War against food choices moving into high gear

people have the right to know

Quote:

people have the right to know

yes, this is why we have food labeling laws, which are very reasonable. The thing is we don't need nor should we have to acknowledge each time we purchase products that we are aware of what the numbers are for what we are buying. Having the information available for those who want it is reasonable, once we go beyond that, as we now have, we have become unreasonable.

You are a smart guy, why such an obvious red herring from you? Aren't you embarrassed?

I don't think that we should ban foods. I believe people are capable of making the choice for themselves. However, part of making that choice is knowing the potential effects.

Only today is the federal government demonstrating a willingness to risk the nanny state accusations. In addition to Michelle Obama's obesity initiative, Congress has charged an interagency task force, encompassing the FDA, FTC, USDA and CDC, with the task of developing industry-wide guidelines on child marketing. "The guidelines won't have the force of law, but should have a lot of moral force," says Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "And noncompliance would give the FTC or Congress the foundation for doing something stronger, from publicly shaming noncompliers to legislation." Proposals for these guidelines, which are due in final form in July, are scheduled to be released soon.

Still, as long as these industry standards are voluntary, they may well prove illusory; there are simply too many consumers -- and too much money -- involved. One solution, then, is for the FTC to educate, not regulate. "No one is suggesting that we engage in regulation," says David Vladeck, head of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, about his agency's educational efforts. "Industry may be unhappy with some of what we're doing, but they have steered clear of the nanny rhetoric because they know that if the hammer comes down, Congress, not the FTC, will be holding it."

Don't people "in the know" have an obligation to inform others?

By Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 20, 2010

The Food and Drug Administration is planning an unprecedented effort to gradually reduce the salt consumed each day by Americans, saying that less sodium in everything from soup to nuts would prevent thousands of deaths from hypertension and heart disease. The initiative, to be launched this year, would eventually lead to the first legal limits on the amount of salt allowed in food products.

(CNN) -- A California county on Tuesday became the first in the nation to ban toys from fast food kids' meals high in calories, fat, salt and sugar.

Santa Clara County supervisors voted 3-2 to ban the plastic goodies as promotions in meals with more than 485 calories.

County supervisor Ken Yeager said Tuesday that the ordinance "prevents restaurants from preying on children's love of toys to peddle high-calorie, high-fat, high-sodium kids' meals," and would help fight childhood obesity.

"This ordinance breaks the link between unhealthy food and prizes," Yeager said. "Under this ordinance, restaurants are still permitted to give out toys. This ordinance merely imposes very specific, common-sense nutrition standards for children's meals that are linked to these incentives."

The ordinance will ban restaurants from giving away toys with meals that have more than 485 calories, more than 600 milligrams of sodium, more than 35 percent of total calories from fat or more than 10 percent of calories from added sugar. It would also limit toy giveaways on single food items with more than 200 calories or more than 480 milligrams of sodium.