Are you kidding me....now Hotdogs are the target (unemployed, purchase)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I never trusted the ol' hot dog. Something about eating a ground up tube of by-products is just not that appetizing to me. My kid loves hot dogs…can’t stop the hot dog people! Try buying organic hot dogs instead. All MEAT!! No MSG/No artificial flavors or colors/nitrate-free!! No, I’m not a tree hugger…just a picky eater.
Actually, even organic nitrate-free hot dogs form naturally occurring nitrites. Besides, nitrates aren't something unique to hot dogs - they are found in vegetables, also.
As for "All meat" - they can call any part of the animal "meat", so the "meat" in an organic hot dog can still be organs or noses or ears or tongues. If you want to avoid that, stick wit Kosher hot dogs (or Halal, if you can find them). Kosher laws dictate that the meat must be REAL meat, not noses, lips, etc., and not even meat from the rear end of the animal, but from the front only. Of course, Kosher hot dogs are beef and never pork.
If you're concerned about fat, Hebrew National (and most brands, by now) make reduced fat and fat-free hot dogs. They're very good, too. Or Turkey or Chicken franks (but they are of dubious "meat" sources, compared to kosher beef franks).
If I wanted to be "healthy" and have a hot dog, I wouldn't even bother with "organic", I'd go right to Tofu hot dogs; they're actually pretty good. But they, like organic, don't match up tastewise to the top brands of regular hot dogs. My favorite is the Thumann's custom-made hot dog that Hiram's and Rutt's sell.
So you're fine with a restaurant providing calorie counts, but not posted? What, you want them to speak the calorie counts to customers on request only??? Of course they have to print up the calorie counts to get them to customers, or else they'd have to recite them all the time.
Or are you trying to say that there is a law where they have to print them up on the menu/menu board in every restaurant? Because I have seen many, many restaurants not doing that, in NY and NJ.
why are you acting stupid? the alternative to having them on the menu board isnt to speak them, its to have them available on paper for them to look at.
there is a law in new york for restaurants who operate multiple units to put them on the menu board. i prefer they provide it on a paper then on the menu board.
why are you acting stupid? the alternative to having them on the menu board isnt to speak them, its to have them available on paper for them to look at.
there is a law in new york for restaurants who operate multiple units to put them on the menu board. i prefer they provide it on a paper then on the menu board.
I don't see any restaurant in NY with all calorie information next to the foods on the menu board. Besides, what's the big deal, even if they did? Who cares? What's the big difference if it's on paper or on the menu board?? This would BOTHER you?? Why whine about it?? Get a grip.
I don't see any restaurant in NY with all calorie information next to the foods on the menu board. Besides, what's the big deal, even if they did? Who cares? What's the big difference if it's on paper or on the menu board?? This would BOTHER you?? Why whine about it?? Get a grip.
i see it all the time. its in chain restaurants primarily.
i care. i dont like that the government mandates it. i prefer businesses get to choose and people can choose which restaurants they go to.
it bothers me greatly and i will not get a grip. i see it as freedom being taken from government and something thats worth fighting for even if its a small chipping away.
i see it all the time. its in chain restaurants primarily.
i care. i dont like that the government mandates it. i prefer businesses get to choose and people can choose which restaurants they go to.
it bothers me greatly and i will not get a grip. i see it as freedom being taken from government and something thats worth fighting for even if its a small chipping away.
If it's a law why aren't all of the restaurants doing it? I don't think it's a law, I think you're overreacting and exaggerating. I think you're seeing restaurants feeling pressure to do it so that a law won't have to be enacted. Otherwise, every restaurant violating the law would be in trouble right now.
And even if it IS a law, you should get a grip, it's not that big a deal. People throw around the old "freedom being taken from government" over the silliest little things, whenever it suits them. What about the freedoms being taken from the cigarette companies, forcing them to put warnings on their product, are you against that too??? What about the freedoms taken from toy manufacturers forcing them to indicate if a toy has a potentially toxic paint or material in it, or small pieces that are hazardous to kids of a certain age range? Will you fight for their freedoms to not have to put any suh warnings on their products??? How about the freedoms of paint, caulk, and other home improvement supplies which warn about fumes, contact with skin, etc. - are you hopping mad that their freedoms are violated and that they are forced to put "WARNING" labels on their products???
The calories on a food item, whether in a store or a restaurant, does not reduce the experience of eating the food but can only help people who have a right to know. People who buy a food that is traditionally considered "healthy" and are unaware if the food preparer put in unhealthy ingredients have a right to know about it.
And if restaurants were responsible to begin with, they wouldn't need to make any such laws.
If it's a law why aren't all of the restaurants doing it? I don't think it's a law, I think you're overreacting and exaggerating. I think you're seeing restaurants feeling pressure to do it so that a law won't have to be enacted. Otherwise, every restaurant violating the law would be in trouble right now.
And even if it IS a law, you should get a grip, it's not that big a deal. People throw around the old "freedom being taken from government" over the silliest little things, whenever it suits them. What about the freedoms being taken from the cigarette companies, forcing them to put warnings on their product, are you against that too??? What about the freedoms taken from toy manufacturers forcing them to indicate if a toy has a potentially toxic paint or material in it, or small pieces that are hazardous to kids of a certain age range? Will you fight for their freedoms to not have to put any suh warnings on their products??? How about the freedoms of paint, caulk, and other home improvement supplies which warn about fumes, contact with skin, etc. - are you hopping mad that their freedoms are violated and that they are forced to put "WARNING" labels on their products???
The calories on a food item, whether in a store or a restaurant, does not reduce the experience of eating the food but can only help people who have a right to know. People who buy a food that is traditionally considered "healthy" and are unaware if the food preparer put in unhealthy ingredients have a right to know about it.
And if restaurants were responsible to begin with, they wouldn't need to make any such laws.
its a law in new york city that affects chain restaurants. there has to be multiple units for it to be required. so you are speaking from a position of ignorance.
i am not going to get a grip. i do not believe its government's job to take the place of our mothers. when does it end? every further they go, that gives them an opportunity to creep a little further. yes, i am against the labels on cigarette packs. you are making up a silly example with the kids toys, im pretty sure they take those off the market not label them "made with toxic paint."
warnings on things that could cause sudden and dangerous consequences are different than labels on food and cigarettes that cause health issues down the road.
i believe that restaurants should have the information available but shouldnt have to work it into menus and menu boards unless they wish to. it is the customers responsibility if they think its important enough to not go to a restaurant if they dont provide it.
you just like to take whatever position you feel is the anti-conservative position no matter how silly you are being.
its a law in new york city that affects chain restaurants. there has to be multiple units for it to be required. so you are speaking from a position of ignorance.
i am not going to get a grip. i do not believe its government's job to take the place of our mothers. when does it end? every further they go, that gives them an opportunity to creep a little further. yes, i am against the labels on cigarette packs. you are making up a silly example with the kids toys, im pretty sure they take those off the market not label them "made with toxic paint."
Yeah, you're right. The government shouldn't impose on businesses to make their products safe or safer for people. Let a few people die first, then that business will go under - free market. Who needs nanny government telling stores they need to put labels at all on their products? Who needs nanny government to ensure food products are safe at all? If a company sells rotten, poisoned food, then the market will dictate that they go out of business. Who cares if people die from it? That's their own fault anyway.
I'm sure you'll be the first in line suing a toy company when your baby chokes on the piece that wasn't properly labeled. People like you are all talk but when it comes to yourselves it's a whole different story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ
warnings on things that could cause sudden and dangerous consequences are different than labels on food and cigarettes that cause health issues down the road.
How?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ
i believe that restaurants should have the information available but shouldnt have to work it into menus and menu boards unless they wish to. it is the customers responsibility if they think its important enough to not go to a restaurant if they dont provide it.
If the restaurants were responsible on their own to begin with then a stricter law wouldn't have to be enforced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ
you just like to take whatever position you feel is the anti-conservative position no matter how silly you are being.
Not at all. It just so happens so many "conservative" positions are just silly, inane comments for whiny, self-entitled dopes to use as their soapboxes. There are some liberal positions like that too, but far, far more of the whining I hear is from conservatives, as taught by their dopey, idiotic teachers on talk radio.
Yeah, you're right. The government shouldn't impose on businesses to make their products safe or safer for people. Let a few people die first, then that business will go under - free market. Who needs nanny government telling stores they need to put labels at all on their products? Who needs nanny government to ensure food products are safe at all? If a company sells rotten, poisoned food, then the market will dictate that they go out of business. Who cares if people die from it? That's their own fault anyway.
I'm sure you'll be the first in line suing a toy company when your baby chokes on the piece that wasn't properly labeled. People like you are all talk but when it comes to yourselves it's a whole different story.
How?
If the restaurants were responsible on their own to begin with then a stricter law wouldn't have to be enforced.
Not at all. It just so happens so many "conservative" positions are just silly, inane comments for whiny, self-entitled dopes to use as their soapboxes. There are some liberal positions like that too, but far, far more of the whining I hear is from conservatives, as taught by their dopey, idiotic teachers on talk radio.
there are limits to how far government should be able to tell businesses and individuals what they do. with your attitude, you will always say "whats the big deal?" and our freedoms will slowly be chipped away.
you dont see the difference between a "contents flammable" label and a "1,500 calories" label, thats just you playing games, i dont think you are that dumb. one is an imminent threat to safety while another is something that may have negative health consequences if taken in abundance over a long period of time. in the latter case, people should be responsible for themselves. you may want to treat americans as if they are all so much dumber than you and need to be watched over and babies because you are a liberal elitist, but i think americans have the intelligence to make smart choices and be held responsible when they make poor choices.
i could tell when you jumped in labeling this a conservative thing that it was just you wanting to take the anti-conservative position. usually when talking about this stuff people dont talk about it from a political perspective but you are so partisan that the political aspect means more than common sense.
While I do agree with the lawsuit for a label on processed food of any kind, I do think that our food companies should be held to a higher health standard than it is. There is no need, in our day and age, to put any cancer causing or unnatural ingrediant into any food. I mean, really, why is there any wording in any governement food standard that allows things like melamine in our food in any trace amounts. Its bull that a lot of this stuff does not cause cancer in small amounts because there is nothing out there telling us what quantity of that food is safe to eat. The government should have tougher regulations to protect us so we can eat all the hog dog we want without anymore health risk than the obesity factor, which will not go away no matter how hard they try. Labels are just as stupid. Our food should in no way should have to be compared to cigarettes.
Last edited by flik_becky; 07-23-2009 at 01:24 PM..
This thread's participants does NOT have its priorities in order.
Re-electing corrupt politicians and letting the state take away as many freedoms as possible = COOL
Labeling harmful substances on food = NOT COOL
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you're fine with a restaurant providing calorie counts, but not posted? What, you want them to speak the calorie counts to customers on request only??? Of course they have to print up the calorie counts to get them to customers, or else they'd have to recite them all the time.
