WAMU

If the government isn't forcing restaurants to chance the food content, how is it a nanny government to make them display nutritional info? Who could possibly be against that???

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:

Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
calorie or any other nutritional info on menus=good

hoooray for nanny government!

Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
Apparently, because they keep shovelling it in their mouths.

Originally posted by Joe Marshmallow III:
Do people who frequent McDonald's need to be told how bad the food is?

Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
House of Blues=bad
calorie or any other nutritional info on menus=good

and how will that actually change consumer behavior? all of sudden they'll realize that it's bad for them? if you really want to do something, change the zoning regs in lower income areas to encourage grocery stores and not fast food.

Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:
It wasn't a bad thing when Live Nation was doing slightly shows at Nation. You know, the ones that are a little too big for 930, but might not be big enough for DAR?

I think Seth would agree, but I won't speak for him. I think his beef with the proposal for the HoB-DC was that the DC government was going to supply the owners with generous tax breaks and subsidies, money he built the 9:30 Club without. They've got deep pockets, let them use them if they want to compete for shows in the DC area.

Can you cite instances where it has been attempted and it didn't improve consumer behavior? Is there really any harm in giving it a try? It's called educating the public.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
menus=good

[/qb][/qb]and how will that actually change consumer behavior? [/QB]

People who go to fast food know what they're getting into…it's their choice…no need to educate them…btw, who is proposing this??

Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
[QB] Can you cite instances where it has been attempted and it didn't improve consumer behavior? Is there really any harm in giving it a try? It's called educating the public.

QUOTE]

And while they're at it they should put warnings on packs of cigarettes so people know they're bad for you too so everyone will stop smoking…. :roll:

Originally posted by nkotb:
If the government isn't forcing restaurants to chance the food content, how is it a nanny government to make them display nutritional info? Who could possibly be against that???

it is a perception that the people are not smart enough to make their own decisions, and only through government regulation of how their choices are presented can the people make their own "informed" decisions. plus, can you imagine sitting down at a restaurant and being presented with a 5 page menu, breaking down what's in each dish, the caloric and nutritional value of each ingredient. . it would be maddening, not to mention demeaning, at least to me.

And labels on alcohol so pregnant women will know not to drink

Originally posted by Roadbike Mankie:
And while they're at it they should put warnings on packs of cigarettes so people know they're bad for you too so everyone will stop smoking…. :roll:

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
it is a perception that the people are not smart enough to make their own decisions, and only through government regulation of how their choices are presented can the people make their own "informed" decisions. plus, can you imagine sitting down at a restaurant and being presented with a 5 page menu, breaking down what's in each dish, the caloric and nutritional value of each ingredient. . it would be maddening, not to mention demeaning, at least to me.

First the electorate is too uninformed for you. Now any attempt to inform them is too much for you. Is there any pleasing a Libertarian?

Some people AREN'T smart enough to make good decisions, and aren't even aware of what the good choice is.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:

Originally posted by nkotb:
If the government isn't forcing restaurants to chance the food content, how is it a nanny government to make them display nutritional info? Who could possibly be against that???

it is a perception that the people are not smart enough to make their own decisions, and only through government regulation of how their choices are presented can the people make their own "informed" decisions. plus, can you imagine sitting down at a restaurant and being presented with a 5 page menu, breaking down what's in each dish, the caloric and nutritional value of each ingredient. . it would be maddening, not to mention demeaning, at least to me.

I can see what you mean if the published the entire nutritional index that they put on store bought food, but a few quick stats on how good/bad the meal is for you can do nothing but make people smarter about the foods they eat, in my opinion. It certainly won't stop people from eating fast food 24/7, but it may help with deciding on a healthier alternative if nothing else.

Still, you'd find it demeaning? That seems a little overboard, at least in my opinion. If you don't need the info, just don't read it. And why is adding this to a menu any different from adding the info to store-bought food?

I guess I don't understand the idea that this type of move is some sort of Big Brother scheme to control our lifes. Seems pretty innocent to me…

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:

Originally posted by nkotb:
If the government isn't forcing restaurants to chance the food content, how is it a nanny government to make them display nutritional info? Who could possibly be against that???

it is a perception that the people are not smart enough to make their own decisions, and only through government regulation of how their choices are presented can the people make their own "informed" decisions. plus, can you imagine sitting down at a restaurant and being presented with a 5 page menu, breaking down what's in each dish, the caloric and nutritional value of each ingredient. . it would be maddening, not to mention demeaning, at least to me.

Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
Some people AREN'T smart enough to make good decisions, and aren't even aware of what the good choice is.

oh, so the government is fit to figure out who is smart and who isn't as to what's best for themselves? it's a person's choice to decide what to do with their body.

Originally posted by nkotb:
I can see what you mean if the published the entire nutritional index that they put on store bought food, but a few quick stats on how good/bad the meal is for you can do nothing but make people smarter about the foods they eat, in my opinion. It certainly won't stop people from eating fast food 24/7, but it may help with deciding on a healthier alternative if nothing else.

Still, you'd find it demeaning? That seems a little overboard, at least in my opinion. If you don't need the info, just don't read it. And why is adding this to a menu any different from adding the info to store-bought food?

I guess I don't understand the idea that this type of move is some sort of Big Brother scheme to control our lifes. Seems pretty innocent to me…

first, you have to assume that the government is even correct about their nutritional guides and information (michael pollan would argue that the govt. is focusing on the wrong information- portion control is by far the bigger issue; not that we are eating bad stuff, it's that we are eating alot of bad stuff).

secondly, most of the nutritional information is already available on restaurants' web pages or if you ask. now, if you go to citronelle, it won't be available, but i'm sure you can ask and have your meal changed to your specifications. but, i don't want to bring class and socio-economic issues into this, even though i would appreciate it if govt. was at least honest about what this topic is about (lower class and lower educated).

i heard you'll be able to smoke and eat trans-fats at the DC House of Blues!

i believe they'll be selling their new "tobacco fries" at the snack bar!

That definitely makes sense. I don't frequent a lot of chain restaurants, so I know most of my favorite places wouldn't have these facts online anywhere. And when I do eat fast food, it's because I want something unhealthy.

Still, it I were looking at a menu that listed some nutritional highlights, I'd definitely choose the lesser of two evils. But then again, that's an entirely selfish reason for wanting it on there.

Oh, and PS…I'd definitely agree with the portion size. The one time I needed to drop a good bit of weight (I had porked up a little bit), all I had to do was some light running and sticking to the portions listed on the label. It's amazing what a difference that makes.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
first, you have to assume that the government is even correct about their nutritional guides and information (michael pollan would argue that the govt. is focusing on the wrong information- portion control is by far the bigger issue; not that we are eating bad stuff, it's that we are eating alot of bad stuff).

secondly, most of the nutritional information is already available on restaurants' web pages or if you ask. now, if you go to citronelle, it won't be available, but i'm sure you can ask and have your meal changed to your specifications. but, i don't want to bring class and socio-economic issues into this, even though i would appreciate it if govt. was at least honest about what this topic is about (lower class and lower educated).

Back to the topic…

Scott's Email to the host was extremely well put.

By the way, the program is archived: Real Audio
Windows Media

Listen to minutes 16-30 for the discussion on Development plans including HoB.

Well then please don't ask me to contribute my tax money to pay for the Medicaid that benefits those who deliberately abuse their bodies. And while I'm at it, shouldn't my health care premiums be lower than those who deliberately choose to abuse their bodies?

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:

Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
Some people AREN'T smart enough to make good decisions, and aren't even aware of what the good choice is.

oh, so the government is fit to figure out who is smart and who isn't as to what's best for themselves? it's a person's choice to decide what to do with their body.

Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
Well then please don't ask me to contribute my tax money to pay for the Medicaid that benefits those who deliberately abuse their bodies. And while I'm at it, shouldn't my health care premiums be lower than those who deliberately choose to abuse their bodies?

you're a republican after all!!!!

And please don't ask me to contribute my tax money to pay for the salaries of federal government employees who spend all day on internet message boards.

Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
Well then please don't ask me to contribute my tax money to pay for the Medicaid that benefits those who deliberately abuse their bodies. And while I'm at it, shouldn't my health care premiums be lower than those who deliberately choose to abuse their bodies?

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:

Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
Some people AREN'T smart enough to make good decisions, and aren't even aware of what the good choice is.

oh, so the government is fit to figure out who is smart and who isn't as to what's best for themselves? it's a person's choice to decide what to do with their body.