twinkie... ewww... |
Don't laugh--I had a deep-fried Snickers bar at an English restaurant called A Salt and Battery (I determined beforehand that the oil wasn't used for fish  ). It was so awful that even I couldn't eat it.
I did find out later that they also offered deep-fried Cadbury Eggs; those might have been better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
syntheticpanda
2nd Degree Black Belt
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 198
|
| Posted: Jul 21, 2007 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I think deep-fried Mars bars originated in Ireland (or was it Scotland?), so at least one insanely unhealthy food wasn't created here in the States. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Karen
Black Belt
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: Jul 21, 2007 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wehayley wrote: | | I understand what you mean about this topic drifting here and there, but part of what was being discussed was the NYC ban on transfats. As I understand the issue, and maybe I'm wrong, part of the reason for imposing the ban was to avoid having to spend future tax dollars to take care of the medical problems caused by folks ingesting such "toxic" stuff... |
Well, again this is WAY off topic. I personally don't think it's any government's responsibility to provide health care. And the fact that they do means that they are then entitled to dictate how people live their lives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Karen
Black Belt
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: Jul 21, 2007 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| syntheticpanda wrote: | | I think deep-fried Mars bars originated in Ireland (or was it Scotland?), so at least one insanely unhealthy food wasn't created here in the States. |
You know, it MIGHT have been a Mars bar at that! And your comment would explain its inclusion in a fish 'n chips restaurant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
wehayley
2nd Degree Black Belt
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 206
Location: Under the Basket
|
| Posted: Jul 21, 2007 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I believe if the government is going to collect taxes, the people paying those taxes are entitled to say how it is spent through their elected representatives. And that how may well include health care... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
