Wendy?s Acts to Bypass City Order on Calories

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Amused

A menu board is VERY different from a 6 sided box. After that, there really is no point in arguing further.

You're right, it is. A meal off that menu board can contain more fat and calories than the entire box of cereal I have sitting on my desk.

And yes, if you cannot be bothered to pick up a pamphlet or waddle your fat, stupid ass over to the wall hanger and read the nutritional info, a calorie count on the menu board is pointless. Wendy's has their nutritional info readily available in every store. You don't even have to ask for it.

Saying something with more emphasis doesn't make it any more right.


Edit: If you consider this to be a nanny state law, then there is no way you can be in support of the law requiring nutrition facts and ingredients on the products you buy in a grocery store. You can't use "marketing space" to argue that this is a nanny state law.

There is a big difference between the trans-fat law and this one. They're just requiring that information be disseminated in a clear and easily accessible way.

And I opposed the trans fat law.

Guess what, Mugs? There is NO law forcing fast food to make available the nutritional info as it stands now. They are all doing it voluntarily. Amazing, huh?

The info already IS provided in a clear and infinitely easily accessible way.

The menu board exists to display the products, and the price. There is no rational reason not to allow restaurants to have the nutritional info in a separate place. None.

This is another law appealing to the lowest common denominator.

 

[iamaelephant]

There's simply no need for a law to force nutritional information into any type of restaurant. Rather, we need to educate people on nutrition, the values of being healthy and the drawbacks of poor diet. When enough people are conscious of their eating habits and willing to actively become healthy, they will only eat at eateries where they are aware of the nutritional information. At this point, restaurants/fast food chains will willingly provide nutritional information that is easily accessible because the market will demand it. Less regulation, more education. I seldom agree with Amused but he is absolutely correct here.

As for this law itself, even if well intentioned it was clearly poorly written. It serves only to penalise the companies that already took a proactive stance. Ridiculous.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Amused
And I opposed the trans fat law.

Guess what, Mugs? There is NO law forcing fast food to make available the nutritional info as it stands now. They are all doing it voluntarily. Amazing, huh?

Yes I know there is no law that forces them to have the info there, and I know that some fast food restaurants make it available in stores voluntarily, but some do not. If it's only available via the Internet, it's not too easy to access within the store.

The info already IS provided in a clear and infinitely easily accessible way.

And when you're going through the drive through, how easy is it to see the nutritional information on the wall inside the restaurant?

The menu board exists to display the products, and the price. There is no rational reason not to allow restaurants to have the nutritional info in a separate place. None.

This is another law appealing to the lowest common denominator.

Apparantly Wendy's thinks it'll make people think twice about eating there, so there's your rational reason. The reason Wendy's gives for not wanting to put the info on their board is B.S. The fact that the food is made to order has nothing to do with it.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant
There's simply no need for a law to force nutritional information into any type of restaurant. Rather, we need to educate people on nutrition, the values of being healthy and the drawbacks of poor diet. When enough people are conscious of their eating habits and willing to actively become healthy, they will only eat at eateries where they are aware of the nutritional information. At this point, restaurants/fast food chains will willingly provide nutritional information that is easily accessible because the market will demand it. Less regulation, more education. I seldom agree with Amused but he is absolutely correct here.

As for this law itself, even if well intentioned it was clearly poorly written. It serves only to penalise the companies that already took a proactive stance. Ridiculous.

To be perfectly honest, I don't think education is really going to do that much to promote healthy eating. As a creature of stimulus, humans seem to always opt for the method that brings the most stimulus. Drinking, drugs, smoking, eating high fat content foods, eating high refined sugar and carbohydrate foods, etc will persist unless the person is willing to forego these temporary pleasures for something that may or may not be better.

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: iamaelephant
There's simply no need for a law to force nutritional information into any type of restaurant. Rather, we need to educate people on nutrition, the values of being healthy and the drawbacks of poor diet. When enough people are conscious of their eating habits and willing to actively become healthy, they will only eat at eateries where they are aware of the nutritional information. At this point, restaurants/fast food chains will willingly provide nutritional information that is easily accessible because the market will demand it. Less regulation, more education. I seldom agree with Amused but he is absolutely correct here.

As for this law itself, even if well intentioned it was clearly poorly written. It serves only to penalise the companies that already took a proactive stance. Ridiculous.

To be honest perfectly honest, I don't think education is really going to do that much to promote healthy eating. As a creature of stimulus, humans seem to always opt for the method that brings the most stimulus. Drinking, drugs, smoking, eating high fat content foods, eating high refined sugar and carbohydrate foods, etc will persist unless the person is willing to forego these temporary pleasures for something that may or may not be better.

Well isn't that what you Americans are always yapping about? Having freedom and choice rather than having something forced upon you? When people are well-informed of their options and the implications of said options they are in a position to make an informed decision. In this case, having nutritional information on the menus will make little difference because the customer has already elected to forgo the healthy alternative in favour of these high-stimulus foods.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: iamaelephant
There's simply no need for a law to force nutritional information into any type of restaurant. Rather, we need to educate people on nutrition, the values of being healthy and the drawbacks of poor diet. When enough people are conscious of their eating habits and willing to actively become healthy, they will only eat at eateries where they are aware of the nutritional information. At this point, restaurants/fast food chains will willingly provide nutritional information that is easily accessible because the market will demand it. Less regulation, more education. I seldom agree with Amused but he is absolutely correct here.

As for this law itself, even if well intentioned it was clearly poorly written. It serves only to penalise the companies that already took a proactive stance. Ridiculous.

To be honest perfectly honest, I don't think education is really going to do that much to promote healthy eating. As a creature of stimulus, humans seem to always opt for the method that brings the most stimulus. Drinking, drugs, smoking, eating high fat content foods, eating high refined sugar and carbohydrate foods, etc will persist unless the person is willing to forego these temporary pleasures for something that may or may not be better.

Well isn't that what you Americans are always yapping about? Having freedom and choice rather than having something forced upon you? When people are well-informed of their options and the implications of said options they are in a position to make an informed decision. In this case, having nutritional information on the menus will make little difference because the customer has already elected to forgo the healthy alternative in favour of these high-stimulus foods.

Hence why freedom isn't the end all, be all solution. People are still humans in the end and fall easily for items with heavy stimulus. That's why there are regulations out there. Whether the one that Amused posted about is legitimate (in my opinion, it's a failed city order) or not, it doesn't mean that a Libertarian viewpoint is the best method either.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: glutenberg
Hence why freedom isn't the end all, be all solution. People are still humans in the end and fall easily for items with heavy stimulus. That's why there are regulations out there. Whether the one that Amused posted about is legitimate (in my opinion, it's a failed city order) or not, it doesn't mean that a Libertarian viewpoint is the best method either.

It's called natural selection. Morons that "fall easily for items with heavy stimulus" don't belong in the gene pool.

 

[Chaotic42]

Please Government, save me from myself! I'm helpless and scared!

...also please give me free money....

 

[Legend]

Calorie counting with stuff like french fries and soda is already a diet doomed to failure. Those foods heavily shift your body composition towards a higher body fat %.

So I really don't care. Anyone that's counting calories at Wendy's isn't going to benefit from nutrition labels labeled everywhere. If they're really interested they can look them up, but it's not going to help. They'd benefit from a course in nutrition.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: glutenberg
Hence why freedom isn't the end all, be all solution. People are still humans in the end and fall easily for items with heavy stimulus. That's why there are regulations out there. Whether the one that Amused posted about is legitimate (in my opinion, it's a failed city order) or not, it doesn't mean that a Libertarian viewpoint is the best method either.

It's called natural selection. Morons that "fall easily for items with heavy stimulus" don't belong in the gene pool.

Do you look at porn? Do you smoke? Do you drink? Do you drive fast? Do you enjoy sex without a condom? There are plenty of examples, I'm sure, of nearly every person being in that category you have described.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: glutenberg
Hence why freedom isn't the end all, be all solution. People are still humans in the end and fall easily for items with heavy stimulus. That's why there are regulations out there. Whether the one that Amused posted about is legitimate (in my opinion, it's a failed city order) or not, it doesn't mean that a Libertarian viewpoint is the best method either.

It's called natural selection. Morons that "fall easily for items with heavy stimulus" don't belong in the gene pool.

Do you look at porn? Do you smoke? Do you drink? Do you drive fast? Do you enjoy sex without a condom? There are plenty of examples, I'm sure, of nearly every person being in that category you have described.

For millions of years man has faced challenges of excess and/or weakness and surpassed them. Many of the ones you post have been going on for hundreds of years.

I understand your reaction when you say you want to help them by controlling their lives. Many of us are born with parental feelings for our fellow man.

But you must know, regulation will never cure excess and weakness. It didn't work for alcohol, drugs, tobacco, or prostitution. It won't work for food, either.

You cannot regulate away human weakness, nor can you force people to take care of themselves. All you can do is advise, and promote... which, surprisingly enough, is exactly what our founding fathers said in the Constitution.

I fully understand that with youth, comes the naive idea that you can help others by limiting their freedom. Unfortunately, history, and human nature prove you wrong.

So no, glutenberg, the libertarian idea is not flawed. Freedom is always preferable to oppression... no matter how you justify that oppression.

 

[ForumMaster]

eventually all fast food places will die.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ForumMaster
eventually all fast food places will die.

What makes you think that?

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Please Government, save me from myself! I'm helpless and scared!

...also please give me free money....

LOL, for some reason when I read that, I hear it in the voice of the woman on the AFLAC (SP?) commercials.

"Help! I'm hurt and can't work!"

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: ForumMaster
eventually all fast food places will die.

Riiiight...

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: ForumMaster
eventually all fast food places will die.

Riiiight...

We'll have our long-promised flying cars and robot servants before that happens, unless the government regulates fast food out of existence.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: ForumMaster
eventually all fast food places will die.

Riiiight...

We'll have our long-promised flying cars and robot servants before that happens, unless the government regulates fast food out of existence.

If we see universal health care in the US (I'm talking about the kind that American politicians would create, not the good kind) then you can just about count on them trying to kill it.