Prince Charles: Ban the Big Mac (1 Viewer)

[TPS]

>>come out with a snare comment like that at keiths wedding when i make the speech and its go time out in the parking lot of shawn patricks in amherst.

hahahaha You know I can take you.

>>p.s.-i think the limp fish(right hand) wants heavy cards.dead jacksons//alot of e, this wedding is going to coast me over a thousand dollars and i'm having a tough time figuring out why.

It's gonna cost me about that much in gas, but it will be a nice diversion on the way to North Carolina. We hit it hard.

>>Dood, I am so going to outlive you.

Hahahahaha. Unless you quit your job, you are toast. All your foods awl berong to us!

TPS

 

[ra]

Smelling of a food is not the same as ingesting it...

at least not even close.

 

[Saint Mike]

Lol, it's not as if they are making us eat something we don't want to. This is for the better and obesity is becoming a serious problem it's about time someone tries to take action on it other than making phony diet pill commercials.

You're right. No one is making us eat anything. But you are wanting them (the government) to make you not eat something by taking it away. It is consumer choice. Anything can be banned for the betterment of health. As Sandman pointed out, once you go down that road alcohol sits right at the top of the list.

 

[Saint Mike]

Prince Charles should clean his own house first. . . . .

The Royal pasty that's unhealthier than a Big Mac

28.02.07


He's a tireless champion of organic farming and healthy eating. So it was perhaps no surprise when Prince Charles launched an attack on the fast-food industry.


But when he went as far as suggesting that McDonald's should be banned, it seemed that the prince had bitten off far more than he could chew.


He immediately laid himself open to charges of hypocrisy after it was pointed out that the company's signature Big Mac contains fewer calories, fats and salt than some products in his own organic Duchy Originals food range.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23387096-details/The+Royal+pasty+that's+unhealthier+than+a+Big+Mac/article.do

 

[Squeezebox]

No one is saying that anyone needs to stop eating McDonald's. What we're saying is that McDonald's needs to stop putting these useless and harmful ingredients in your food. I don't know why anyone would be against it.

 

[Sandman]

No one is saying that anyone needs to stop eating McDonald's. What we're saying is that McDonald's needs to stop putting these useless and harmful ingredients in your food. I don't know why anyone would be against it.

I'm not against McD's removing the stuff from their foods at all. I am just opposed to the government banning foods that it deems unworthy. If McD's wants to change what it puts in its food, I'm all for it. The reason you should be against this is that next time they will ban something you like. You seem to think that it will stop here. It won't.

 

[Wombat]

If you want to make your own trans fat to eat, then you should certainly be able to do so without Uncle Sam really caring.

Trans fat is not necessary in any way, shap, or form in any food. It can be removed. It should be removed.

Actually it was the Government that was pushing trans-fats on us during the 1970's and 1980's. They were lauding the benefits of margarine over butter. That's exactly why I don't want them meddling any further.

"Congress did not voice any objection to this usurpation of its powers, but entered the contest on the side of the lipid hypothesis. The Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, chaired by George McGovern during the years 1973 to 1977, actively promoted the use of vegetable oils. "Dietary Goals for the United States," published by the committee, cited U.S. Department of Agriculture data on fat consumption, and stated categorically that "the overconsumption of fat, generally, and saturated fat in particular. . . have been related to six of the ten leading causes of death. . ." in the United States. The report urged the American populace to reduce overall fat intake and to substitute polyunsaturates for saturated fat from animal sources—margarine and corn oil for butter, lard and tallow." Enig and Fallon.

People who favor this sort of govt. action are basically saying "help us, were rudderless dolts." If you don't like what's in your food don't buy it. If enough people care then the market will adjust to give 'em what they want.

Btw, I've lost 31 lbs over the course of the last 4 months with no exercise and a stop at Mc Donalds for a sausage mcmuffin about 3 times per week. It's not the food, it's one's willpower that matters.

 

[Wombat]

I couldn't agree more with him ... You can notice ever since the past 5 years that obesity is becoming a serious problem.

Only because it's become one of the causes du jour of the media and they're constantly harping on it.

 

[Shawn]

You're right. No one is making us eat anything. But you are wanting them (the government) to make you not eat something by taking it away. It is consumer choice. Anything can be banned for the betterment of health. As Sandman pointed out, once you go down that road alcohol sits right at the top of the list.

This isn't an issue of the government saying you can't eat fast food, or trying to impose a healthy diet on anybody, though in some cases it certainly seems like that, and of course there are always extremists that say you should only be allowed to eat tree bark.

It's about disclosure. In the case of cigarettes and alcohol, both are harmful, but you pretty much know what you're getting. If you eat a giant bowl of pork fat--which certainly is about as harmful as anything--though possibly quite delicious--you alos know what you're getting.

But what about ingredients that are added innocently enough, but which are subsequently found to be extremely harmful? There was a time that you could actually apply propylene glycol to chips in order to sweeten them, and add a dessicant like silica gel, directly to them to keep them crisp. The problem with both of those ingredients is that they are poisonous.

Trans fats are used to keep ingredients fresh, for sure. But it's not just about adding shelf life--it's the reason that a Twinkie can sit in a warehouse for 7 years and still be fresh and edible. That stuff doesn't break down in a warehouse, and it doesn't break down in your body either. As mentioned, it doesn't add anything whatsoever to the quality or taste of the product--it just makes it cheaper, or more profitable for the manufacturer.

When you eat a 10,000 calorie hamburger, you know it's going to make your butt bigger, and it's not good for you. In N Out Burgers makes declicious, billion calorie burgers, but they make them without most of the garbage in say, McDonalds foods. They are equally cheap, and better tasting. Of course they have a different operational model because they use fresher ingredients.

You don't buy a bag of chips or a burger and expect there to be DDT or poison in it. Some of these things like trans fats, are unbelievably bad for you. It really is akin to eating a slow acting poison. It's just that people don't realize it, it's often hidden in the list of ingredients. Most products have so many ingredients, and use so many variations of ingredients, you'd need a degree in chemistry to be able to identify what you're actually eating.

If people don't think there should be any restrictions on any ingredients--because that's somehow a restriction of choice--why shouldn't they be allowed to return to using anti-freeze as a sweetner, or using anything they want as long as it tastes good?

 

[Shawn]

Only because it's become one of the causes du jour of the media and they're constantly harping on it.

No, it's a cause du jour because people are unbelievably fat.

 

[Saint Mike]

This isn't an issue of the government saying you can't eat fast food, or trying to impose a healthy diet on anybody, though in some cases it certainly seems like that, and of course there are always extremists that say you should only be allowed to eat tree bark.

It's about disclosure.

I'm all for disclosure. The argument is not about disclosure, its about the government deciding what is or is not good for me and then banning a product or ingredient it doesn't like.

 

[Shawn]

I'm all for disclosure. The argument is not about disclosure, its about the government deciding what is or is not good for me and then banning a product or ingredient it doesn't like.

Nice job, you completely ignored what I posted. You can just keep repeating the same things over and over, and of course you'll win the argument in your own head every time.

Trans fats are more than just bad for you. It's a fact. It's not a government plot.

What you've said is yes, anybody should be able to put anything in to any food and serve it to anyone. Even kids who may not be able to read an ingredients list. That makes sense to me. Add the rat poison tomorrow.

 

[TPS]

>>It is consumer choice.

That's patently a bunch of b.s. Mike. No consumers chose to have the TFA's put in their food. And further, the government usually sides with the producers (as in no need to tell you if you're eating cloned beef or not).

What you're doing in playing these pseudo-libertarian games on this thread is no better than Sandman equating transfatty acids with alcohol. Seriously. It's bunk. And it's about time someone just stepped up and said so.



TPS

 

[Saint Mike]

Nice job, you completely ignored what I posted. You can just keep repeating the same things over and over, and of course you'll win the argument in your own head every time.

Trans fats are more than just bad for you. It's a fact. It's not a government plot.

What you've said is yes, anybody should be able to put anything in to any food and serve it to anyone. Even kids who may not be able to read an ingredients list. That makes sense to me. Add the rat poison tomorrow.

I've not ignored anything, and it was the government that demanded these products be used in the first place. Natural dairy and meat products have artery clogging fats. Consumption of these can lead to, well, clogged arteries, heart disease, etc. Sugar consumption can lead to tooth rot and diabetes. My point is when you let the government start deciding which food ingredients can or cannot be allowed it is a dangerous game. There are already calls for limits on restaurant portion sizes. This is a slippery slope we're going down. Some of us see it, others don't.

 

[Saint Mike]

>>It is consumer choice.

That's patently a bunch of b.s. Mike. No consumers chose to have the TFA's put in their food. And further, the government usually sides with the producers (as in no need to tell you if you're eating cloned beef or not).

What you're doing in playing these pseudo-libertarian games on this thread is no better than Sandman equating transfatty acids with alcohol. Seriously. It's bunk. And it's about time someone just stepped up and said so.



TPS

You can believe what you want. Your accusation that I am playing games is unfounded and unwarranted. I don't want the government deciding which ingredients and/or products that I can or cannot consume. In the example of trans fats, the government in New York has decided that it poses a health risk and is therefore unfit to serve the public and must be banned. Replace transfat with alcohol, tobacco, butter, sugar, etc. It is a slippery slope. It may be a "good" idea, but that doesn't make it right. We disagree, I get it.