I went to Frostburg State University in bumfark Maryland for my first year. The mountains in Maryland are merely an unofficial extension of West Virginia. Don't know if this is true, but it's something I heard while there, that West Virginia has drive-thru liquor stores.

You know, I wouldn't be surprised if that was actually true. Hell, I'd be more surprised if it wasn't.

/So glad I transferred.
//Local hangout in the area was a dirty Wal-mart in the next town.
///Nearest mall had a dollar store, payless shoe store, a cruddy arcade, and a shiatty 4-screen movie theater.

AngryDragon: HappyHarryHardOn: Because clearly, people are incapable of using their own judgement by looking at their plate of greasy food and say, hey..this looks bad for me...

I really dont even know if im being sarcastic here

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Healthy


Unhealthy


Who is confused by this?


/Loves me some unhealthy food

What exactly is unhealthy about that?

eggs are great for you
whole wheat toast, the butter would be the downside there but other than that
sausage links, not bad for you

That hockey puck looks like sausage, you might be chip your teeth on it.

The_Sponge: AngryDragon: Who is confused by this?


I'm confused....is that a sausage patty, or did they deep-fry an oatmeal cookie?

/Mmmmm....deep-fried oatmeal cookies.
//Fark off, I thought of it first.


It's Scrapple!

West Virginia kills bill...

Death List Five

O Ren Ishii
Vernita Green
Budd
Elle Driver
BILL

/I just noticed that ...

Genevieve Marie: I had to sit down with him and show him that gatorade has almost as much sugar and calories as coke does and he was shocked- he said " But I always see athletes and stuff with it so it must be good for you" and I really had to explain that it wasn't. And also, I had to explain to him how to order his salad to cut out the calories.

Then you did the right thing. YOU told him.

We don't need the government to do this. This shouldn't be their job! Stop making laws for this kinda crap!

johnny_vegas: The_Sponge: AngryDragon: Who is confused by this?


I'm confused....is that a sausage patty, or did they deep-fry an oatmeal cookie?

/Mmmmm....deep-fried oatmeal cookies.
//Fark off, I thought of it first.


It's Scrapple!

I have looked at the pic and there is already sausage there, so what is that?

Good it should be voted down because its unnecessary bureaucratic regulation. I wouldn't be surprise if the chains like MacDonald's, Olive Garden, KFC, Chili's, etc were for this bill. Large companies want regulation because it helps them to control market share by driving up the entry cost of doing business for small and start up businesses. Let say it costs $20,000 year to test a full menu and give accurate reading of calories, fat, etc. For MacDonalds, $20,000 to cover an entire state is pocket change. For new chef that wants to start his own restaurant, this might be 20% of his operating costs. This will cause the new chef to either decide not to start a business or pass the cost of it onto the customer.

The ones who think it should be obvious would probably be quite surprised if this info was listed near them. At many places the choices advertised as 'healthy' are actually worse than the usual choices. At many chains, the salads are significantly more calories than the burgers, for example. Yes, it's no surprise that it isn't perfect diet fair, but finding out two junior whoppers would be better than that asian salad? No, a lot of people aren't going to realize that without any numbers given to them.

This has been done in quite a few places without any horrible backlash. It's rather amusing though - some chains serve healthier versions of their food just in those areas, just to avoid posting the more... generous numbers. A lot of the chains will already have this info from other places anyways. The local shops will have to get it - but it doesn't seem to have shut down local shops in other areas. If anything, they'll probably make up the difference if their numbers come out sounding better than the chains, and for many that wouldn't be surprising.

Genevieve Marie: Yes, it's much better to let people wallow in their own ignorance when it's relatively easy to provide them the information that they need, particularly when it concerns something that has already become a major health crisis.

That's not the point I'm arguing; I'm saying that it's not the governments job!

There are more than enough private dollars that can go to this. The government doesn't need to be in the business of legislating behavior, at any level. If you think that restaurants should do this, tell them, and don't go to places that don't. We don't need laws for this kind of stuff.

Genevieve Marie: A lot of people really are ignorant about food and for those of you who say people should just know better: I bartend sometimes, and the other day I was talking to the busboy, who is a very nice guy in his mid thirties who is not the most educated person I've ever met but tries hard. He's pretty overweight, and he told me he was trying to lose weight so he switched from coke to gatorade and started eating salads. I had to sit down with him and show him that gatorade has almost as much sugar and calories as coke does and he was shocked- he said " But I always see athletes and stuff with it so it must be good for you" and I really had to explain that it wasn't. And also, I had to explain to him how to order his salad to cut out the calories.

Yes there are people who ignore it. But there are also people who are totally clueless, and the people with the lowest education and income levels are also the people with the highest rate of obesity.

I agree with your assessment but,people shouldn't be ignorant of food. Aside from water its the most important commodity in their lives.

To those of you who are against nutrition info being listed. Tell me which of these sandwhiches has the least calories...


Big Mac

Panera Sierra Turkey Sandwich


Whopper

(Panera Sierra turkey sandwich=970calories, Burger King Whopper=670calories, Big Mac=576 calories)

Yet one can't get a rare hamburger in West Virginia. I was astonished to be refused that tasty cornerstone of a nutritious breakfast. Bacteria my ass.

tiamet4: To those of you who are against nutrition info being listed. Tell me which of these sandwhiches has the least calories...

I'm not against it; I just don't think we should bring the government into this.

I just found a restaurant that posts all calories for everything on their menu (they are not required by law). I really liked it.

Government forcing restaurants to do it? farking hate the idea, with a passion.

muckdog: Good it should be voted down because its unnecessary bureaucratic regulation. I wouldn't be surprise if the chains like MacDonald's, Olive Garden, KFC, Chili's, etc were for this bill. Large companies want regulation because it helps them to control market share by driving up the entry cost of doing business for small and start up businesses. Let say it costs $20,000 year to test a full menu and give accurate reading of calories, fat, etc. For MacDonalds, $20,000 to cover an entire state is pocket change. For new chef that wants to start his own restaurant, this might be 20% of his operating costs. This will cause the new chef to either decide not to start a business or pass the cost of it onto the customer.

The rule only applied to chains. The new chef with one restaurant wouldn't have to pay a dime. Most of the chains wouldn't have much cost either, as they already do this for other locations that require it.

Genevieve Marie
tiamet4: Yes, because being able to get information about the nutritional content of our food before we eat it will make us fat and ignorant.

\doesn't think Subby knows what one of those words means.

Um... I'm pretty positive the point of the headline was that the state killed the bill, so that now restaurants WON'T have to provide that information...

Whoops! I'm tired. Reading is fundamental :p

Add my voice to the "Why is information a bad thing?" chorus - It's mandated on food labels, and it should be mandated in chain restaurants. Almost all these bills have provisions for 1-and-2 location restaurants, and if the company's bigger than that, a) they already strive for consistency in their offerings (meaning there's not a lot of difference between different stores for the same meal), and b) they can afford the 10 minutes it takes to figure out the calories in their dishes.

I'm also surprised at the "all or nothing" attitude a lot of farkers seem to have toward eating. I generally watch what I eat during the week, but like to enjoy myself when I go out on the weekends. That said, I'd rather enjoy myself with the 1,200 calorie option, as opposed to the 2,500 calorie option, and I'd like it to be easy for me to know.

Don't think for a minute that restaurants are resistant to this for any reason other than "HOLY FARK, THEY'RE GONNA SEE HOW BAD THIS IS FOR THEM!!!" - "healthy", "light" and "sensible" have no strict definitions, but calories are calories...

12.fl.oz.: johnny_vegas: The_Sponge: AngryDragon: Who is confused by this?


I'm confused....is that a sausage patty, or did they deep-fry an oatmeal cookie?

/Mmmmm....deep-fried oatmeal cookies.
//Fark off, I thought of it first.


It's Scrapple!

I have looked at the pic and there is already sausage there, so what is that?

well, it's not Loco Moco. How could this NOT be healthy:

ErinPac: The ones who think it should be obvious would probably be quite surprised if this info was listed near them. At many places the choices advertised as 'healthy' are actually worse than the usual choices. At many chains, the salads are significantly more calories than the burgers, for example. Yes, it's no surprise that it isn't perfect diet fair, but finding out two junior whoppers would be better than that asian salad? No, a lot of people aren't going to realize that without any numbers given to them.

This has been done in quite a few places without any horrible backlash. It's rather amusing though - some chains serve healthier versions of their food just in those areas, just to avoid posting the more... generous numbers. A lot of the chains will already have this info from other places anyways. The local shops will have to get it - but it doesn't seem to have shut down local shops in other areas. If anything, they'll probably make up the difference if their numbers come out sounding better than the chains, and for many that wouldn't be surprising.

Not only that - I don't know how the WV bill was written, but if I recall...the NYC bill was written so that it'd target only restaurants with more than 15 outlets or something like that. Basically, chain restaurants. And that's fairly standard language for a lot of those bills, I've heard.

A lot of these bills specifically target places like Chili's and Applebee's as opposed to places like Chuck's Diner and Chez Pretensionique.

As the owner of a local donut shop, I have to say that I have mixed feelings about this.

On the one hand, I'd be glad to provide nutritional information to my customers.

But on the other hand (reality), it costs a fortune to have your food analyzed by a laboratory, and since I offer a line of some 30+ flavors, there's no way on earth I could afford to have the nutrition rundown done on all of it.

Genevieve Marie: Yes there are people who ignore it. But there are also people who are totally clueless, and the people with the lowest education and income levels are also the people with the highest rate of obesity.

And? How many laws do you think you're going to need to write to force these people to be like you (which is the point right?) You're totally in the wrong country.

Genevieve Marie: We have a health care crisis in this country, and ANYTHING that has the potential to educate the public about health and potentially lower long term health care costs is in the public interest. This would be a financial responsibility of private corporations, not something that required public funds, so your "private dollars" thing doesn't make any sense at all.

Yes it does. The act of enforcing a law requires public dollars. If you want to educate the public on this, do it with private dollars.

Genevieve Marie: And if people chose not to go to restaurants that don't make calorie counts readily available on the menu... well there'd be almost no restaurants available. That argument doesn't make sense at all.

If enough people want a business to do something, then they'll usually do it. If not, they wont.

Genevieve Marie: This isn't a measure aimed at people who are already health conscious, it's something that might possibly help people who are slowly killing themselves with food and it has almost no discernible negative effects.

Once again, why is this anyone's business but the people who are "killing themselves"?

We need to get away from this government involvement in private citizens lives. If I want to slowly kill myself with food, cigarettes, drugs, bad TV or whatever, I don't need the government to tell me it's wrong.

We. Don't. Need. A. Government. Mommy.

If you really need a list of the calories in your meal then I imagine you aren't too serious about losing weight anyway.

Most people can tell when too much food is too much food. Really, just look at your damn plate.

Genevieve Marie: DaBishop: We don't need laws for this kind of stuff.

We have a health care crisis in this country, and ANYTHING that has the potential to educate the public about health and potentially lower long term health care costs is in the public interest. This would be a financial responsibility of private corporations, not something that required public funds, so your "private dollars" thing doesn't make any sense at all. And if people chose not to go to restaurants that don't make calorie counts readily available on the menu... well there'd be almost no restaurants available. That argument doesn't make sense at all. This isn't a measure aimed at people who are already health conscious, it's something that might possibly help people who are slowly killing themselves with food and it has almost no discernable negative effects.

It boggles my mind when people find reasons to be against something like this.

There are restaurants that post it while not having a gun held to their head by uncle sam. If it bothers you that much, eat there. If it REALLY bothers you, go protest restaurants that don't do it. But for god sakes, stop engaging the nanny state to create laws to make everyone have the same social behaviors as yourself.

I'm not being sarcastic when I say this, I really think you'd be more comfortable in a country like North Korea. It's just more your speed.

tiamet4: To those of you who are against nutrition info being listed. Tell me which of these sandwhiches has the least calories...


Big Mac

Panera Sierra Turkey Sandwich


Whopper

(Panera Sierra turkey sandwich=970calories, Burger King Whopper=670calories, Big Mac=576 calories)

If you include percentage of calories from fat, that almost becomes effective, despite the proliferation of 'guess the worst fast food' links on all media for the last 6 months.

I'm glad that bill died. I'm against unnecessary government, and this is unnecessary. Let businesses conduct business. Let them decide if they want smokers inside their stores, don't tell them to bar them. If a business owner doesn't want to do business to anyone who isn't white and in english only, dammit, it's their business, let them make that choice, and tell the population that if they are offended by it, go some where else. And let the businesses decide if they want to display their let them, don't make them.

Genevieve Marie: muckdog: I agree with your assessment but,people shouldn't be ignorant of food. Aside from water its the most important commodity in their lives.

Did you miss the part where he's a busboy in his mid thirties?

Not everyone has the same capacity for education.

Can't we create a law requiring them to? Or maybe make educated people teach uneducated ones until everyone has exactly the same level of education (or to a level that you personally, Queen Nanny, will sign off on). Good god, leave people alone. Have a kid, you can control their life for 18 years. You'd love it. Leave adults alone.

bushbot111: And? How many laws do you think you're going to need to write to force these people to be like you (which is the point right?) You're totally in the wrong country.

Do you think we should get rid of nutritional labels on packaged foods? How about those hazardous materials signs on tanker trucks? The government already requires information in all sorts of places, and in all sorts of industries. They're not banning anything, they're not stopping you from eating anything, but they're giving everyone who cares some information.

While many companies DO already give this info out, since many won't (I'm looking at you, Cheesecake Factory), it's not something that can/will happen on market forces alone. Let me make an informed choice.

Genevieve Marie: bushbot111: And? How many laws do you think you're going to need to write to force these people to be like you (which is the point right?) Y

Of course that's not the point. The point is making sure people are educated enough about the health consequences to make a choice. After that, it's on them.

It's like people who choose to smoke now, even though the package says "THESE WILL KILL YOU DEAD" and people who chose to smoke before the surgeon general's warning came out and cigarettes began to be labeled as dangerous. Big difference in terms of personal responsibility.

Those warning labels went on years ago. Kids are still starting to smoke. I was going to say you support abstinence-only sex ed, but somehow I think you're a hypocrite about that. Don't get me wrong, abstinence-only sex ed is batshiat retarded...just like your ideas to force private people to conform to your social standards on health.

Switchblades: Not only that - I don't know how the WV bill was written, but if I recall...the NYC bill was written so that it'd target only restaurants with more than 15 outlets or something like that. Basically, chain restaurants. And that's fairly standard language for a lot of those bills, I've heard.

A lot of these bills specifically target places like Chili's and Applebee's as opposed to places like Chuck's Diner and Chez Pretensionique.

Apparently the WVA law also had the 15 locations thing, after going back to look for details. This info is pretty much already available to every chain of that size. It doesn't really seem to be any more of a hardship than requiring it on grocery store food then, which we have for a long time.
Those places can have totals nobody would suspect. Often the burgers and sirloins come in so-so, while things like salads and the "healthy" menu do not. Chili's has a Caesar Salad with ~1200 calories. That's insane - but I bet a lot of people think they are doing better to get that over other things. Many of these chains already have menus that they separate out and advertise as healthy, but with no controls are actually as bad or worse than their other items. That's nothing short of deception, and we don't allow that sort of thing in most other industries, so why should we in restaurants?

DaBishop: Once again, why is this anyone's business but the people who are "killing themselves"?

We need to get away from this government involvement in private citizens lives. If I want to slowly kill myself with food, cigarettes, drugs, bad TV or whatever, I don't need the government to tell me it's wrong.

Except that you and I both pay for all the fatties, smokers, and excess drinkers out there, informed or otherwise, that require more health care than they can afford. Requiring this information won't stop everyone who's going to kill themselves with food, but it'll give the rest of the ability to know either way - it's not as simple as "get the government out of our lives!" - that's just libertarian fantasy.

mikebdoss: bushbot111: And? How many laws do you think you're going to need to write to force these people to be like you (which is the point right?) You're totally in the wrong country.

Do you think we should get rid of nutritional labels on packaged foods? How about those hazardous materials signs on tanker trucks? The government already requires information in all sorts of places, and in all sorts of industries. They're not banning anything, they're not stopping you from eating anything, but they're giving everyone who cares some information.

While many companies DO already give this info out, since many won't (I'm looking at you, Cheesecake Factory), it's not something that can/will happen on market forces alone. Let me make an informed choice.

You're wrong about that. If you read back in the post, I said I found a restaurant that posts calories for all their meals on the big menu board. I love it. I go there probably 50% more often now because of it. That means I give less business to lunch places that don't post it. And all this is happening without government intervention. Crazyness!

bushbot111: Those warning labels went on years ago. Kids are still starting to smoke. I was going to say you support abstinence-only sex ed, but somehow I think you're a hypocrite about that. Don't get me wrong, abstinence-only sex ed is batshiat retarded...just like your ideas to force private people to conform to your social standards on health.

Er; that sounds like it would be the opposite to me. Wouldn't someone who wants that information available and clearly labeled be like to want all the information on another health issue clearly explained and available too? I think abstinence would more follow the keep it quiet view. I've not seen anyone saying you'd have to care what the numbers say, or change your ways, just that the info be available.

mikebdoss: DaBishop: Once again, why is this anyone's business but the people who are "killing themselves"?

We need to get away from this government involvement in private citizens lives. If I want to slowly kill myself with food, cigarettes, drugs, bad TV or whatever, I don't need the government to tell me it's wrong.

Except that you and I both pay for all the fatties, smokers, and excess drinkers out there, informed or otherwise, that require more health care than they can afford. Requiring this information won't stop everyone who's going to kill themselves with food, but it'll give the rest of the ability to know either way - it's not as simple as "get the government out of our lives!" - that's just libertarian fantasy.

Yes. That's a problem. We need to solve that by not paying for them, not by trying to change their behaviors through more laws (because it won't work and it's facist). You truly make people take responsibility for themselves (by taking away free shiat), and most of them will. You give them opportunities to push the responsibility on others (like us) and most of them will.

HappyHarryHardOn: Because clearly, people are incapable of using their own judgement by looking at their plate of greasy food and say, hey..this looks bad for me...

I really dont even know if im being sarcastic here

Without knowing how the food was prepared how can you know how many calories are in it? Yes, it's obvious that fried food will be calorie heavy. It's not necessarily obvious that your skinless, breadless chicken was sauted in so much butter that it's more calories than fried chicken would be.

Daniefish
I came here to make sure no one missed posting that pic. I'm leaving satisfied now.

Genevieve Marie: So do you think cigarettes shouldn't carry a warning label?

NO!

ErinPac: bushbot111: Those warning labels went on years ago. Kids are still starting to smoke. I was going to say you support abstinence-only sex ed, but somehow I think you're a hypocrite about that. Don't get me wrong, abstinence-only sex ed is batshiat retarded...just like your ideas to force private people to conform to your social standards on health.

Er; that sounds like it would be the opposite to me. Wouldn't someone who wants that information available and clearly labeled be like to want all the information on another health issue clearly explained and available too? I think abstinence would more follow the keep it quiet view. I've not seen anyone saying you'd have to care what the numbers say, or change your ways, just that the info be available.

From what I've seen, lots of conversatives on here support Abstinence-Only education, and lots of liberals support stuff like this (forcing private firms to do what THEY'D do). To me, it's all the same useless exercise. Trying to change people's behaviors for your own agenda.

Let adults make their own mistakes, and let them pay for them too. People will learn. It always seems we can't get both of those parts...and you gotta have both for it to work.

DaBishop: Genevieve Marie: So do you think cigarettes shouldn't carry a warning label?

NO!

Somalia must be your idea of paradise. no government controls at all.