I read with interest "Fast food makes a big fat mistake" by Patt Morrison in today's Los Angeles Times. Apparently, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed SB120, the bill that "would have required chain restaurants of 15 outlets or more to post some combination of information about calories, saturated fat, trans fats, carbs and sodium on each menu item". Morrison uses the useful analogy of fast food compared to the tobacco industry when he writes, "Like the warning on a pack of cigarettes, a nutrition chart puts consumers on notice."
Do you agree or disagree with Governor Schwarzenegger's decision to veto the bill that would have required fast food restaurants to clearly label nutrition information on all menu items?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
I disagree with his choice of vetoing this bill. It is necessary for us to be able to see what exactly we are putting into our bodies at every given moment, we have that right. Many items on a menu at most of these resteraunts which seem to be healthy choices, in actuality are not and we have the right to clearly see the information for us to make an informed and healthy choice.
Yes, it seems that this legislation would have been very useful and practical, and would benefit the consumer. Maybe it would have helped to lesson the obesity rate in the U.S. In the article, it stated the reason for the veto as being that the bill would "kill jobs". What do you think of that?
I also disagree with the veto. I think that it is unfair to consumers because they do not really know what it is they are putting into their bodies. As for the bill "killing jobs" I do not think that will happen. Tobacco companies must put a warning label on their products; however, many people still smoke.
Do they honestly think the people who frequent fast food restaurants are the kind who would even read the nutrition values??? It seems that those who already watch what they eat are the ones whom it would benefit. He should not have vetoed the bill because it would realistically not effect anything if the charts are there. You would think the businesses would want them because then no one could sue saying they didn't know the food was unhealthy and they could continue to serve the same fare.People in busy lives are always going to go to these kind of places, but it would really help those who try to eat a little better to find something that would work in a pinch.
I disagree with vetoing this bill because adding nutrition labels would help both the consumers and the workers at any fast food place. With nutrition facts being more convenient and easy to find, it will be a lot harder to get sued. Also since people will now know more about the ingredients and nutrition facts, some might just eat other things on the menu that are healthier. Also if less people eat fast foods after the bill then I am sure they will change their menus to make them more popular again. I do not really see any possible problems with this new bill.
I strongly agree with Catherine. Those who really care about their health, will ask and find out the nutrion values. For the others, spending money on a label that they may not even pay attention to is useless.
I dont see why he would veto this bill because if you look at the obesity rate its growing some kids at a young age can't even run or do a pushup. Since Schwarzenegger is so "fit" i would think he would at least do what he can to help lower the rate of obesity.
I do not disagree or agree. because IT DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL. So what if a someone puts up a big piece of paper stating what is in what. There will only be 2 main responses. A) Hmmmm i have no idea what all this junk means... o wait they have that new burger AWESOME. or B) Oh my god!!! there is this and that in there!?!?!? oh... o well.
what phillip said is true as well because for the most part people dont even know how to read a food label. Like they look at the amount of calories and its like oh hey its only like 100. But they dont even bother to look at how many servings theyre taking in. And they dont consider the other things in there either like the amount of sugar and fat. Some people, the only thing they look at is the amount of calories in what theyre eating. They dont even bother to look at whats actually in there, in a lot of soda's there are lots of refined sugars that arent even real sugars anymore theyre just things that make you fat
You all make very good points. However, if you visit
www.medicalnewstoday.com
you will find a recent study that clearly demonstrates that warning labels on cigarettes do in fact dissuade people from buying them. The study shows that the more prominent the label, the more effective in causing people to not buy cigarettes. Therefore, it is reasonable to hypothesize that clear nutrition labels on fast food menu items would dissuade people from purchasing those items. At any rate, I feel it would have been worth a try. It is surprising that the governor would veto it, like Andy said, especially since he comes from the health industry himself when he was a world champion body builder. Also, I must respectfully disagree with my good friend Catherine in that I do not believe that busy people will always frequent fast food establishments. I will use myself as evidence, in that although I am just as busy as the next person, my family and I have successfully boycotted all fast food for the past 5 years. Markets like Trader Joe's have healthy affordable food that is also extremely convenient, and that has helped us. It was hard at first because sometimes my sons' friends would want to go to McDonald's but my kids understand how unhealthy the food is there, so they themselves do not want to go there either. Lastly, to state a potential loss of jobs as the reason for the veto is not an adequate justification, in my opinion. I want to see our society move towards a healthy green humane economy.
I can understand why he vetoed it, because he wants to be re elected to office, but i dont agree that he did it. If we are eating something, we should be able to know what eat so we know its not harmful to our body or will help us make healthy decisions about what we eat.
I agree with Andy that a lot of people don't know how to read food labels and that they easily get fooled, but not everyone is like that. Personally I would want to know what’s in the food I eat. There could be all kinds of bad things in the food that most people would not even know about. I don’t think it is a big deal, but it is convenient to have the facts right there.
I also agree about many not knowing how to interpret a nutrition label. For example, at my son's school they sell Oreos in 100 calorie bags. Just because it only adds up to 100 calories does not mean that it is necessarily good for you since it probably has partially hydrogenated soybean oil in it as well as artificial ingredients. Another time the director of the school was passing out free granola bars. For some reason, people seem to associate granola with good health, but when I read the ingredients I saw that they were really unhealthy.This all makes me wonder if Schwarzenegger accepts campaign contributions from the fast food industry.
I disagree because we should be able to see whats in our food and what we are eating before we eat it. If Shwartzenegger is vetoing it then it must mean that there is something in the food or that he doeasn't care about our healths because if we can't see what we are eating then we can't stay healthy.i think that anything that is edible should have a nutrtiom label on it no matter what.
Currently fast food restaurants are required to have nutrition information available but they are not required to post it next to the menu item as this bill we are discussing would have required. However, as portrayed in the film "Supersize Me", most fast food restaurants are not fully complying with this law as they do not have this information in a visible accessible place for customers. In "Supersize Me" when the filmmaker requested the nutrition information most of the employees had to dig deep in a drawer or go to the back of the restaurant in order to retrieve the nutrition information. Clearly, the current law in place is not very effective and perhaps this new legislation would have been more useful if it were not vetoed.
I do not think it was right of him to veto the bill because people deserve to know what they are putting into their bodies without having to ask. Fast food can be potentially dangerous to a person's health, and it should be a given to allow people to have access to their nutrition information. I am shocked that the governor would even veto the bill. He should be looking out of his people's best interest.
I totally disagree. In fact, I believe we, as voters, should circulate petitions and bring that bill back.
Morrison’s analogy of cigarettes and fast food sums it all up. If the state of California is going to demand that tobacco put a caution label on their products because they are a serious health issue then legislature should demand the same from these fast food restaurants. Fast food restaurants are the ones to blame for making America the fattest nation ever! Besides, what’s the difference between dying from heart failure and dying from lung cancer? They are both equally preventable. We can start by informing the public on how much they are really infecting their bodies with. There’s much more to eating fast food then just love handles.
McDonald's and other fast food continue to expand overseas, and wherever they go, obesity follows. For example, I was an English teacher in South Korea for a year. While I was there I learned that South Korea never had any problems with obesity amongst its citizens due to a traditional healthy diet of rice, vegetables, a little meat (bulgogi), and green tea. Well as South Korea began to develop, fast food restaurants were allowed and as a consequence they are now seeing obesity amongst children there just as in the United States. It is sad and frustrating.
I've been thinking, what if a company knowingly and consciously marketed to children toys known to contain lead? Should we have the right to sue the toy companies in this case? The toys are not addicting but definitely harmful, just as one could argue that fast food may not be addicting but is harmful.
Kill jobs? Yes it definitely would, no doubt about it. But there are other minimum wage jobs out there, such as apparel retail. They are willing to hire anyone as long as you make them money.
The jobs can be replaced, it'll take some work but its possible. What's not possible with these fast food places around is curing the epidemic. Ten twelve years ago, if not less, plus size clothes for toddlers and grammar school kids didn't exist. or at least it extremely uncommon and unheard of. but today, you walk int Nordstrom's kids Department and they have jeans for 12 year olds that will fit me- an 18 YR OLD!This is insane. So, the excuse that the bill was vetoed because it would "kill jobs" shouldn't be enough to let such an important bill die with one mans word.
We live in America, the people have power over the government.
Legislature: can override a governors veto by a 2/3 vote of both houses.
And if our states legislature isn't willing to make a humanity saving life as such...
The people, voters, have the power to circulate petitions and collect enough signatures to qualify that law to be put on next elections ballot. we can either use either one of the constitutional processes (referendum or initiative) and vote yes; put this law into effect. If the voters pass it, the governor can not veto it; instead he must carry it out because he has been elected as the legislative leader.... otherwise we can use the third process- recall! (lol)The voters have Final authority and I think we should use it..
To be honest I don't know what Arnold is thinking. I don't see how this could mess jobs up. First of all many employees at these kind of places don't even like their jobs. Also if people start to change because the information is easily available, then there will be new opportunities for other companies to rise. If a fast food company decided to make their whole menu healthy they would probably become filthy rich quickly. I would guess that if these businesses go down others will rise somehow.
Adam, I think you make an astute argument in response to the idea that the legislation would have destroyed jobs.
Post a Comment