Jump to content



Photo

Restaurant Meal Named 'Worst in America'

usa nutritionists long john silver trans fat high sodium heart disease

  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#31 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,641 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 10 Preview
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 04 July 2013 - 13:52

Really?  I JUST SAID that, here in California, all nutrition info must be posted so you can see it when you order and you can request a pamphlet if you wanted to take it with you.  It's the ****ing law.   How is that keeping people in the dark and not informing them?

You shouldn't have to ask whether your food is fit for consumption - there should be an assumption that it is. This meal doesn't come with a health warning, which means that consumers are under the impression that it is safe to eat. You can't seriously be suggesting that because in some states you can ask for a pamphlet informing you of how dangerous a meal is that everything is okay?!




#32 FloatingFatMan

FloatingFatMan

    Resident Fat Dude

  • 16,017 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 04 July 2013 - 14:02

Perhaps it's time to implement the "traffic light" system we use in the UK on prepackaged foods, in restaurants? You can the see, right there on the menu, immediate indicators of fat, sugar, sodium and calories, colour coded to their % of RDA (Recommended Daily Allowance).

 

It's an incredibly simple system to understand:

 

_63685888_food_labels_464.gif



#33 +SharpGreen

SharpGreen

    Now with built-in BS detector.

  • 2,400 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 04
  • Location: North Carolina
  • OS: Ubuntu 14.04, 12.04 and Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Nexus

Posted 04 July 2013 - 17:45

The problem is that people don't know what the consequences are. There should be a reasonable expectation that food being sold is safe for human consumption, which is exactly why the FDA exists. The food here is simply not safe. Restaurants aren't allowed to serve raw meat or prepare food in unsanitary conditions, so it's not like the government doesn't already have similar powers. There's a big difference between a nanny state and common sense legislation. Irresponsible behaviour by restaurants like this is leading to the early death of millions of Americans. If you think that's not something the government should get involved in then I think you need to re-evaluate your political beliefs.

 

 

That should include taxing unhealthy products, as has been done with tobacco. Part of the problem is that unhealthy food like this is incredibly cheap and that only encourages consumption. If people were informed about how unhealthy it is and meals were punitively taxed based upon how dangerous they are then consumers would be considerably less likely to buy such meals and restaurants wouldn't have an incentive to create unhealthy meals.

So basically you want to the gov legislate away ignorance? Ha...thats like trying to fix stupid. Also when I think of something not "fit for human consumption" I think of things that would instantly kill you if you ingested them. This stuff doesn't do that, and if enjoyed in moderation (like a previous poster said but everyone ignored) its not going to kill you. I'm perfectly capable (as I'm sure many others as well) of deciding what I eat, and do not require the "assistance" of some gov. bureaucrat to do so. Serving raw meat or food prepared in an unclean environment is different, as either of those could fall under the "instantly kill you" part, and if not that, will surely make you incredibly sick.



#34 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,641 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 10 Preview
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 04 July 2013 - 18:02

So basically you want to the gov legislate away ignorance?

No, I want the government to stop businesses engaging in dangerous and reckless behaviour all for the sake of profit. The welfare of consumers should be considered more important than profits.

 

Also when I think of something not "fit for human consumption" I think of things that would instantly kill you if you ingested them. This stuff doesn't do that, and if enjoyed in moderation (like a previous poster said but everyone ignored) its not going to kill you.

But it's not in moderation if a single meal has dramatically more trans fat, saturated fat and salt than is recommended for daily consumption. We're not talking about slightly too high here; we're talking about insane levels.

 

I'm perfectly capable (as I'm sure many others as well) of deciding what I eat, and do not require the "assistance" of some gov. bureaucrat to do so.

Not if you're not given the relevant information.

 

Serving raw meat or food prepared in an unclean environment is different, as either of those could fall under the "instantly kill you" part, and if not that, will surely make you incredibly sick.

Why should there be a distinction between what kills you quickly and what takes slightly longer? I mean, eating raw meat might not kill you so why should the government be interfering? Once you accept that government has a role in protecting consumers then it becomes where do you draw the line. Personally I think businesses shouldn't be allowed to sell products that they know are harmful to consumers and such behaviour should either be banned outright or restricted (i.e. forcing companies to disclose that information up front or by heavily taxing such products). The problem is that some people let their paranoia about government get in the way of common sense.

 

Perhaps it's time to implement the "traffic light" system we use in the UK on prepackaged foods, in restaurants? You can the see, right there on the menu, immediate indicators of fat, sugar, sodium and calories, colour coded to their % of RDA (Recommended Daily Allowance).

 

It's an incredibly simple system to understand:

 

_63685888_food_labels_464.gif

 

Yeah, but you'd need a whole different category for meals like this. It would need to be labelled "insane" and be coloured black with a skull and crossbones next to it, warning you that it is dangerous to consume such a meal.