"Beyond Personal Responsibility"

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.

Politicians have already climbed aboard. President Bush earmarked $200
million in his budget for anti-obesity measures. State legislatures and
school boards across the country have begun banning snacks and soda from
school campuses and vending machines. Sen. Joe Lieberman and Oakland Mayor
Jerry Brown, among others, have called for a "fat tax" on high-calorie
foods. Congress is now considering menu-labeling legislation, which would
force restaurants to send every menu item to the laboratory for nutritional
testing.

This is the wrong way to fight obesity. Instead of manipulating or
intervening in the array of food options available to American consumers,
our government ought to be working to foster a sense of responsibility in
and ownership of our own health and well-being. But we're doing just the
opposite.

For decades now, America's health care system has been migrating toward
socialism. Your well-being, shape, and condition have increasingly been
deemed matters of "public health," instead of matters of personal
responsibility. Our lawmakers just enacted a huge entitlement that requires
some people to pay for other people's medicine. Sen. Hillary Clinton just
penned a lengthy article in the New York Times Magazine calling for yet
more federal control of health care. All of the Democrat candidates for
president boasted plans to push health care further into the public sector.
More and more, states are preventing private health insurers from charging
overweight and obese clients higher premiums, which effectively removes any
financial incentive for maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

We're becoming less responsible for our own health, and more responsible
for everyone else's. Your heart attack drives up the cost of my premiums
and office visits. And if the government is paying for my anti-cholesterol
medication, what incentive is there for me to put down the cheeseburger?

This collective ownership of private health then paves the way for even
more federal restrictions on consumer choice and civil liberties. A society
where everyone is responsible for everyone else's well-being is a society
more apt to accept government restrictions, for example -- on what
McDonalds can put on its menu, what Safeway or Kroger can put on grocery
shelves, or holding food companies responsible for the bad habits of
unhealthy consumers.

A growing army of nutritionist activists and food industry foes are egging
the process on. Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public
Interest has said, "we've got to move beyond 'personal responsibility.'"
The largest organization of trial lawyers now encourages its members to
weed jury pools of candidates who show "personal responsibility bias." The
title of Jennings' special from last December -- "How to Get Fat Without
Really Trying" -- reveals his intent, which is to relieve viewers of
responsibility for their own condition. Indeed, Jennings ended the program
with an impassioned plea for government intervention to fight obesity.

The best way to alleviate the obesity "public health" crisis is to remove
obesity from the realm of public health. It doesn't belong there. It's
difficult to think of anything more private and of less public concern than
what we choose to put into our bodies. It only becomes a public matter when
we force the public to pay for the consequences of those choices. If
policymakers want to fight obesity, they'll halt the creeping socialization
of medicine, and move to return individual Americans' ownership of their
own health and well-being back to individual Americans.

That means freeing insurance companies to reward healthy lifestyles, and
penalize poor ones. It means halting plans to further socialize medicine
and health care. Congress should also increase access to medical and health
savings accounts, which give consumers the option of rolling money reserved
for health care into a retirement account. These accounts introduce
accountability into the health care system, and encourage caution with
one's health care dollar. When money we spend on health care doesn't belong
to our employer or the government, but is money we could devote to our own
retirement, we're less likely to run to the doctor at the first sign of a
cold.

We'll all make better choices about diet, exercise, and personal health
when someone else isn't paying for the consequences of those choices.

Congress is now considering menu-labeling legislation, which would
force restaurants to send every menu item to the laboratory for
nutritional
testing.

Awesome! I had not heard this. Guessing at how much sugar the resautant
has mixed in my food has been a real problem. I would gladly pay 50 cents
more to have nutrition label info on restaurant menus.

You obviously have no heart, but you brought up some interesting topics.

CUBIT
311/242/165
low carb since 12/01

Me wrote:

In article , Cubit wrote:

Congress is now considering menu-labeling legislation, which would
force restaurants to send every menu item to the laboratory for

nutritional

testing.

Awesome! I had not heard this. Guessing at how much sugar the resautant
has mixed in my food has been a real problem. I would gladly pay 50 cents
more to have nutrition label info on restaurant menus.


No, that's a terrible idea. It's completely unreasonable to
expect every single place that sells food to have their
food chemically analysed. Never mind the fact that it would
mean a constant, fixed menu, with no specials or anything
interesting, it would mean higher prices, and would also
depend on the food you getting being identical to the food
sent to the lab. I doubt restaurants measure every single
thing out on the accurate digital scales.


Having worked in a couple of restaurants, I'd say you were right! I've
never met a chef who measured ANYTHING as they were cooking: it gets
flung in in handfuls, by guess and by God... And by tasting. Analysis
can take days. Would you like to wait days for your food to be
analyzed? While it spoils...

For a fast food restaurant where the menu is the same for years on end,
it may be possible, as it is with pre packaged food, but not for stuff
made on the hop by Gordon Ramsey and his ilk.

--
Kate XXXXXX
Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons
http://www.diceyhome.free-online.co.uk
Click on Kate's Pages and explore!

Bugs Bunny=AE wrote:

On or about Sun, 06 Jun 2004 13:05:53 +0100, someone claiming to be Kat=
e Dicey
scribbled the following:
=20
:Me wrote:
:
: In article , Cubit=
wrote:
:=20
:Congress is now considering menu-labeling legislation, which would
:force restaurants to send every menu item to the laboratory for
:
:nutritional
:
:testing.
:
:Awesome! I had not heard this. Guessing at how much sugar the resa=
utant
:has mixed in my food has been a real problem. I would gladly pay 50=
cents
:more to have nutrition label info on restaurant menus.
:=20
:=20
: No, that's a terrible idea. It's completely unreasonable to
: expect every single place that sells food to have their
: food chemically analysed. Never mind the fact that it would
: mean a constant, fixed menu, with no specials or anything
: interesting, it would mean higher prices, and would also
: depend on the food you getting being identical to the food
: sent to the lab. I doubt restaurants measure every single
: thing out on the accurate digital scales.
:=20
:
:Having worked in a couple of restaurants, I'd say you were right! I'v=
e=20
:never met a chef who measured ANYTHING as they were cooking: it gets=20
:flung in in handfuls, by guess and by God... And by tasting. Analysi=
s=20
:can take days. Would you like to wait days for your food to be=20
:analyzed? While it spoils...
:
:For a fast food restaurant where the menu is the same for years on end=
,=20
:it may be possible, as it is with pre packaged food, but not for stuff=
=20
:made on the hop by Gordon Ramsey and his ilk.
=20
A good example is the low carb items from TGI Fridays, which has menu i=
tems with
relatively fixed ingredient amounts. (Most of their Atkins menu items a=
re
nothing more than the same dishes as what's on the regular menu, just w=
ith
something missing, like mashed potatoes. Other than that, there's no
difference.) But independent tests were performed (by NBC, I think) on =
the
dishes, and because someone put an extra ounce or two of this or that o=
n some of
them, the actual carb counts were double in some cases. Multiple tests =
were
performed from several different restaurants, and the results were anyt=
hing but
consistent. Hopefully, TGI Friday's have improved since the tests, but =
I dunno.=20

The only way it *can* work is for rigidly controlled recipes,=20
manufactured in a factory setting and portioned exactly identically=20
each time. There are no restaurants on earth that can do that.

Pastorio

The only way it *can* work is for rigidly controlled recipes,
manufactured in a factory setting and portioned exactly identically
each time. There are no restaurants on earth that can do that.

Idiots. So, because the food may be 10% off, I don't get to know about the
3 tablespoons of sugar, a squirt of sulphites, and a ****load of MSG in some
crap they bring me.

Allow the restaurant a 30% variance and DISCLOSE THE INGREDIENTS. Damn it.

"Cubit" wrote in message
news
The only way it *can* work is for rigidly controlled recipes,
manufactured in a factory setting and portioned exactly identically
each time. There are no restaurants on earth that can do that.

Idiots. So, because the food may be 10% off, I don't get to know about
the
3 tablespoons of sugar, a squirt of sulphites, and a ****load of MSG in
some
crap they bring me.

Allow the restaurant a 30% variance and DISCLOSE THE INGREDIENTS. Damn it.



Stay home to eat, and don't try to punish the rest of us. Idiot.

Hi,
On 6-Jun-2004, "Cubit" wrote:

The only way it *can* work is for rigidly controlled recipes,
manufactured in a factory setting and portioned exactly
identically each time. There are no restaurants on earth that can
do that.

Idiots. So, because the food may be 10% off, I don't get to know
about the 3 tablespoons of sugar, a squirt of sulphites, and a
****load of MSG
in some crap they bring me.

Allow the restaurant a 30% variance and DISCLOSE THE INGREDIENTS.
Damn it.

There's a bill that's been introduced that would require restaurant
chains of 20 or more stores to do that:
http://calorielab.com/bills-meal.html#hr-3444

To me that seems reasonable, as requiring stand alone restaurants and
very small chains to have all their menu items analyzed would be too
burdensome, especially when the profit margins in the restaurant
business are reported to be slim.

Take care,
Carmen

Cubit wrote:

The only way it *can* work is for rigidly controlled recipes,
manufactured in a factory setting and portioned exactly identically
each time. There are no restaurants on earth that can do that.

Idiots. So, because the food may be 10% off, I don't get to know about the
3 tablespoons of sugar, a squirt of sulphites, and a ****load of MSG in some
crap they bring me.

Allow the restaurant a 30% variance and DISCLOSE THE INGREDIENTS. Damn it.

Bite this, it's low carb. Idiot.

The easiest thing to do is to ask what the ingredients are. But based
on your note here, that's too much to expect from you. It should be
sitting on the table waiting for your arrival, right? And if what they
serve you is crap, you're eating in the wrong places.

I've never heard of a restaurant putting in a "squirt of sulfites" and
if I had to, I wouldn't know where to get them. MSG as an additive is
virtually gone from foodservice, even though it occurs naturally in
many foods. Sugar is still in foods of several sorts, and it's a
perfectly respectable ingredient. It's merely that you don't want it.

It costs between $700 and $1000 to have a lab do a full workup on a
dish. It can be done cheaper if you give the lab the recipe because
they'll just do it on their computers and still charge about $250 for
the calculations. My menus (3 meals) typically had around 100 items on
them, changed every 3 months. Plus 3 daily lunch and 6 daily dinner
specials that we ran that weren't standard menu items. Specials 6 days
a week for a total of 54 specials.

That looks like 400 standard dishes plus about 1000 specials because
some were repeated. Our banquet menus were 8 pages long and I'm not
sure how many things we had on it, but 250 wouldn't be too far wrong.
So how does that stack up...

1,650 dishes to be analyzed for an upper total of $1,650,000 that
could drop all the way down to $1,237,500. Since my gross revenue was
slightly less than double that and our profit margin was under 7%,
where was that money to come from? Should I and my people work for
free? Would you pay more for food in a place that had the information
+/- 30% of what was actually in the dish? How helpful is that?

Portions in well-managed restaurants can vary by as much as 25%
depending on kitchen activity (the busier they are, the more food the
average customer gets), when in the shift it is (the later in the
shift, the more food they push out), the nature of the dish (steaks
are portioned, chipped beef on toast isn't).

If you have a rational way to do this, I'd be happy to listen, but
ignorant rants go nowhere.

Pastorio

Carmen wrote:
Hi,
On 6-Jun-2004, "Cubit" wrote:
=20
=20
The only way it *can* work is for rigidly controlled recipes,
manufactured in a factory setting and portioned exactly
identically each time. There are no restaurants on earth that can
do that.

Idiots. So, because the food may be 10% off, I don't get to know
about the 3 tablespoons of sugar, a squirt of sulphites, and a
****load of MSG
in some crap they bring me.

Allow the restaurant a 30% variance and DISCLOSE THE INGREDIENTS.
Damn it.
=20
=20
There's a bill that's been introduced that would require restaurant
chains of 20 or more stores to do that:
http://calorielab.com/bills-meal.html#hr-3444
=20
To me that seems reasonable, as requiring stand alone restaurants and
very small chains to have all their menu items analyzed would be too
burdensome, especially when the profit margins in the restaurant
business are reported to be slim.

I promise that if this bill is enacted, restaurants that fall under=20
its purview will dumb down further. They'll offer many fewer choices=20
with many more sauces to make them seem different.

I went to the site and here's the impetus behind the bill. See if the=20
science and the rest of the thinking are current...

begin quote
(1) Research continues to reveal the strong link between diet and=20
health, and that diet-related diseases start early in life.

(2) Increased caloric intake is a key factor contributing to the=20
alarming increase in obesity in the United States. According to the=20
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, two-thirds of American=20
adults are overweight or obese, and the rates of obesity have doubled=20
in children and tripled in teens since 1980. Obesity increases the=20
risk of diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and other health problems.=20
Each year obesity costs families, businesses, and governments $117=20
billion.

(3) Excess saturated fat intake is a major risk factor for heart=20
disease, which is the leading cause of death in the United States.=20
While it is often thought to primarily affect men and older people,=20
cardiovascular disease is the leading killer of women and kills 61,000=20
people between the ages of 45 and 64 each year. Heart disease is also=20
a leading cause of disability among working adults and its impact on=20
the U.S. economy is significant, estimated in 2001 to total $298=20
billion in health care expenditures and lost productivity.

(4) Increased sodium intake is associated with increased risk of high=20
blood pressure, or hypertension, a condition that can lead to=20
cardiovascular disease, especially stroke. The proportion of Americans=20
with high blood pressure is 45 percent at age 50, 60 percent at age=20
60, and over 70 percent at age 70.

(5) Over the past two decades, there has been a significant increase=20
in the number of meals prepared and/or eaten outside the home, with an=20
estimated one-third of calories and almost half (46 percent) of total=20
food dollars being spent on food purchased from and/or eaten at=20
restaurants and other food-service establishments.

(6) While nutrition labeling is currently required on most processed=20
foods, such information is required only for restaurant foods for=20
which nutrient content or health claims are made.

(7) Three-quarters of American adults report using food labels on=20
packaged foods, which are required by the Nutrition Labeling and=20
Education Act of 1990. Using food labels is associated with eating=20
more healthful diets, and approximately half (48 percent) of people=20
report that the nutrition information on food labels has caused them=20
to change their minds about buying a food product.

(8) It is difficult for consumers to limit their intake of calories at=20
restaurants, given the limited availability of nutrition information,=20
as well as the popular practice by many restaurants of providing foods=20
in larger-than-standard servings and =93super-sized=94 portions. Studies =

show that people eat greater quantities of food when they are served more=
=2E
end quote

Pastorio

Hi,
Carmen wrote:
There's a bill that's been introduced that would require
restaurant chains of 20 or more stores to do that:
http://calorielab.com/bills-meal.html#hr-3444

To me that seems reasonable, as requiring stand alone restaurants
and very small chains to have all their menu items analyzed would
be
too burdensome, especially when the profit margins in the
restaurant
business are reported to be slim.

Bob 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.

Oh, I don't doubt that for a moment.

I went to the site and here's the impetus behind the bill. See if
the science and the rest of the thinking are current...
Snipped for space

The reasoning is moldy, granted. That won't affect the nutritional
data's use though. It'll still be up to the consumer to decide what
they wish to restrict.

Take care,
Carmen