WAMU

I never said my lifestyle was better than anybody else on here (ehough I'm sure ggw can bring up old evidence you the contrary if he's in the mood). I just don't feel like dying of pancreatic cancer at 57 like my dad did after a life of eating shitty foods and smoking, or feeling shitty everyday at 65 (though she's improving) after a life of eating shitty food and 25 years of smoking like my mom.

Originally posted by le sonick:

Originally posted by Harry Setatestes, Greek Bowler:
I wonder if you'll feel that way when you're 65 and your insides are rotting and you feel like shit everyday. See if your life is "just fine" then. ;)

i bet he'll still be less of an asshole than you are now!!! even while his insides are rotting out and he feels like shit

what makes you think your lifestyle is so much fucking better than anyone else's on here?

I guess I'm not being 100% clear, because my main question isn't getting answered.

If it's OK to require store bought foods to have health information, why is it Big Brother to have this printing in menus? Is it because one is already standard practice and accepted, where as the other is new and scary because it leads down a road of eating meals in pill form from government nutrition centers? That's the main point I'm not understanding.

10 years and you'll be just like us. Seriously. :)

Originally posted by le sonick:

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
It took her all the strength she could muster to not lecture the poor little girl scout who was selling Samoas that despite the claim to no trans-fats, the ingredients would indicate otherwise.

you two are like the poster-children for the people i pray to god my future wife and i never ever become. seriously!

Originally posted by nkotb:
I guess I'm not being 100% clear, because my main question isn't getting answered.

If it's OK to require store bought foods to have health information, why is it Big Brother to have this printing in menus? Is it because one is already standard practice and accepted, where as the other is new and scary because it leads down a road of eating meals in pill form from government nutrition centers? That's the main point I'm not understanding.

i don't know if i would say it's ok to be required to have the information, but my view is that if enough people make a fuss and a stink about wanting more information (and avoid bad press), then they should provide more information. not to mention a history of supply and misinformation problems. if a company is abusing its privilege to operate free of govt. oversight, that's wrong and needs to be corrected. it's my understanding that food companies were doing things to food without telling people- oversight of that seems warranted to me.

i see restaurants as different from boxed food. . .they are providing a service, whereas boxed food is a good. restaurants also operate under very small profit margins, and can't afford bad press, bad food or anything else that would reduce the number of customers. large companies that provide boxed foods don't have the same concerns.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
to be no trans-fat, it has to be less than 1/2 gram. unfortunately, real butter contains just over that percentage, so it's technically a trans-fat, even though most nutritionists would agree that butter's trans-fats are nowhere near as bad as artificially created trans-fats. the new york times ran an article on this issue last week because of the difficulties bakers are having in meeting these demands without using butter since the rule does not differentiate between natural and artificial trans-fat.

in any event, the larger issue isn't trans-fat, it's portion control. if you want a cookie with trans-fat, then go ahead, but don't eat 10 cookies in one sitting with trans-fat.

that's exactly why you have to read the ingredients and not rely on the trans fat count…unfortunately, the cookies in question (beloved Samoas…mmmmmm) did not have butter, but instead had partially-hydrogenated oils as the second ingredient on the list…I only wish they had butter instead…I e-mailed the Girl Scouts asking them how it was possible that a cookie whose number two ingredient could possibly have less than the .5 g trans fat limit FDA has for trans fat-free labeling…no reply to that one…

still, I ate the cookies…but I would have eaten and bought many more if they were made with wholesome ingredients like butter and sugar instead of hydrogenated oils and high fructose corn syrup…I would have paid twice as much, too…

a side note…everyone should read The Omnivore's Dilemma…great GREAT book…the author is very well-balanced and is not a health freak or activist or animal-rights guys…just a NYT reporter who digs into where most of our food comes from in the industrial/agricultural complex

Originally posted by nkotb:

If it's OK to require store bought foods to have health information, why is it Big Brother to have this printing in menus?

for the record, i see no need for the government to mandate either. i never said one was ok and the other was not.

i do think the info serves a good purpose but i am just so sick of the new laws every single fucking day. we're up to our necks in laws arent we people?

besides, you know (now that i've been thinking)

i am not a stupid person by any means, many people around me are dimmer. but i dont know what all these foods do to me, and what is good and what is bad and what is necessary for what.

so putting the amounts of foods isnt going to do shit. people that know what foods are good for them, arent going to need the information and people that dont know, arent going to be able to use the information to make decisions on what and where to eat.

perhaps this is some liability cover up scheme to pretend like people give a shit about other peoples health.

Yea man, the laws are dragging me down. They're fucking killing me, Brother Sonick.

Originally posted by le sonick:

Originally posted by nkotb:

If it's OK to require store bought foods to have health information, why is it Big Brother to have this printing in menus?

for the record, i see no need for the government to mandate either. i never said one was ok and the other was not.

i do think the info serves a good purpose but i am just so sick of the new laws every single fucking day. we're up to our necks in laws arent we people?

Originally posted by le sonick:
besides, you know (now that i've been thinking)

i am not a stupid person by any means, many people around me are dimmer. but i dont know what all these foods do to me, and what is good and what is bad and what is necessary for what.

so putting the amounts of foods isnt going to do shit. people that know what foods are good for them, arent going to need the information and people that dont know, arent going to be able to use the information to make decisions on what and where to eat.

perhaps this is some liability cover up scheme to pretend like people give a shit about other peoples health.

I think your comments point to some valid concerns. USDA/FDA regulations as they currently are often seem to protect industries more than consumers anyway. And, when you read "Omnivore's Dilemma" you will see how USDA regulations actually hamper sustainable agriculture and foster non-transparency in the food industry.

Like I'm sure your typical fast food restuarant patron spends a lot of time online.

Yet another out-of-touch elitist attitude on the issue.

Newsflash, guy…most people are fast food patrons, whether its once a week, once a month or every day. Most people spend time online and are alot smarter and more connected than you realize up there in your bubble.

It is completely idiotic to assume that because someone eats fast food that they don't know how to use the internet.

Newsflash, guy. I didn't mean for you to take me completely literally, but there is more than a kernel of truth to what I said. People who eat at fast food restaurants with the most frequency tend to be from lower socioeconomic groups. People from lower socioeconomic groups tend to also be less likely to have access to the internet. Connect the two idears.

Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:

Like I'm sure your typical fast food restuarant patron spends a lot of time online.

Yet another out-of-touch elitist attitude on the issue.

Newsflash, guy…most people are fast food patrons, whether its once a week, once a month or every day. Most people spend time online and are alot smarter and more connected than you realize up there in your bubble.

It is completely idiotic to assume that because someone eats fast food that they don't know how to use the internet.

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Newsflash, guy. I didn't mean for you to take me completely literally, but there is more than a kernel of truth to what I said. People who eat at fast food restaurants with the most frequency tend to be from lower socioeconomic groups. People from lower socioeconomic groups tend to also be less likely to have access to the internet. Connect the two idears.

Then specify something like that instead of making snobby generalizations.

I still think more people have access to the internet than you think.

i used to think people were stupid and uninformed too, but now i realize, they just dont give a fuck.

You could very well be right. As of 2002, it was 49%, though only 27% for Blacks and Hispanics. AS of 2004, it was up to 75% overall, according to Wired. Couldn't find any stats more recent.

Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Newsflash, guy. I didn't mean for you to take me completely literally, but there is more than a kernel of truth to what I said. People who eat at fast food restaurants with the most frequency tend to be from lower socioeconomic groups. People from lower socioeconomic groups tend to also be less likely to have access to the internet. Connect the two idears.

Then specify something like that instead of making snobby generalizations.

I still think more people have access to the internet than you think.

so, you healthy knowledgable eaters, anyone have any great online resources for finding out what foods are healthy and what foods arent.

i, for instance, love love love ciabatta bread, have a sandwich 3 times a week on the stuff. is it good bread or bad bread? i dont know. i just tried to find out. I spent 15 minutes and all i could come up with was that its made with 100% whole wheat, seems to have no trans fats or h-oils, and made with spring water.

sounds good, but maybe its not!

Originally posted by le sonick:
so, you healthy knowledgable eaters, anyone have any great online resources for finding out what foods are healthy and what foods arent.

i, for instance, love love love ciabatta bread, have a sandwich 3 times a week on the stuff. is it good bread or bad bread? i dont know. i just tried to find out. I spent 15 minutes and all i could come up with was that its made with 100% whole wheat, seems to have no trans fats or h-oils, and made with spring water.

sounds good, but maybe its not!

is it from a restaurant (Corner Bakery, Au Bon Pain, etc…) or from a store? most of the corporate lunch places have the nutritional content of their sandwiches on the web, but probably wouldn't break out details on the bread itself

if the bread doesn't have trans fats or h-oils, it sounds like it's OK. granted, the 100 % whole wheat doesn't tell us much, it still may not be whole GRAIN and may not have much fiber (really healthy bread should have at LEAST 3 g fiber per serving or more) HOWEVER, my opinion is that ciabtatta bread would be one the least of anyone's worries. bread is a wholesome, healthy staple if it is prepared w/o the hydrogenated oils or high-fructose corn syrup…

the American Dietetic Association has a good site:
http://www.eatright.org/

I also like Marion Nestle's work:
http://www.foodpolitics.com/

Center for Science in the Public Interest:
http://www.cspinet.org/

Nutrition Data tells you the macro & micro nutrient content of many foods:
http://www.nutritiondata.com/

See! If it was posted on the menu, you wouldn't have to search to find your answer! :D

Originally posted by le sonick:
so, you healthy knowledgable eaters, anyone have any great online resources for finding out what foods are healthy and what foods arent.

i, for instance, love love love ciabatta bread, have a sandwich 3 times a week on the stuff. is it good bread or bad bread? i dont know. i just tried to find out. I spent 15 minutes and all i could come up with was that its made with 100% whole wheat, seems to have no trans fats or h-oils, and made with spring water.

sounds good, but maybe its not!

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Newsflash, guy. I didn't mean for you to take me completely literally, but there is more than a kernel of truth to what I said. People who eat at fast food restaurants with the most frequency tend to be from lower socioeconomic groups.

govt. money would be better spent incentivizing grocery stores to stay open or build new ones in lower income areas and encourage them to take an active role in the neighborhood, maybe by speaking at schools or something. for whatever reason, certain aspects of the population would rather eat at mcdonalds than buy the ingredients and make their own dinner at home.

CSPI has a great fact sheet on why nutrition labeling in fast food restaurants is a good idea…

Originally posted by nkotb:
See! If it was posted on the menu, you wouldn't have to search to find your answer! :D

[/QB]

its from a store. and even though it has ingredients on it, if i dont know which ones are the good ones and which ones are the bad ones, then i cant make the call

i work down the street from H&S Bakery so i get my bread from there.