Perhaps every voter with a VCR or TiVo should have taped the current sessions being broadcast from Sacramento. Case in point. The Democratic majority surely wants to convert CA into a “nanny state.” That was most evident by their debate on Senator Padillo’s SB 120 today. This Bill, if passed, would require large restaurant chains, those with 15 or more outlets, to add nutrition information on their current menu boards for all menu items that have been offered for the past six months.
Talk about being a “nanny state” where the government will expand product labeling and punish you for non compliance. Someone joked about the Democratic majority promoting this concern about our caloric intake while having “cookies in the lounge” that should be removed. One “overweight” Republican, whose name I shall not provide, stated that “we have capacities as adults to make decisions on our own.” Shortly thereafter we heard the following exchange. The Speaker spoke out and said “Mr. Spitzer, take the food off the floor.” There was some humor as we listened to 19 speakers debate the pro’s and con’s of this “very important” piece of legislation.
Do you really think that a car load of teenagers going thru a drive-in, without their parents, will stop and take out their calorie counter as they order a Big Mac and some French fries?
Yes, we do have an obesity problem in this country but adding more regulations onto the private sector is not the solution. As we added labels to canned and packaged goods do you truly think that the majority of overweight families read and calculated that data in their meal preparations? To paraphrase Member DeVore. Allow the private sector to decide on their own if they think it will give them an advantage to show a low caloric count. As an example, one Republican mentioned “subway sandwiches” which are known to promote their low fat content. This government “feel good” will not stop one teenager from buying something that is not low in calories.
It’s time for us to take personal responsibility for our well being. What obesity remedies will the legislature draft next?
I believe it was Member Greg Aghazarian who said” this bill will not do anything to solve obesity.” I agree.
While I do not have the final outcome on the voting, my sense is that the majority party will prevail and the Bill will move up the trail.
What is your opinion on this “nanny government” legislative action?
Email response:
You’re right, Larry. It’s a personal choice — be healthy or not.
An E-mail reply from a doctor:
Larry, it probably violates the “takings” clause of the fifth amendment. MacDonalds will beat them like a drum if they try to enforce it.
Just more dumb show.
Mike
If the science and economics justify it use tax incentives to encourage food companies and retailers to make healthier products. All the rest is just an ineffective and unfunded mandate.
Better use of time would be to put Arnold on the road and push physical fitness like President kennedy did. With increasing population crowding out many from using parks and schools in many ways de-emphasizing physical education and cooperation with after-school and weekend sports, government would be better off concentrating on encouraging physical activity then burdening retailers with more paperwork.
Why Mr. Gilbert, don’t you know, “You can’t make good decisions without good information,” unless of course you’re a true Bush conservative and you already know the truth, about just about everything.
You know, Steve Lopez, columnist with the LA Times, did his own survey last year when it came up that almost nobody knows the caloric content of the food they eat — what really makes ’em fat and what doesn’t. I forgot some of it but he asked people to rate 5 (?) fast food items from well known LA eateries — included 1) small pizza from ?, 2) hot dog from Pinks, 3)2 tacos from KingTaco 4) slippery shrimp bowl from ? and 5)…I forgot. Steve sent them all to a foods lab. But, of about 500 replies to Steve, ZERO got all 5 in order … most to least fattening. MOST fattening was the slippery shrimp bowl with almost a lumberjacks’ daily 3000 Cal’s. Far the healthiest were the King Taco taco’s (viva Mexico, Art!)
Nannies make decisions for you; but I like to know this stuff so I can decide myself. Have a slippery shrimp bowl or two, Larry, youdonwannaknow, just enjoy. I’m havin’ tacos tonight.
idonwanna befat
I glad u donwanna be fat.
Perhaps in addition to No Child Left Behind we might make some changes. By No Child Left Behind was the Initiative’s only focus on the three R’s?
Perhaps we might re-instate mandatory gym classes that may have been dropped from the curriculum do to budget priorities. That might result in students being able to run a quarter of a mile without being “left behind” those who watch their diets.
Got to go now. My oatmeal is waiting.
Larry, you are spot on regarding your suggestion about school P.E. classes and child obesity, more than you know. A few years back P.E. teachers at Santa Ana High School tried to implement a professional curriculum that taught students the fundamentals of a healthy lifestyle, combining nutrition and aerobic activities, not just sports. To do this as a serious academic effort required a reasonble class size of not more than 32. (There were about 24 in my p.e. classes when I was in high school many years ago.) But, to cut costs SAUSD has packed as many students into classes as it can get away with: high 30’s in science, low 40’s in math, and poor P.E. gets stuck in the mid-50’s with one teacher. There’s no teaching here, they can barely supervise the students’ goofing about. Meanwhile, early onset diabetes brought on by childhood obesity is a pandemic problem for Santa Ana. The only thing that matters in the minds of our school administrators is their API scores, predominantly based on reading/writing proficiencies. Health, obesity, diabetes is out-of-sight and out-of-mind. I’ll probably disagree with you often, but the community needs you and others with eyes open and willing to speak out when you see things that are wrong.