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.
The only place this administration has yet to interfere is the fashion industry. Next thing she'll tell us is, we should be wearing only clothing made from recycled plastic soda bottles.
Ya, like that hasn't happened before. Remember when a president's wife---can't remember which one---went on a campaign to tell all the women to cut their hair and shorten their skirts for the war effort? All president's wives have their pet projects and we are all free to reject them if we don't care to listen to it. Big deal. Salt the hell out of your food if it makes you happy.
Because she thinks she is better then us, we ignorant serfs, we need her to enlighten us with her vastly superior intellect, we need her to force us to live healthier lives.... for our own good.
The only arrogance I see is in your posts. Your view of Michelle is way too exaggerated by your bias. I guess if any liberal (or person you didn't like) gave you good advice, you'd take it as an offense rather than in the spirit it was given. Were you offended when Nancy Reagan told you to say no to drugs? If an admittedly liberal educator tells you to read to your children, are you going to refrain from doing so because you didn't like the messenger?
If someone stands up and asks (which is what Michelle is doing here, not "demanding") that restaurants serve healthier food, why would anyone not support them? I think the government eventually requiring that the food we eat be healthy is a good thing because it is the sole institution that can assert that kind of authority. It is an example of the common people in action. Too bad conservatives think government serves no purpose other than to wage war and waste lives.
Ya, like that hasn't happened before. Remember when a president's wife---can't remember which one---went on a campaign to tell all the women to cut their hair and shorten their skirts for the war effort? All president's wives have their pet projects and we are all free to reject them if we don't care to listen to it. Big deal. Salt the hell out of your food if it makes you happy.
Completely agreed. While I hate the stuff being passed as food, if somebody else wants to eat foods made with jet fuel ingredients... well, that's all on them.
I'm not sure how this response has anything to do with my quoted statement of:
Michelle Obama was at the National Restaurant Association meeting. She was asked to speak there. Naturally, she would talk about something relating to the restaurant industry. If she had talked about fashion designers, vacations, high school dropout rates, or anything not pertaining to the restaurant industry, it would have been out of place and rude.
As for the rest of the post, the FDA has guidelines on what ingredients can and cannot be used in foods. Legislation already exists, so why the big explosion of outrage?
Why aren't more people kvetching about the limitations on the usage of BHT as a preservative? I mean, when they instituted the limitation, oh-so-many restaurants went out of business because they couldn't adapt, right? I wonder how many restaurants will also go out of business if some sort of sodium limitation or nutritional facts disclosure was legislated.
Oh. Wait.
there is more to it than that, she has been an advocate of such direction in legislation.
As for my response, your question was to claim that regardless of what she was talking about, people would object is it not? I mean, that is how the question reads?
My point is that in your example, it is within bounds of a rational focus for her position and the governments.
Regulating peoples food choices is not.
And she could have spoke in different ways so as not to indicate such a position in support of regulations as such (which as I said she has been shown to have supported).
Lastly, the fact that it kills or doesn't kill a business is meaninless here. It has nothing to do with dictation of choice which I was speaking and relevance to authority to apply such. I could beat you with a whip every other day and likely you would still be able to survive and function (as often people did under those conditions), does this justify my action? No, so your example of these regulations not focing an industry out of business only shows the ability of a business to withstand the oppression of their master, nothing more.
Its like a slave master saying "he can still work so its ok!"
Sorry, people are not slaves to these groups ideology.
If you want a restaurant with low sodium menu items, start your own or invest in one that does. Past that, you have no right to dictate or demand anything past that regardless if you think it will hurt the business. This is not about business success directly, its about people and government overstepping their bounds.
LMAO ... What does this have to do with the First Lady's suggestion that restaurants etc. reduce salt content in prepared foods?
Why do restaurants have to reduce salt, when it is more of a known fact people over eat or have you and the First Lady not thought of this!!
You have to be educated I guess to eat out, my gosh, it's only obvious if you order fried chicken it will be salter and have more fat, than the broiled. This doesn't take an engineer, but than again, maybe, for some it's just to hard to figure out the salty meals from the non salty.
Michelle is just another actor in the war against the private sector food industry. These are the same anti-smoking Nazis that slowly but surely forced a ban on smoking. They have all this rage, and a lot of protest signs and stenciling material, and no cause celeb to champion, so they are attacking your local restaurant and food distributor and packaging company.
Lastly, the fact that it kills or doesn't kill a business is meaninless here. It has nothing to do with dictation of choice which I was speaking and relevance to authority to apply such. I could beat you with a whip every other day and likely you would still be able to survive and function (as often people did under those conditions), does this justify my action? No, so your example of these regulations not focing an industry out of business only shows the ability of a business to withstand the oppression of their master, nothing more.
Restaurants have to already "withstand the oppression" of the FDA. There are rules and regulations stating temperatures at which foods must be cooked. There are rules and regulations regarding hygiene. Are you against regulations that say "Food dropped on the floor must not be served to guests"? Or is such a regulation too master-slave?
Quote:
Sorry, people are not slaves to these groups ideology.
If it's a health risk, like food dropped on the floor, then I would say that restaurants should be "slaves" to the FDA.
Let's say you and some friends go out for a night and end up at a restaurant you've never been to before. If that restaurant allows smoking, you as a consumer can tell. You can choose to not patron the place because you can see the smoke and you can see the smokers. If that restaurant serves foods chocked with unhealthy chemicals and preservatives adding an insane amount of sodium (and other crud), you can't visibly tell.
Well, unless every patron is 300+ lbs. Then it would be a little obvious.
Quote:
If you want a restaurant with low sodium menu items, start your own or invest in one that does. Past that, you have no right to dictate or demand anything past that regardless if you think it will hurt the business. This is not about business success directly, its about people and government overstepping their bounds.
Were you saying this when they introduced things like hygiene and/or temperature requirements, etc? Did you say this when handicap entrances were forced? What about when the FDA started regulating the percentages of certain unhealthy preservatives?
While I'd like to see restaurants stray from 4000mg of sodium entrees, and "steamed" butter-soaked veggies, it's probably not going to happen as long as people support the "right" of restaurants to serve poison-on-platters. However, I would stand behind legislation that would ensure restaurants have on-hand a nice booklet on the full "nutritional" facts of their food and calorie information printed on the restaurant menu.
Michelle is just another actor in the war against the private sector food industry. These are the same anti-smoking Nazis that slowly but surely forced a ban on smoking. They have all this rage, and a lot of protest signs and stenciling material, and no cause celeb to champion, so they are attacking your local restaurant and food distributor and packaging company.
Wouldn't the food industry be more accurately classed as being part of the entertainment industry?
I mean, not me - I eat to live.
But most Americans seem to live to eat.
Are there many Americans who can sit through a two hour movie without food accoutrementation?
A combined action for "taking it all in"?
I've never seen any popcorn vendors at any of the science seminars I've attended.
Restaurants have to already "withstand the oppression" of the FDA. There are rules and regulations stating temperatures at which foods must be cooked. There are rules and regulations regarding hygiene. Are you against regulations that say "Food dropped on the floor must not be served to guests"? Or is such a regulation too master-slave?
Those are strict safety regulations because they consistently be shown to be harmful if not applied. If you eat raw chicken or pork, your chances of getting sick are extremely high. This isn't an issue of something as rational as that.
Is salt intake harmful to you? No. Is salt intake harmful if overly used on a consistent basis for a long period of time? Yes, it can be. Yet this is an issue of responsibility of the person. There are no one time cases outside of an allergic reaction to such things that create the dangers of that regulations for things like fully cooking certain meats provide.
Its not the same thing, not even in the slightest. One is a reasonable danger to insure that businesses protect people from and the other is a mandate on how people should live. Try a different example as the one you chose is not even remotely comparable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita Mordio
If it's a health risk, like food dropped on the floor, then I would say that restaurants should be "slaves" to the FDA.
If we use such logic, then EVERYTHING is a health risk and the insanity of regulation and dictation to people is in the realms of utter stupidity. Drink too much water? guess what, you die. Breathe too much air, guess what... you die. The list goes on, and on. Your argument is irrational because it specifies an extreme in one situation and ignores all others that are equally such.
There is no reasonable issue to demand this regulation because the key to its issue is the responsibility fo people and if you choose to regulate how people should be responsible, then YOU are promoting slavery through dictation. There is no reasonable grounds that you can argue otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita Mordio
Let's say you and some friends go out for a night and end up at a restaurant you've never been to before. If that restaurant allows smoking, you as a consumer can tell. You can choose to not patron the place because you can see the smoke and you can see the smokers. If that restaurant serves foods chocked with unhealthy chemicals and preservatives adding an insane amount of sodium (and other crud), you can't visibly tell.
Well, unless every patron is 300+ lbs. Then it would be a little obvious.
If I go to a restraunt that I have never been to before and I was a fanatic about content in the food, I would ask the maître d’ to gather some information about the food from the chef that I am about to eat. If they can not answer and the issue is important to me, I will not eat there.
The food outside of an allergic reaction will not kill me eating there once. If I am under a strict diet, then as I said, if it can not be ascertained of the information that I require, I move on. It is simple logic, simple responsibility, and simple understanding of the bounds of my rights to apply to others.
You wrongly assume that it is the responsibility of the restaurant to be prepared for all of the oddities and demands that anyone outside of simply ordering a meal to eat would request. It is not. As I said, you have a choice as a patron to a restaurant to accept the form of their service or not. If people do not like the manner to which they provide you the food or the information about the food past the proper safety regulations that have been met, then pick another place to eat. To demand everyone conform to their demands is narcissistic, arrogant, and completely childish.
I will repeat this because you seem to be missing the point. Salt, or any other content as such under our current standards is NOT harmful. It is the action of over moderate intake to which makes them harmful. Using proper logical deduction and reasoning, that would then make the PERSON who is eating the food the one who is HARMFUL to THEMSELVES if they do not properly moderate their intake. A responsibility of the individual themselves using the ideal of the system to which we currently subscribe. This is not my responsibility to monitor them, yours, or even the governments without simply throwing away individual rights and turning our system into an Orwellian product of monitoring individuals to insure that people make the decisions that the establishment deems acceptable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita Mordio
Were you saying this when they introduced things like hygiene and/or temperature requirements, etc? Did you say this when handicap entrances were forced? What about when the FDA started regulating the percentages of certain unhealthy preservatives?
Again, you are trying to connect unrelated and improper examples as support. Those regulations and requirements exist because exposure to their improper application even just ONCE can cause the problem. A person who is not hygienic can contaminate food and make someone sick, not over time, but in a single contact. Temperature if above shown means of exposure can cause harm to a person at that moment and that is why it exists. In terms of preservatives, I have not read the science of such, but like many regulations of past, they are not always based on proper science and rely on fear mongering, out of context claims, and improper epidemiological assessment using loose correlations to proclaim causation.
Salt is not bad, sugar is not bad, many of the things they are targeting are normal thing, things we require to live and function on. The problem is associated with improper intake, a responsibility of the one doing the intake, not you, I, or the government. You can promote healthy eating, you can put signs up, and sponsor programs on how it is important to moderate. You can not however DICTATE these things to people without taking the very foundations to which this nation was founded and flushing it down the toilet.
Now if that is your intention, be honest and we will meet in proper conflict to determine the outcome of your oppressive demands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita Mordio
While I'd like to see restaurants stray from 4000mg of sodium entrees, and "steamed" butter-soaked veggies, it's probably not going to happen as long as people support the "right" of restaurants to serve poison-on-platters. However, I would stand behind legislation that would ensure restaurants have on-hand a nice booklet on the full "nutritional" facts of their food and calorie information printed on the restaurant menu.
When those restaurants are mandated eating establishments, you can make your complaint. Until then, it is your responsibility to inform yourself and avoid that which you feel is not up to your standards, not everyone else. If you wish to "promote" (not dictate) that restaurants inform people of their contents, I see no problem with such, but to claim that they should be regulated as to how much they can add, etc... well... again.... grab your stick and come tell people their freedoms mean nothing and you are the new boss in town there to tell them how they should live. Don't be surprised if the reaction is not friendly.
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.
