# Food Police Strike Again



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Do not mistake this as me lobbying for unhealthy food. However, first our foi gras, now trans fats. One has to wonder where this is headed.



Anyone else think McD's and company are staring down the barrel of tobacco type litigation in the next decade?


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> One has to wonder where this is headed.


Soylent Green! That's about all that will be left.

It's curious that NYC felt the need to legislate about this when, according to the article, less restrictive legislation requiring content disclosure and market forces have been influencing company behavior for at least a few years already.

It would be nice if government could stick to the philosophy of give the consumer information and let the market work. NYC's law is just another paternalistic attempt to save us all from ourselves.

Sadly, one could probably see the tobacco stuff coming. A private lawsuit in, I think, New York got past the motion to dismiss stage. The claim asserted that McDonald's duped the man into thinking Big Macs are healthy because they were advertised as being "Pure Beef." Give me a break. Any reasonable human being knows that just because something is "pure" doesn't mean it's healthy. We know the downside and we indulge or not as we choose.

That said, I'm off to grab a burger and fries.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

How do you guys feel about the argument that we all pay into the health system, and that I'm forced to support the person headed to a bypass surgery that could be prevented by better choices? As someone whose healthcare costs keep rising each year, I'd be interested in ways to reduce what I pay. If that means encouraging healthier eating, maybe that's not entirely bad. 

Then too I keep hearing about American's overall health crisis--more and more people, including kids, getting diabetes, cardiac disease, cancer. Are we at the point were we have to consider all of the ways to bring these risks down because of the staggering societal costs associated with them? Just asking. 

Well, one thing's certain: less animal fat makes this a good deal for the animals at least.


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

Bertie,

Your question about health costs is, I believe, the very issue that allowed states to sue tobacco companies. They claimed that false advertising by tobacco companies (who actually, at one point, claimed health benefits from their product) caused states to pay out vast sums for Medicare claims.

I have no issue at all with encouraging healthier eating. If the FDA mandates that something must be disclosed on a label, this, in my opinion, facilitates operation of the market by correcting imbalances in information. The consumer knows better and can make a choice. If the article is correct, fast food chains have gotten the message from the market as they have been researching alternative oils for some time. I do, however, have a problem with blocking the market artificially with potentially needless restrictive legislation that sends the message that these sorts of controls are OK.

Disclosures: I am not now nor have I ever been a smoker. I consume more burgers and fries than I should. With respect to booze, I can only say that I thank God there's no fat in it to attract the attention of the food nazis.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

BertieW said:


> If that means encouraging healthier eating, maybe that's not entirely bad.


Encouraging is one thing. Legislating is another matter. For that matter lets make smoking, drinking and unprotected sex illegal. Lets regulate all cars so that they can only go 55 mph. Lets make it illegal for grocery stores to sell foods that are high in fat. Where should we stop?

For the lawyers reading this I have a question. How does one convince a jury that his/her heart disease or other medical condition was caused by poor dietary habits? Even further, how does one convince a jury that those poor habits centered around eating McD's every day? I wondered that about the cigarette companies too. How does one go about convincing a jury that it was THAT particular brand of cigarette that caused the cancer? What if the person smoked cigarettes from different companies? Just curious.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> How do you guys feel about the argument that we all pay into the health system, and that I'm forced to support the person headed to a bypass surgery that could be prevented by better choices? As someone whose healthcare costs keep rising each year, I'd be interested in ways to reduce what I pay.* If that means encouraging healthier eating, *maybe that's not entirely bad.


I am sure you can see the vast gulf that seperates "encouraging" vs. "legislating"?

Your point about paying for others is not without merit, but it is also not quite valid. First, your taxes would only go directly if it were for someone on Medicare and/or Medicaid. Second, if you speak to a private policy, you are always free to join a better risk pool or change your policy, such as to a catastrophic coverage only. Granted the US tax system is screwy concerning premiums and how they are paid, but that is another topic.

This is funny in a way also Bertie, as I remember when the Repubs under Reagan wanted to replace some meat with tofu in school lunches. The Dems raised a hue and cry over this. Then of course years later, what did the Dems want to do with school lunches? Why, replace some meat content with tofu of course  Isn't life funny?

Regards


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

A Questionable Gentleman said:


> With respect to booze, I can only say that I thank God there's no fat in it to attract the attention of the food nazis.


Careful what you say there! ETOH is metabolized much like fat in the liver. Fatty liver (steatosis) is often the precursor to cirrhosis.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

A Questionable Gentleman said:


> With respect to booze, I can only say that I thank God there's no fat in it to attract the attention of the food nazis.


Ah, but MADD is trying to get all cars equipped with a breathalizer(SP?), if you breath shows you over the limit - you can't start your car.
The Nazi are everywhere.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> Ah, but MADD is trying to get all cars equipped with a breathalizer(SP?), if you breath shows you over the limit - you can't start your car.
> The Nazi are everywhere.


I would like you all to join the new PAC I am starting: DDAM or Drunk Drivers Against Mothers.

Please, no flames. It is a joke.


----------



## jeansguy (Jul 29, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> Anyone else think McD's and company are staring down the barrel of tobacco type litigation in the next decade?


Think? It's a guarantee.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I hope this is not a hijack. I would like to point out that the NBA is underrepresented by people under 6 feet tall. People like me are underrepresented, both in playing jobs and in coaching positions.

This is blatant discrimination. When we legislate against people eating foods that the food Nazis don't like, we should include legislation against this intolerable discrimination with the food legislation.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

BertieW said:


> How do you guys feel about the argument that we all pay into the health system, and that I'm forced to support the person headed to a bypass surgery that could be prevented by better choices? As someone whose healthcare costs keep rising each year, I'd be interested in ways to reduce what I pay. If that means encouraging healthier eating, maybe that's not entirely bad.
> 
> Then too I keep hearing about American's overall health crisis--more and more people, including kids, getting diabetes, cardiac disease, cancer. Are we at the point were we have to consider all of the ways to bring these risks down because of the staggering societal costs associated with them? Just asking.
> 
> Well, one thing's certain: less animal fat makes this a good deal for the animals at least.


By your logic the government can start regulating one's sex life as well. After all certain practices/behaviors are riskier than others and the disease/maladies/deaths which result are also paid for by tax dollars. Just asking.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

A Questionable Gentleman said:


> Soylent Green! That's about all that will be left.


At least that reduces the human ecological footprint.

;-)


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Does everything have to be sarcastic? I really was just asking. And to prove it, I used a question mark.

Sheesh.

I see your point. With any luck the new Bush HHS guy /will/ take us a step closer to sex regulation. We had a little thread on this elsewhere, fwiw.



Rocker said:


> By your logic the government can start regulating one's sex life as well. After all certain practices/behaviors are riskier than others and the disease/maladies/deaths which result are also paid for by tax dollars. Just asking.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I agree that encouragement, rather than regulation is the most fruitful route here. Maybe where the government can play a valuable role is in helping put more information out front for consumers to then make a decision. I know this already exists, but there may be a way to increase awareness.



A Questionable Gentleman said:


> Bertie,
> 
> Your question about health costs is, I believe, the very issue that allowed states to sue tobacco companies. They claimed that false advertising by tobacco companies (who actually, at one point, claimed health benefits from their product) caused states to pay out vast sums for Medicare claims.
> 
> ...


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

*The Next Step*

The government will eventually give each person a set amount of coupons that may used to purchase meat. The purpose is to limit the amount of meat a person may consumer per month, because too much meat is not healthy. Transfering unused coupons to another person will be treated as a felony.

It might sound outrageous but that is where we are heading.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> Ah, but MADD is trying to get all cars equipped with a breathalizer(SP?), if you breath shows you over the limit - you can't start your car.
> The Nazi are everywhere.


My wife and I were almost killed by a drunk driver, who was almost three times the legal limit. I was hurt badly, but my wife was in ICU for 11 days, and then spent the next 4 months recovering. It was the third DWI for the driver, and he was given one year in prison after he plead guilty. If this is what it takes to keep drunks off the road, so be it.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

rkipperman said:


> The government will eventually give each person a set amount of coupons that may used to purchase meat. The purpose is to limit the amount of meat a person may consumer per month, because too much meat is not healthy. Transfering unused coupons to another person will be treated as a felony.
> 
> It might sound outrageous but that is where we are heading.


Well, it looks like the sky is falling.

What is the big deal here? Replacing trans fat with a healthier alternative, what is so bad about that?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Humans (myself included of course) are funny critters. Take me for instance. I am good with having an HOA prevent someone from having a junker car up on blocks or preventing a skate board ramp from being built and placed in my neighbor's driveway while it would seem many here would be against an HOA doig that. However, I find it wrong-headed that NYC should legislate trans fats out of eateries while others find that totally acceptable it would seem. I also find it wrong that the general public should have a presumption of being guilty of driving while drunk and having to prove their innocence every time they start their vehicle. This is a much different stance than making such a device a mandatory condition of parole for those convicted of intoxicated driving.

LAX, sorry to hear about the criminal act you suffered. As with so many things, it seems a problem person was identified but our system did not neutralize the problem. Hope you both have made a full recovery and that the perpetrator drowns in his own vomit.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Humans (myself included of course) are funny critters. Take me for instance. I am good with having an HOA prevent someone from having a junker car up on blocks or preventing a skate board ramp from being built and placed in my neighbor's driveway while it would seem many here would be against an HOA doig that. However, I find it wrong-headed that NYC should legislate trans fats out of eateries while others find that totally acceptable it would seem. I also find it wrong that the general public should have a presumption of being guilty of driving while drunk and having to prove their innocence every time they start their vehicle. *This is a much different stance than making such a device a mandatory condition of parole for those convicted of intoxicated driving.*
> 
> LAX, sorry to hear about the criminal act you suffered. As with so many things, it seems a problem person was identified but our system did not neutralize the problem. Hope you both have made a full recovery and that the perpetrator drowns in his own vomit.


As I read your post, I thought to myself how annoying it would be to have to breathe into a tube everytime I wanted to start my car. I agree that it would be better suited to those who have prior convictions for drunk driving. Whenever the topic turns to drunk driving, I tend to anger easily. My wife and I have made a full recovery, and she had no complications with our son's birth. (Her hip had been broken in 5 places). She has some aching now and then, but nothing too bad considering the severity of the accident.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Well, it looks like the sky is falling.
> 
> What is the big deal here? Replacing trans fat with a healthier alternative, what is so bad about that?


My problem is the reasoning behind it and the fact that it is mandatory. Using the logic for requiring the replacement of trans fat, you can get some very "interesting" results. This law may not bother you, but the next one might.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> As I read your post, I thought to myself how annoying it would be to have to breathe into a tube everytime I wanted to start my car. I agree that it would be better suited to those who have prior convictions for drunk driving. Whenever the topic turns to drunk driving, I tend to anger easily. My wife and I have made a full recovery, and she had no complications with our son's birth. (Her hip had been broken in 5 places). She has some aching now and then, but nothing too bad considering the severity of the accident.


LAX, your reply shows the stand up type of person you are. I do not know if I could control my anger as you have if the same happened to me and my family. Glad to hear that most of the affects have healed. Move to Arizona for that achey hip


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I hope this is not a hijack. I would like to point out that the NBA is underrepresented by people under 6 feet tall. People like me are underrepresented, both in playing jobs and in coaching positions.
> 
> This is blatant discrimination. When we legislate against people eating foods that the food Nazis don't like, we should include legislation against this intolerable discrimination with the food legislation.


How are you discriminated against for a coaching position? Former Knick coach Jeff Van Gundy is 5"9" and so is Knicks guard Nate Robinson.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I hope this is not a hijack. I would like to point out that the NBA is underrepresented by people under 6 feet tall. People like me are underrepresented, both in playing jobs and in coaching positions.
> 
> This is blatant discrimination. When we legislate against people eating foods that the food Nazis don't like, we should include legislation against this intolerable discrimination with the food legislation.


Absolutely right. You are a genius. I have a good outside shot, or I would if all these huge guys weren't interfering with my right to make the shot by being tall and waving their arms around.

Think of the lost wages! If it weren't for this blatant heightism I would be rich. As it is I will never know.

I want money. Now. Bags of it.

Selah,

Patrick

PS: Around 20 years ago Bob Cousy tried to get people interested in a six-foot and under pro league, and nobody bit.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I should like to point out that 1 out of 30 NBA coaches being under 6 feet is 3% of the NBA coaches. A far larger percentage of the general population is short.

Also, if we study it carefully, even though there are a couple NBA players shorter than 6 feet tall, the percentage of NBA players that are under six feet tall is far less than the number of people less than six feet tall in the overall population.

Thus, short people are underrepresented and therefore discriminated against in regard to these well compensated positions.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I should like to point out that 1 out of 30 NBA coaches being under 6 feet is 3% of the NBA coaches. A far larger percentage of the general population is short.
> 
> Also, if we study it carefully, even though there are a couple NBA players shorter than 6 feet tall, the percentage of NBA players that are under six feet tall is far less than the number of people less than six feet tall in the overall population.
> 
> Thus, short people are underrepresented and therefore discriminated against in regard to these well compensated positions.


Even assuming your facts are correct, "short" people are not a "protected class." That means that it's pemissible to discriminate against people based on height.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

rkipperman said:


> My problem is the reasoning behind it and the fact that it is mandatory. Using the logic for requiring the replacement of trans fat, you can get some very "interesting" results. This law may not bother you, but the next one might.


I understand your concern, but there are already many laws in place for the safe handling and storage of food. I mean, we don't give restaurants the option to choose not to wear gloves when handling food, or to store foods improperly since that is unhealthy. IMO this would just be an extension of these rules. Maybe these types of laws should be voted on, as are many of the municipal smoking bans.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> I understand your concern, but there are already many laws in place for the safe handling and storage of food. I mean, we don't give restaurants the option to choose not to wear gloves when handling food, or to store foods improperly since that is unhealthy. IMO this would just be an extension of these rules. Maybe these types of laws should be voted on, as are many of the municipal smoking bans.


Personally, I have no problem with establishments not complying with the safe food laws as long as the establishment discloses this fact. Then, based on the information, I can choose whether I want to patronize such an establishment.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

We just need to find a sympathetic judge. Somewhere out there, there's a 5'6" judge who was picked on by big kids as a child who will side with us.

I've always wanted to play for the Pistons.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> We just need to find a sympathetic judge. Somewhere out there, there's a 5'6" judge who was picked on by big kids as a child who will side with us.
> 
> I've always wanted to play for the Pistons.


How tall is Issiah and/or The Microwave?


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

And what about short people handling food at NBA games? Huh? Huh?


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

BertieW said:


> How do you guys feel about the argument that we all pay into the health system, and that I'm forced to support the person headed to a bypass surgery that could be prevented by better choices?


We're going to restrict personal decision making ability so that we can keep costs low for social programs? Perhaps the problem is less with the personal decision making and more with the social program.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> How do you guys feel about the argument that we all pay into the health system, and that I'm forced to support the person headed to a bypass surgery that could be prevented by better choices? As someone whose healthcare costs keep rising each year, I'd be interested in ways to reduce what I pay.


This is an excellent argument against government intervention in the medical services industry -- you shouldn't be forced to support the person headed to a bypass surgery.

As soon as the government inserts itself into some area of our daily lives, it then has an interest in it, which it invariably uses as a justification for increasing its level of control.


----------



## Hedonist (Nov 5, 2006)

_Are you serious?_

Is Foie Gras just banned in the restaurants or I can buy it in a Gourmet store?

This is really not good :icon_pale:


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

You can't smoke in NYC anymore. Soon you won't be able to enjoy tasty trans fats in NYC anymore. Times Square isn't seedy anymore and $2 million USD won't even buy you a decent apartment in Manhattan and even Brooklyn is beginning to get pricey. Good bye to all that I say.

Karl


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

*News you can use*

So am I right in thinking that even those displeased with NYC's decision to ban trans fats would find this bit of public service beneficial? Give the people the information to make their own choices, right?

CALORIE SHOCKER

New York City's first-in-the-nation order to ban trans fats from all city restaurants has received wide attention. But the most important health dividends might well come from a less prominent measure that was also approved by the city's Board of Health yesterday: a requirement that fast-food restaurants post the calories in their offerings in large type and in readily visible positions. The likely shock when patrons realize just how many calories they are imbibing with their oversized burgers and fries or richly sweetened coffees may provide just the right impetus to propel overweight customers toward a healthier diet.

The calorie posting requirement applies to all restaurants that have standardized menus and already list the calorie content of their menu items publicly, often on a Web site or brochure or even in the restaurant itself, although not very prominently. These restaurants, which include virtually all of the well-known fast-food chains, will soon be required to post the caloric content of each item on menus and on menu boards, in type every bit as large as the name or price of the item.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/06/opinion/06wed2.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

I think if it's to be a requirement for any restaurant to prominently display the calorie content of its food it should be required for all restaurants to do so. That's my only complaint with the current rule regarding the display of nutritional information. I'm sure there would have to be some sort of exception for restaurants which offer specials, because it would be far too much of a burden to test every new recipe if it is only to be used for a a few days to a week.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Bertie:

I fully back this disclosure of information but I tend to think the effect will be exactly zero. I mean, if you can eat a Big Mac, supersized, along with some chicken nuggets and *not think* you are eating enough calories for a third world village for a day, you either do not care or are too unintelligent to extrapolate what the caloric information relates.

Just my opinion.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

hmmmmm...well at least tobacco isnt the only thing getting a bad rap anymore...it'll be interesting to see how this nonsense plays out over the next couple of years...

I'd just like to know when it was exactly that common sense died...


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> hmmmmm...well at least tobacco isnt the only thing getting a bad rap anymore...it'll be interesting to see how this nonsense plays out over the next couple of years...
> 
> I'd just like to know when it was exactly that common sense died...


Why do you think this kind of information is nonsense? What is it that's so bad about giving customers these facts? Doing so does not prohibit them from ordering whatever they want; just informing them better about what it is they're ordering.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Bertie:
> 
> I fully back this disclosure of information but I tend to think the effect will be exactly zero. I mean, if you can eat a Big Mac, supersized, along with some chicken nuggets and *not think* you are eating enough calories for a third world village for a day, you either do not care or are too unintelligent to extrapolate what the caloric information relates.
> 
> Just my opinion.


You may be right. It will be interesting to see if consumer patterns shift in ways attributable to this information.

I've not been inside of a fast food joint in about 14 years, since I figured out the trans fats and calories equation.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

BertieW said:


> Why do you think this kind of information is nonsense? What is it that's so bad about giving customers these facts? Doing so does not prohibit them from ordering whatever they want; just informing them better about what it is they're ordering.


Well...hopefully this will play out just like smoking...warning labels are just the begining...before long, we'll be bombarded with obnoxious PSAs, and then comes the legislation...perhaps when people start having to pay $10 for a big mac due to draconian taxation justified by media villification of a perfectly legal activity, the smokers (myself included) will have somebody to gripe a the health-nuts with...

but dont think it'll end there...eventually, and it may be a long time, the scientific community might discover that something you enjoy is "bad for the general public" and the health-nut watch-dogs will get the media to start a campaign against it...


----------



## The Wife (Feb 4, 2006)

The basic concept may be praiseworthy, but it is impossibly flawed. How can a chef be precise _or _innovative with such unattainable requirements and restrictions? 
It's practical to have food packages bearing labels with caloric content and nutritional information, because the amounts are precisely measured and weighed, and usually produced by machines. Human beings working in restaurants are not robots. I wonder just how the Chinese restaurants of New York City would handle such a requirement. Although, I certainly do wish there were a way to find out _a priori_ whether a dish contained seafood, fungi or anchovies, so that I could avoid it! 

All God's chillun eat the fruits of the earth, and all fruits of the earth can be dangerous to _someone's_ health. Are the the neo-socialists therefore going to raze all crops? What about freedom and responsibility, which, last time I looked, go hand-in-hand?

Sure, people need a little discrimination when they eat, but that's the job of every individual's own brain. The way the New York City Council has acted lately, I wonder whether any one of them _does_ own one.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

When I am made Dictator I will ban everything and we will live in the woods and eat bark and dance with the sheep and everything will be wonderful.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Patrick06790 said:


> When I am made Dictator I will ban everything and we will live in the woods and eat bark and dance with the sheep and everything will be wonderful.


Can we beat on drums?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

The Wife,

If ever decide to run for office, I don't care what party you are affiliated with, let me know so I can move to your district and vote for you and your common sense.

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Patrick06790 said:


> When I am made Dictator I will ban everything and we will live in the woods and eat bark and dance with the sheep and everything will be wonderful.


SHEEP EXPLOITER!


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Wayfarer,

Your comments to Patrick are ironic since you are a Scotsman! It gets awfully lonely up in the highlands with no lasses around, no?..............just kidding!

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Wayfarer,
> 
> Your comments to Patrick are ironic since you are a Scotsman! It gets awfully lonely up in the highlands with no lasses around, no?..............just kidding!
> 
> Karl


Lol, I was thinking of asking him if he was Scottish too.....just figured I'd not make this a nationalistic debate


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

*From the NY Daily News Letters*

Double standard

Brooklyn: I am sure the rest of the country will follow New York's lead and outlaw trans fats. After all, the stuff will kill us. So why, then, is tobacco still legal? Oh, that's right, because the government makes billions in taxes on cigarette sales every year. P.S. Marlboro is my poison.

Ian Notti


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

BertieW said:


> So am I right in thinking that even those displeased with NYC's decision to ban trans fats would find this bit of public service beneficial? Give the people the information to make their own choices, right?


Bertie you've got me rolling around in laughter, the irony is almost too good to be true. Just weeks ago your probing this forum about the ill effects of illegal drugs and yet you also find the time to raise to the soap box to support plans to ban trans fats in NYC. I think you have your priorities mixed up my friend.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

*Mayor Bloomberg and Jose Bove take note*

Gents,

"McDonald's is closing its outlet in a town known for quality food and healthy, local produce.
The fast food chain in Tavistock, Devon, simply wasn't being used enough by locals."

https://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23377273-details/McDonald's+forced+to+shut+from+lack+of+patronage+in+healthy+town/article.do

Karl


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I don't recall ever identifying the "ill effects" of hallucinogens. To be treated with respect. Not for everyone. I never provided my personal view based on experience.

And if you read carefully in this post, I'm not "supporting" the "ban," just wondering if this is something worth contemplating here as part of /some/thing to help what many physicians are calling a national epidemic. What I do support is the right for people to have access to information upon which they can then make their own decisions. I see nothing pernicious about letting consumers know what they are buying. Apparently you do.

Perhaps you would prefer a return to the days of snake oil salesmen and their mysteriously labeled curatives?



whnay. said:


> Bertie you've got me rolling around in laughter, the irony is almost too good to be true. Just weeks ago your probing this forum about the ill effects of illegal drugs and yet you also find the time to raise to the soap box to support plans to ban trans fats in NYC. I think you have your priorities mixed up my friend.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Perhaps you would prefer a return to the days of snake oil salesmen and their mysteriously labeled curatives?


Bertie,

I think we are on the same page about offering up consumer information. I for one am for 100% full disclosure, as little impact as that will make on some I feel. However, your statement made me ponder something.

I am willing to bet there is a very high corelation between folks that would be happy to ban the trans fats, force healthier eating, etc. and those that embrace "alternative medicine" and hold Western medicine in either disregard or suspicion. Basically, modern day snake oil believers. (Do not think that I am saying certain non-Western things are not efficacious, but please do draw from this conclusions such as, fat middle aged white women with MSN behind their names do not become able to manipulate the body's energy field after a weekend seminar at Embassy Suites, something I have actually had to deal with. I am sure there is a little 80 year old guy in China, that has worked on this for decades, that can do things to the body's field that could be empirically measured. The fat nurses though.....not happening).

Cheers


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> I am willing to bet there is a very high corelation between folks that would be happy to ban the trans fats, force healthier eating, etc. and those that embrace "alternative medicine" and hold Western medicine in either disregard or suspicion.


What's best is when these same people go to medical school. They're fun to talk to.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> What's best is when these same people go to medical school. They're fun to talk to.


I have the world famous one making his home here. I am afraid I will have to talk to him, at some point, if I go back for my doctorate in public health. I am speaking of The Walrus or as most know him, Andrew Wilde.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Wayfarer,

Definitely agree that there's plenty of caution required for holistic, new age, etc. remedies. Remember shark cartilage, for instance? Lot of hockum out there.

I'm not altogether sure that the established medical profession, the ones pushing the trans fats thing (I'm assuming...), would get into bed with the new agers though. I know plenty of scientists who all-but-loathe these folks, who they perceive as charlatans. Who knows?

But point well taken.

Best,
B

P.S. Anyone else investigating the resveratrol thing? I must admit, I've been taking supplements recently...and hoping it doesn't turn out like shark cartilage... I think this one, like CoQ10, the antioxidant, may bear fruit. We'll see.



Wayfarer said:


> Bertie,
> 
> I think we are on the same page about offering up consumer information. I for one am for 100% full disclosure, as little impact as that will make on some I feel. However, your statement made me ponder something.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

A whole state this time.


----------

