Gothamist: And You Thought Halloween Was Scary

Not Amused

Wed, 01 Nov 2006 01:30:21 -0500

I look at it this way, If you want to poison yourself go right ahead! I understand how additive ciggies are . I have a couple of smokers in my family and they are all trying to quit. It takes time , Willpower, and above all TIME ! I also understand the goverment's stand here, The sicker you get , The more it costs to take care of you . That's no excuse to start running people's lives because they want to save a few bucks . Oh, I hope all of you don't think that they are trying to do this out of humanity . LOL, This is all about the all mighty dollar plain and simple !

dug

Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:18:16 -0500

actually, those nutritional info/ingredient labels have made a huge difference for some of us who actually take responsibility for what we eat. libertarians take note: this facilitates personal responsibility. they can't be compared to tobacco labels as nicotine is an extremely addictive drug. but when it comes to making food choices, information can certainly make a difference. at the very least, it puts the responsibility on the consumer instead of allowing him/her to claim ignorance.

Deckard

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:47:03 -0500

... oh. now i understand... thanks for the heads-up... baby...

dhex

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:30:41 -0500

it's called paternalism, baby! and if you read the times article - and yes, i am explicitly calling for you to DO something - you'll see some odd notions in there. (the drive in tax is merely the cream of the crop) part of this may be cognitive dissonance from having the exact opposite problem most of humanity has faced, in terms of having too much food too cheaply rather than the other way around. how does one deal with, in some sense, succeeding at beating a major hurdle of existence? you'll notice very few of them stop at food labelling. the idea is that somehow, there is some way to make people to choose correctly. if people aren't responsible, fundamentally, for what they put in their bodies, then what the hell do they really own? are we all the slaves of the state, or our neighbors? he who costs the least in medical costs before death wins? a similar impulse will, in our lifetimes, create a black market for tobacco - for our own goods, of course. ultimately, the best top down correction (in terms of results) would be food bans over a certain caloric limit and mandatory exercise programs, along with coercive measures (jail time, fines, the "fat tax") to make people comply. now, most of these methods strike most people - rightfully - as fundamentally wrong in some way, even if they can't describe what is, exactly, wrong with what is otherwise a common sense solution. hell, i don't even eat fast food. but the notion that people do not own their bodies is the root of many a disturbing trend in government that is bipartisan and difficult to dislodge. any step in that direction is to be viewed with skepticism, even - or especially - when the notion of "for our own good" comes into play. (of course, there is generally a subtext that we - you and i - don't actually need such measures, but "people" do. very few people are authoritarian towards their own hobbies or inclinations.)

Deckard

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:59:17 -0500

Jesus. What's with the diatribes about this? What are you so afraid of? It's not like anybody's asking YOU to do it. It's just a little information, folks. It ain't gonna hurt 'cha.

Erin

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:42:24 -0500

STOOPID. What's next, putting "caution: danger of sexual assault" labels on miniskirts?

dhex

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:45:41 -0500

oh hey check this out: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/weekinreview/29kolata.html?_r=1&oref=slogin "The idea of using economic incentives to help people shed pounds comes up in the periodic calls for taxes on junk food. Martin B. Schmidt, an economist at the College of William and Mary, suggests a tax on food bought at drive-through windows. Describing his theory in a recent Op-Ed article in The New York Times, Dr. Schmidt said people would expend more calories if they had to get out of their cars to pick up their food."

dhex

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:30:56 -0500

"You are more than welcome to consume that biggie sized meal deal fatty, and sadly I'll still be paying for your fat ass when you need the state to subsidize your medical bills because you have diabetes." so...mandatory government exercise programs? since inactivity - rather than weight per say - is the greatest health risk factor, etc etc and so forth. that's the problem with framing everything as a public health issue - your choices are my responsiblity (in a very, very small way, dependent on your tax bills, etc etc and so forth) it's very easy to come up with some really exciting 1984-style campaigns to curb public ills. these issues are generally only noticed when it becomes time to gore the ox we like best - shutting bars down at 11pm, or a headphone tax due to future hearing loss costs, a computer monitor/system tax for eye strain and RSI injuries, etc etc and so forth. sadly, these campaigns are generally limited by the imagination of politicians, at least in nyc (which is about as statist as cities get in america) so we're in for good, good times.

Mozo

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:25:50 -0500

Overall, I think this is an excellent idea. It's one thing to consume a super value meal considering price and taste. It's quite another to be confronted with nutritional value/fat and calorie content in addition to price and (perceived) taste. I'm not saying people make choices out of ignorance, rather - I'm saying it's very easy to put your conscience on the shelf for the short term gratification. I predict adding caloric values to menu items as an additional bit of information will be motivational to a significant portion of individuals to make a wiser menu choice.

mozo

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:23:48 -0500

meanies

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:36:48 -0500

diabetes - you can be thin and have diabetes you douche...

proper balance

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:25:54 -0500

It doesn't really matter how many calories are in one specific food item unless you eat that item every day. Le Bernadin could serve 5000 calorie cream sauces but I can't afford to eat there daily. I'm sure McDonald's would love it every person ate one or more meals there per day but if you think think it's healthy than you're retarded. On the other hand, Morgan Spurlock is a loser. McDonald's advertising used to say "You deserve a break today" not "Eat here until it hurts".

mhaggz

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:23:02 -0500

@ Offbalance This is called informing the public. It is the duty of our elected officials to work on behalf of the common good of the people. Giving citizens more information is never a bad thing and it is in no way legislating any type of eating habits. You are more than welcome to consume that biggie sized meal deal fatty, and sadly I'll still be paying for your fat ass when you need the state to subsidize your medical bills because you have diabetes.

bklynd

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:09:39 -0500

Actually, it was my impression that smoking continues to go down year after year. (Though I don't know what to point to to demonstrate that.) And, the legislation doesn't "legislate lifestyles," exactly, does it, just the way businesses display menu items. (The way products are advertised and packaged is already fairly heavily regulated.) Regardless, I think the proposed regs will flop because of the uneven way they affect businesses (fast-food franchisees getting screwed, Le Bernadin or the halal cart on the corner unaffected.)

Gari N. Corp

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:06:19 -0500

Bit off topic, here, but yr RSS feed appears to be sodded. Like the redesign, though.

Jeebus

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:05:03 -0500

With the amount of fatties out there today? I Think this is totally necessary. Maybe the lardasses will think twice about eating that double cheeseburger if theres a '1000 calories' next to it.

focus on something important

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:04:12 -0500

They put the nutritional information on supermarket food and it doesn't make much difference. and no, warning labels didn't make a differnece on cigarette smoking. $7 packs of smokes did. So cut the farm subsidies or go back to the system in place up to the 1970s and let food prices rise.

Offbalance

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:58:36 -0500

This is ridiculous. I resent how the local government is once again trying to legislate lifestyles. I don't see why or how nutritional information is going to make a difference. After all, taxes, having to go outside, and warning labels haven't stopped many smokers, have they?