puszysty: (Default)
Add MemoryShare This Entry
posted by [personal profile] puszysty at 06:06pm on 31/03/2010
The Healthcare Bill has a provision that all chain restaurants (20+ locations) must post the amount of calories in their menu items next to the item on the menu. I'm not sure if this pisses me off more than abstience-only or not. What the hall happened to personal responsibility? If you want a low carb meal, here's a tip: don't eat out!

Heard from Stanford today. They told me no. This is exactly what I was expecting.

I am off to a meetup. Cupcakes!
There are 7 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
 
posted by [identity profile] grinninfoole.livejournal.com at 11:56pm on 31/03/2010
Wait... abstinence only education pisses you off. That makes sense, since it's bad information, passed off as knowledge.

So, why does a measure that actually increases the amount of good information out there to allow citizens to make better dining choices make you angry?
 
posted by [identity profile] puszysty.livejournal.com at 01:14am on 01/04/2010
I feel like it's over-controlling. I also feel like it could be seriously damaging to the restaurant industry. If they have to publish the cals for everything (not on a separate sheet, mind you, but right next to the item), there becomes that pressure to cut the calories on your entire menu. While there are ways to cut cals without taste, it often doesn't happen that way, especially if your restaurant is looking to buy cheaper ingredients.

This is the economist in me talking. Sometimes there is such as a thing as oversharing information.
 
posted by [identity profile] tin-o-biscuits.livejournal.com at 12:05am on 01/04/2010
Eh, that sounds good though? McDonalds prints that info on all their food cartons, I'd like to see that more.
 
posted by (anonymous) at 01:02am on 01/04/2010
GO TO THAT PLACE IN VIRGINIA!
 
posted by [identity profile] lls-mutant.livejournal.com at 03:08am on 01/04/2010
Abstinence-only DEFINITELY pisses me off more.

I keep trying to watch my calories, and I appreciate it when I have the info handy. To me, listing the calories is like listing the ingredients. I might go ahead and eat it anyway, but that's my decision.

However, I can see where "next to the menu item" is going a bit far. Chik-Fil-A posts their calorie info on a huge poster near the register, and frankly, that works just fine for me. Or on the back of the menu would be good. Someplace where it's easily accessible, but not horrendously intrusive.

Plus, to play devils' advocate a little, if they're going to make us pay for more health care, then why not demand that people take better care of themselves? I don't really know how I feel about the health care bill, but if I have to frakking pay for it, then damn it, put a little effort into it, people! But I'm oversimplifying, I'm sure :P

But like [livejournal.com profile] grinninfoole says, abstinence only is bad information. Providing more, legitimate information is a completely different story in my eyes. Lord knows I know how many calories are in a quarter pounder with cheese (530), but I eat them anyway. :P
 
posted by [identity profile] puszysty.livejournal.com at 03:31am on 01/04/2010
There are plenty of other provisions in the bill that attempt to cut down on healthcare costs as well. This isn't my favorite one.

My general thought on this bill is that a lot of it looks good on paper, but we'll see what happens when it actually gets put into practice.
 
posted by [identity profile] prophetkristy.livejournal.com at 05:55pm on 01/04/2010
Oh honey, this is America! There is no such thing as personal responsibity!

September

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
            1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30