"Beyond Personal Responsibility"

Clearly you've never eaten at a White Castle. Those 'sliders' are
always the same.

You think that White Castle is a restaurant?


Ah, sorry. I missed that nicety. You're quite right, of course.

Chak

I grew up around the corner from a White Castle. Funny to see others refer to
them as sliders. Hey if constipated, instead of the sugar alchohols.. try a
slider.

jmk wrote:

On 6/7/2004 8:48 PM, Bob (this one) wrote:

I promise that if this bill is enacted, restaurants that fall under
its purview will dumb down further. They'll offer many fewer choices
with many more sauces to make them seem different.

Just like Ruby Tuesday?

Exactly like Ruby Tuesday. Check out a busy, clunky web site.
http://www.rubytuesday.com/

I did. I don't see that they are offering fewer choices as you claim
above.

Oh, is that law already in effect?

There's currently no pressure to have all their foods analyzed.
They're putting up whatever they want with no necessity for
documentation. Undoubtedly, some employee did it all by calculation;
no proof necessary. Not so if and when it becomes a law. Then the
rules change and economic pressures build.

Pastorio

On 6/8/2004 8:52 PM, Bob (this one) wrote:

Oh, is that law already in effect?

OK, P. I said, so all restaurants will be posting their info and have
fewer menu choices "just like Ruby Tuesday." and yuou said, "exactly
like Ruby Tuesday." When I repsonded that they did not appear to me to
have fewer choices, you changed the criterira. Nice one, P.

--
jmk in NC

jmk wrote:

On 6/8/2004 8:52 PM, Bob (this one) wrote:

Oh, is that law already in effect?

OK, P. I said, so all restaurants will be posting their info and have
fewer menu choices "just like Ruby Tuesday." and yuou said, "exactly
like Ruby Tuesday." When I repsonded that they did not appear to me to
have fewer choices, you changed the criterira. Nice one, P.

Go back and read the post you replied to. It said clearly enough for
even you to have absorbed it that these effects would be felt *after*
the law was passed. That's when the expense of having all their foods
analyzed would have a very significant effect on their bottom lines.
Earlier in the thread, I even gave numbers for what that costs. You
seem to have missed a lot of the discussion.

Ruby Tuesday's menu posting is more show than reality. They post net
carbs as though everyone's metabolic function is identical. They don't
actually offer a real nutritional breakdown, just four numbers
predicated against the same kind of foolishness the packaged food guys
do - one order of chicken wings is *4* servings. Right. Just like in
real life. It's a start, but not a particularly good one.

Use your spell checker.

Pastorio

On 6/9/2004 12:22 PM, Bob (this one) wrote:
jmk wrote:

On 6/8/2004 8:52 PM, Bob (this one) wrote:

Oh, is that law already in effect?


OK, P. I said, so all restaurants will be posting their info and have
fewer menu choices "just like Ruby Tuesday." and yuou said, "exactly
like Ruby Tuesday." When I repsonded that they did not appear to me
to have fewer choices, you changed the criterira. Nice one, P.


Go back and read the post you replied to. It said clearly enough for
even you to have absorbed it that these effects would be felt *after*
the law was passed.

To which I said, just like Ruby Tuesday and you replied, exactly like
Ruby Tuesday.


--
jmk in NC

jmk wrote:

On 6/9/2004 12:22 PM, Bob (this one) wrote:

jmk wrote:

On 6/8/2004 8:52 PM, Bob (this one) wrote:

Oh, is that law already in effect?

OK, P. I said, so all restaurants will be posting their info and
have fewer menu choices "just like Ruby Tuesday." and yuou said,
"exactly like Ruby Tuesday." When I repsonded that they did not
appear to me to have fewer choices, you changed the criterira. Nice
one, P.

Go back and read the post you replied to. It said clearly enough for
even you to have absorbed it that these effects would be felt *after*
the law was passed.

To which I said, just like Ruby Tuesday and you replied, exactly like
Ruby Tuesday.

I guess they don't have sarcasm on your planet. The point I made was
that Ruby Tuesday wasn't an example of what would happen because they
didn't do it properly.

I demonstrated that Ruby Tuesday *didn't* conform to the regs in the
bill. And that their "information" was subjective. And that it wasn't
a proper nutritional analysis, in any case.

And it whooshed right over your head...

Pastorio

(Sunshyne) wrote in
:

I grew up around the corner from a White Castle. Funny to see others
refer to them as sliders. Hey if constipated, instead of the sugar
alchohols.. try a slider.


grin Hardly low-carb, though. Do you actually *like* WC, then? I grew
up in Michigan and moved here to Chicago as an adult, so I never developed
the taste for them. To me they are really, really vile.

Chak

--
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case,
the thought is staggering.
--R. Buckminster Fuller

Radley Balko wrote in message news:


This June, Time magazine and ABC News will host a three-day summit on
obesity. ABC News anchor Peter Jennings, who last December anchored the
prime time special "How to Get Fat Without Really Trying," will host.
Judging by the scheduled program, the summit promises to be pep rally for
media, nutrition activists, and policy makers -- all agitating for a
panoply of government anti-obesity initiatives, including prohibiting junk
food in school vending machines, federal funding for new bike trails and
sidewalks, more demanding labels on foodstuffs, restrictive food marketing
to children, and prodding the food industry into more "responsible"
behavior. In other words, bringing government between you and your
waistline.


Certainly junk-food vending machines have no place in our schools, and
indeed school lunch menus need to become healthier. Just because kids
would rather eat tacos or pizza doesn't mean the schools should be
providing that (taxpayer subsidized) at the expense of healthy meals.

As far as labeling foods...I'm not sure what good it will do.
Consumers have to actually READ the labels. How long have cigarette
packs been required to carry warning labels? Lotsa good they've done.

Alas, we've become very nutrition-illiterate in this country and there
are demands that the government "do something about it". It's easier
to pass a law than it is to modify behavior.

"Bobby The D" wrote in message
om...
Radley Balko wrote in message news:
This June, Time magazine and ABC News will host a three-day summit on
obesity. ABC News anchor Peter Jennings, who last December anchored the
prime time special "How to Get Fat Without Really Trying," will host.
Judging by the scheduled program, the summit promises to be pep rally
for
media, nutrition activists, and policy makers -- all agitating for a
panoply of government anti-obesity initiatives, including prohibiting
junk
food in school vending machines, federal funding for new bike trails and
sidewalks, more demanding labels on foodstuffs, restrictive food
marketing
to children, and prodding the food industry into more "responsible"
behavior. In other words, bringing government between you and your
waistline.
Certainly junk-food vending machines have no place in our schools, and
indeed school lunch menus need to become healthier. Just because kids
would rather eat tacos or pizza doesn't mean the schools should be
providing that (taxpayer subsidized) at the expense of healthy meals.

You have a big (no pun intended) problem to overcome. Yes, school food
programs are taxpayer subsidized. However, OVER 50% of school operating
budgets are funded BY PROFIT MADE ON JUNK FOOD MACHINES.

So, healthy food = tax increase.

Are you in or are you gonna whine about it?

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 18:20:54 GMT, Crazy ******* wrote:

"Bobby The D" wrote in message
om...
Radley Balko wrote in message news:
This June, Time magazine and ABC News will host a three-day summit on
obesity. ABC News anchor Peter Jennings, who last December anchored
the
prime time special "How to Get Fat Without Really Trying," will host.
Judging by the scheduled program, the summit promises to be pep rally
for
media, nutrition activists, and policy makers -- all agitating for a
panoply of government anti-obesity initiatives, including prohibiting
junk
food in school vending machines, federal funding for new bike trails
and
sidewalks, more demanding labels on foodstuffs, restrictive food
marketing
to children, and prodding the food industry into more "responsible"
behavior. In other words, bringing government between you and your
waistline.
Certainly junk-food vending machines have no place in our schools, and
indeed school lunch menus need to become healthier. Just because kids
would rather eat tacos or pizza doesn't mean the schools should be
providing that (taxpayer subsidized) at the expense of healthy meals.

You have a big (no pun intended) problem to overcome. Yes, school food
programs are taxpayer subsidized. However, OVER 50% of school operating
budgets are funded BY PROFIT MADE ON JUNK FOOD MACHINES.

So, healthy food = tax increase.

Are you in or are you gonna whine about it?



While the machines provide some money, I don't think that "50%" is
realistic. For instance, my town pays 3-4 million a year to teach Senior
High Schoolers at another town. I don't think that a junk food machine is
going to provide 1.5-2 million a year. If schools make 50 cents an item,
that's 3 million items a year. Let's assume that there are 900
students. That's about 3,300 items per year per student or 18 items a
day per student every day they are in school. Even if the school makes
$1/item, that's 9 items a day per student every day they are in school,
and there's no where near 900 students in Senior High.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply