The Politics of the F.D.A.

But remember kids... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-03 06:33 · Score: 1, Interesting

...it's the RIGHT that's anti-science. Pay no attention. Move along.

Re:But remember kids... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-03 06:39 · Score: 1, Insightful

Insofar as Obama is also right-wing, you're correct. Don't confuse what passes for left-wing politics in the US with the actual thing.
Re:But remember kids... by cpu6502 · 2012-04-03 06:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

For those who didn't read the article, it's not so much anti science as pro-politics. Making sure the message is not negative: "The Bush administration repeatedly stopped the FDA from issuing rules to prevent contamination of eggs, produce and other foods, though both industry and consumer groups agreed they were needed as the death toll rose from such incidents. Mr. Bushâ(TM)s health department also demanded that it approve all agency press releases.
Much of the agencyâ(TM)s staff assumed that the Obama administration would restore the agencyâ(TM)s independence. [But] a decision that had nothing to do with the F.D.A. proved the turning point in the agencyâ(TM)s relationship with the White House. In the midst of the bitter 2009 battle to pass a law to provide health care to tens of millions of uninsured Americans, the United States Preventive Services Task Force announced in November that most women should not get routine mammograms until age 50 because the risks of the X-ray screens and surgical biopsies that often follow outweighed the benefits in younger women.
Although the task force did not consider cost in its analysis, Republicans charged that its recommendation was the start of health care rationing, an accusation given prominent play on Fox News.
"That scared the bejesus out of everybody," a top F.D.A. official said. The Obama administration became extremely risk averse, fearing further controversies might jeopardize the passage of health care reform, agency and administration officials said. It refused many interview requests for agency officials and scientists until the health law passed.
"To the career people, that was disappointing. Employees here waited eight long years for deliverance that didnâ(TM)t come."

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:But remember kids... by cpu6502 · 2012-04-03 06:54 · Score: 4, Informative

BTW what's wrong with movie popcorn that it needs a label? I eat popcorn almost every day, and it's only ~300 calories. (I guess the theater dobs-on lots of butter.) Such a regulation would increase cost though. And they aren't in the best financial health, what with competition from HDTV and home viewing.
Another interesting quote from the article:
"In February 2011, the F.D.A. approved an application from KV Pharmaceutical to sell 17P, a decades-old drug used to prevent premature births. Since KVâ(TM)s version, called Makena, was the only one officially approved, the F.D.A. would normally have banned the sale of cheaper unapproved ones. To the agency, the only issue was that KVâ(TM)s drug offered guaranteed safety while those made by pharmacists were riskier.
"For years, pharmacists had been making unapproved versions of this injectable form of progesterone for $200 to $400 for a 20-week course. Though F.D.A. officials worried about repeated instances over the years when other pharmacy-made drugs had been found to lack potency or be contaminated with deadly bacteria.
"Once it had won F.D.A. approval, KV announced its price â" $30,000 for a 20-week treatment, a hundredfold increase. Administration officials then stepped in to halt any effort to ban pharmacy-made versions, citing the need to check an exorbitant price increase from a drug company that suddenly found itself with a monopoly, an increase that could burden women who needed the drug. The administration instructed the F.D.A. to issue a press release stating that, "at this time and under this unique situation, F.D.A. does not intend to take enforcement action against pharmacies" that make unapproved versions of 17P. An administration official said that the health department and the F.D.A. worked together on the 17P issue and that the White House was not involved. "The notion that the statement or the action was somehow forced down F.D.A.â(TM)s throat isnâ(TM)t accurate," the administration official said. "F.D.A. officials said they had often been wrongly accused of considering price in drug approval deliberations and had always been able to reply that price was never a factor.
"We canâ(TM)t say that anymore," a top F.D.A. official said unhappily. Four months later, the White House approved a requirement that sunscreens protect equally against two kinds of the sunâ(TM)s radiation, UVB and UVA, to earn the coveted designation of offering broad spectrum protection.
"Top F.D.A. officials wanted to prohibit lotions with sun protection factors, or SPFs, of less than 15 from being called sunscreens because they do not protect against cancer or skin aging, while the administration insisted they could still be called sunscreens as long as they carried a label that said such lotions were ineffective."

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:But remember kids... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-04-03 07:21 · Score: 1

I don't see how adding a different printed label onto the tub of movie theater popcorn would increase the cost as they wouldn't be using any more ink or other resources since typically theaters don't continuously use the same printed tubs but get different styles. If by increased costs you mean that people might actually think about buying the smaller bag thus cutting into the profits a theater takes in then it sounds like you are ready for politics where a cut means that the increase you saw wasn't quite a big as you wanted but still greater than inflation.

--
Time to offend someone
Re:But remember kids... by omnichad · 2012-04-03 07:34 · Score: 1

And if you want to get really technical, FDA-style Nutrition labels are mostly white, so you'd probably end up saving ink over the typically colorful design that label replaces.
Re:But remember kids... by rickb928 · 2012-04-03 07:41 · Score: 1

As a Republican, my objection wasn't that the recommendation that "most women should not get routine mammograms until age 50" would leads to "the start of health care rationing", but rather that it would lead to the Government deciding what healthcare services were appropriate, and controlling access to them.
The difference would be between 'rationing' and 'access'. A subtle distinction, but an important one.
Under rationing, I might be denied knee surgery because I was too young, the Government's assessment of my condition was such that I was either not a good candiate or the surgery was not yet necessary, or that I was too old and the surgery would be of limited benefit. The decision could be motivated by studies of outcomes, available funding, or political considerations impacting these motives.
Under access controls, the Government might deny me knee surgery I was too young, the Government's assessment of my condition was such that I was either not a good candiate or the surgery was not yet necessary, or that I was too old and the surgery would be of limited benefit. The decision could be motivated by studies of outcomes, available funding, or political considerations impacting these motives.
Oh, wait. Hmmm.
Under the current system, I pay for my insurance coverage, consult with my doctor(s), and make the best decision for myself that i can with the available data.
I'm still paying for it either way, but at least with the current system I have a choice. In a single-payer Government plan such as 'Obamacare', it appears I may not. Or I could pay for additional coverage. In other words, pay more. Which I can do now, if I want more coverage or care, or to change my payment scheduling and methods. Right now, if I reduce my deductible by $2000, it costs me about $2000 more a year in premiums. Funny thing, that.
Oh, and my mom, who is 20 years my senior, is waiting for approval from Medicare to have knee surgery, and cataract surgery with lens implants. She's waiting. And waiting. Her doctors are warning ehr that if she doesn't do these things pretty quickly, it may be too late for the best outcomes. So too much delay might leave her unable to move about well enough to avoid falls and serious injuries, unable to see well enough to avoid falls and serious injuries, and in the end risk early relegation to an assisted living home and the significant risks there - MRSAs, staff abuse, and of course falls and serious injuries.
And we want the Government to do MORE of this? Medicare doesn't work well enough to qualify our Government to expand it to all of us.
This expresses my 'Republican' views, and many agree with me. We haven't even touched on whether the Government has the right, Constitutionally, to take over healthcare financing, which would De Facto be a takeover of the industry.
Arg.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Re:But remember kids... by DoofusOfDeath · 2012-04-03 08:20 · Score: 1

I guess the theater dobs-on lots of butter.
That's not butter.
Re:But remember kids... by bigdavex · 2012-04-03 08:30 · Score: 2

BTW what's wrong with movie popcorn that it needs a label?
Perhaps if it had a label we could answer this question.

--
-Dave
Re:But remember kids... by metrometro · 2012-04-03 08:47 · Score: 3, Informative

> BTW what's wrong with movie popcorn that it needs a label?
Because some theaters use really bad oils to save money.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2009/11/19/popcorn-movie-theatre-salt-fat.html
Money quote: "You can get one kind of popcorn with three grams of saturated fat and roughly the same size at another theatre with 38 grams of saturated fat. That's just a phenomenal difference," said Bill Jeffery of the Centre for Science in the Public Interest in Ottawa. "These are things that you can't tell by tasting."
Re:But remember kids... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-03 08:51 · Score: 1

Obamacare is in no way single-payer. Do you even know what that phrase means? Please try becoming informed before making silly posts on Slashdot.
Re:But remember kids... by ColdWetDog · 2012-04-03 08:53 · Score: 1

... waiting for approval from Medicare to have knee surgery, and cataract surgery with lens implants. She's waiting. And waiting. Her doctors are warning ehr that if she doesn't do these things pretty quickly, it may be too late for the best outcomes.
Unless the TPA (third party administrator, the folks that actually are contracted to do the preauthorizations) are really behind, like years, that's FUD. A couple of months isn't going to change things and if it does, it suggests that the patient may well not be stable enough to deal with multiple surgeries. There are appeal procedures if reviews don't happen fairly quickly as well.
No Medicare isn't perfect, it's top heavy, slow and confusing. However private insurers aren't exactly known for timeliness when it comes to spending their money. And the Government has already taken over the industry, in large part because the industry has shown, when left to it's own devices, it is not much of an advocate for the patient.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:But remember kids... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-04-03 08:56 · Score: 1

Probably.

--
Time to offend someone
Re:But remember kids... by willpb · 2012-04-03 09:17 · Score: 1

It could be hydrogenated cottonseed oil, lard or some combination of vegetable oils. Throw in butter flavoring and the only way to tell a difference is by the texture. A consumer shouldn't have to go by taste or trial and error to get what they want. Any food service establishment should have this information readily available upon request. If people have access to this information and still patronize places that serve mystery meat or artery clogging trans-fats because they're cheaper that's their choice.
Re:But remember kids... by sgtrock · 2012-04-03 09:26 · Score: 1

And we want the Government to do MORE of this? Medicare doesn't work well enough to qualify our Government to expand it to all of us.
This expresses my 'Republican' views, and many agree with me. We haven't even touched on whether the Government has the right, Constitutionally, to take over healthcare financing, which would De Facto be a takeover of the industry.
Before you get too excited about choosing a position about how to manage healthcare costs under various plans, I strongly, STRONGLY urge you to spend some time at Gapminder.Org.
The U.S. spends nearly twice as much as other industrialized nations for a demonstrably worse result in almost every measure. I've chosen to graph life expectancy versus % of GDP as the most obvious way of highlighting the point, but there are dozens if not hundreds of other variables available to use.
I strongly urge you to spend some time looking at some of the other variables. Watch what happens over time. There is very clearly a correlation between overall health and wellbeing of a nation and its internal politics. Another example that clearly demonstrates this is maternal mortality ratio (per 100,000 live births) versus GDP per capita. Watch what happens in the U.S. after the 1980 and 1996 elections. These are both elections when so-called 'lesser government' ideologues gained additional political power and were able to push their agendas through legislation and manipulating political appointments. Pretty damning results, I'd say.

What are the facts? Again and again and again â" what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what the stars foretell, avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable verdict of history â" what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts! -- Robert A. Heinlein
Look, I'm NOT saying that Obamacare is the right approach. However, it's pretty clear that what we've been doing for the past 30 years isn't working anywhere near as efficiently as what every other developed and (and many developing) countries are doing.
One thing that they all share in common? Some sort of nationalized healthcare system. Isn't it way past time that we took a long, hard look at what actually works and figure out how to adapt it for our own use?
Re:But remember kids... by shiftless · 2012-04-03 09:47 · Score: 2

No true Scotsman
Re:But remember kids... by Thing+1 · 2012-04-03 11:00 · Score: 1

A couple of months isn't going to change things and if it does, it suggests that the patient may well not be stable enough to deal with multiple surgeries. There are appeal procedures if reviews don't happen fairly quickly as well.
There will always be "one day" where waiting "one more day" will put the patient into a state they cannot recover from (or be recovered from). Therefore, "a couple of months isn't going to change things" is not an accurate statement. And appeals mean nothing when you're dead.

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:But remember kids... by cpu6502 · 2012-04-03 14:00 · Score: 1

>>>the Government might deny me knee surgery I was too young
There was a case similar to that in the UK. A young lady lost her grandmother and mother to cervical cancer, so she wanted a PAP smear for screening. She was college-aged so they denied it.
She tried a year later. A year later. And another year later. Denied, denied, denied. Then she got the cancer, and died at age 27, which could have been prevented but the UK Health System is designed to cut costs (i.e. ration care and say "no" to patients).
In the US system, though it's certainly not perfect, you can get a PAP smear within a day. And there's nobody to tell you "no". All you need is $300 (1/3 the annual cost of cable TV or a cellphone) and a visit to the doctor.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:But remember kids... by demonlapin · 2012-04-03 15:07 · Score: 1

Comparing life expectancy across different populations isn't going to tell you anything useful about those populations' health care. They don't have the same underlying state-of-nature life expectancy, the statistics are often massaged, and the risks of various diseases are highly variable.

Some sort of nationalized healthcare system
That is emphatically not the case. There is some provision for basic health care; it is not nationalized health care. Personally, I think the French model is a pretty good one, but the fundamental problem with any system is that Americans are not going to accept taking second-tier health care if they're indigent. Politically, that's a nonstarter. And the current system, where nearly everyone gets as much as they like, will not get cheaper just because the government runs it.
Re:But remember kids... by demonlapin · 2012-04-03 15:09 · Score: 1

You care what the CSPI thinks?
Re:But remember kids... by damienl451 · 2012-04-03 19:15 · Score: 2

Same in the UK. You can get a pap smear within a day as well, as long as you're willing to go private. You'd have to pay for it, unless you have insurance , but you'd still get your pap smear. It'll cost you about £200 (~$320) and they also measure your cholesterol, perform a breast exam, etc.
At any rate, what does your anecdote prove? That someone, somewhere, might have been harmed by rationing? You can find such horror stories in all systems. I'm sure I can find someone in the US who was concerned about their health and didn't go to a doctor until it was too late because they didn't insurance and didn't want to pay hundreds of dollars. In the meantime, when you have a public system, it's important to make sure that resources are not misused. That means making tough choices: is the risk of misdiagnosis and false positives (which will bring up costs, not to mention scare some people to death) greater than the risk of missing some cancers? You could potentially screen everyone for cancer every year or even every month. Would that make any sense? Of course not, so screening is targeted based on evidence about who would benefit the most from it. I say that's the best way to design a system that has to make the best use of the limited resources that it has at its disposal.
The whole thing about death panels has never made any sense to me. Why on earth are *Republicans* complaining that the government is spending *less* money and reimbursing *fewer* procedures? That's their whole platform: less government spending! If their caricature were correct, the UK system would be amazing: a very bad, stingy system for the hoi polloi (a little like showing up at the ER in the US), which means that government will not spend too much on healthcare, and a very generous private system as long as you're willing to pay for it. Isn't it what they should want if they really cared about small government rather than pandering to the "get your government hands off my medicare" crowd.
Re:But remember kids... by sjames · 2012-04-03 20:06 · Score: 1

The 17P situation is a perfect example of why Americans can't afford healthcare. For once, someone stepped in and told the FDA and big pharma that the situation is unacceptable. If they would do that more often, we might actually be able to fix healthcare. If we knocked prices down 10 to 100 fold across the board, we would have no healthare crisis.
The FDA may be unhappy about cost being a factor in their decisions, but that's just too bad. When cost/benefit isn't considered you end up exactly where we are now, fantastically expensive medicine that provides no benefit whatsoever to the growing segment of the population that simply can't afford it. A 90% solution I can afford will trump a 99% solution I can't afford every time. When even our poorest citizens get to the point that they can proclaim "money is no object", we can review that position.
As for the sunscreen situation, something is certainly rotten there. The rate of skin cancer is steadily climbing year after year even as sunscreen has gone from SPF 2-8 (15 used to be the OMG protection level) to 80 or 100 and the ozone layer is in recovery. It lends credence to the theory that sunscreen causes skin cancer.
Re:But remember kids... by Politburo · 2012-04-04 03:06 · Score: 1

As a Republican, my objection wasn't that the recommendation that "most women should not get routine mammograms until age 50" would leads to "the start of health care rationing", but rather that it would lead to the Government deciding what healthcare services were appropriate, and controlling access to them. The difference would be between 'rationing' and 'access'. A subtle distinction, but an important one.
It seems like the real difference is between "recommendation" and "controlling". There is a not so subtle distinction between the two. As previously pointed out, Obamacare is not a single-payer system.
Re:But remember kids... by Golddess · 2012-04-04 05:22 · Score: 1

I don't understand. Saying that Democrats are left-wing seems akin to saying that my Ford car is actually a Ferrari. And pointing out that my car is, in fact, a Ford and not a Ferrari does not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy make.

--
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Re:But remember kids... by JackieBrown · 2012-04-05 23:02 · Score: 1

I'm sick of this. This was a story about the US. Based on US politics, he is very left. When Americans say he is left wing, they are not comparing him to some European leader. When European's complain about their right-wing leaders, you don't see a bunch of Americans posting about how those leaders are not really right wing

...and WTF is the tech angle here? by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2012-04-03 06:41 · Score: 1, Troll

...and WTF is the tech angle here?

Re:...and WTF is the tech angle here? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-03 06:46 · Score: 3, Funny

...and WTF is the tech angle here?
They had a phone call!
Re:...and WTF is the tech angle here? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-04-03 06:51 · Score: 1

/. long ago removed the "news for nerds stuff that matters" moniker. But even if it still existed this seems like it matters to at least the US readership.

--
Time to offend someone
Re:...and WTF is the tech angle here? by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2012-04-03 06:54 · Score: 1

You eat.

--

---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Re:...and WTF is the tech angle here? by digitig · 2012-04-03 07:01 · Score: 1

Calories in popcorn? (Or are they kilocalories?)

--
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Re:...and WTF is the tech angle here? by virgnarus · 2012-04-03 07:11 · Score: 1

Armchair politics is now classified as a geek subculture.
Re:...and WTF is the tech angle here? by Gilmoure · 2012-04-03 07:16 · Score: 1

*golf clap*

--
I drank what? -- Socrates
Re:...and WTF is the tech angle here? by X0563511 · 2012-04-03 07:36 · Score: 1

Aww, an English website run in the US that doesn't explicitly say it's internationally-focused is US focused?
Cry some more.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:...and WTF is the tech angle here? by Calos · 2012-04-03 08:03 · Score: 1

Actually, that's ambiguous, due to the idiotic convention that a calorie and a Calorie are a factor of 1000 different, and the GP used Calorie as the first word of a sentence, which would be capitalized regardless. 1 Cal = 1 kcal = 1000 cal

--
I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
Re:...and WTF is the tech angle here? by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2012-04-03 08:21 · Score: 1

/. long ago removed the "news for nerds stuff that matters" moniker.
If you don't understand how a major conflict between science and politics is both News For Nerds and Stuff That Matters, please turn in your nerd card immediately, and don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:...and WTF is the tech angle here? by drinkypoo · 2012-04-03 23:30 · Score: 2

...and WTF is the tech angle here?
The technical angle is that the FDA's edicts are not science-based. We got the food pyramid conflating fats and sweets and telling us to eat rafts of carbohydrates which are addictive, make you fat, raise your "bad" cholesterol score, and cause heart disease, on the back of the NIH spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer money trying to prove that eating fat was bad for you and failing. Now they want us to believe they're the right people to tell us what we should be putting into our bodies today. Bull Shit.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-03 06:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

...what in the world would the downside of having the energy content for movie snacks posted? It's not as if it would be prohibitely difficult or expensive to calculate for the vendors. Even McDonalds are doing it, and their meals are a lot more complex than "1 part dried corn, 1 part oil". The only possible reason is that people might not buy as much of it if they realised how fat it made them. But boosting your sales based on a lack of health information seems rather evil, and surely isn't something that movie theaters would do, right?

Right?

Re:But... by thoth · 2012-04-03 07:01 · Score: 1

The article implies (yes I know, that would require actually reading it and not having knee jerk reactions like the dumb ass AC's above) not posting the nutrition content has more to do with the fact a movie theater and/or airplane aren't regular eating establishments, like say an actual restaurant. (article: "the administration has not made a final decision about what food establishments will be covered.")
Re:But... by redfox2012 · 2012-04-03 07:02 · Score: 1

No, but they might just opt for the slightly smaller bucket, given that it tastes like cardboard anyhow.
Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-03 07:07 · Score: 1

given that it tastes like cardboard anyhow.
Not cardboard, butter coated cardboard.
It's like lobster, an expensive, yet nearly tasteless, animal that is primarily used as a medium for consuming butter.
Re:But... by jomama717 · 2012-04-03 07:12 · Score: 4, Informative

I seriously think that. I wish calorie information was on all foods, everywhere. I believe this simple act would get a huge number of people to wake up and realize what they are doing to themselves. I used to weight 248 lbs. - way too close to the psychological 250 barrier, so I started counting calories and limiting them to a certain number daily. I was blindly consuming anywhere from 3000-4000 calories a day without realizing or caring, and cut it down to ~2000. No fad diet, didn't cut out candy or cheeseburgers, just counted calories. I lost 36 lbs. in 3 months and now a year since starting I have weighed 205 consistently for 9 months. I'm off blood pressure medication, feel fantastic. I still eat and drink what I want I just do it in moderation, and now in a way that maximizes the amount of actual food I can eat while minimizing caloric intake, which ends up steering you to good food that is high in protein and low in fats and sugars. Absolutely no down side to making people aware of what they are eating.

--
while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done
Re:But... by aztracker1 · 2012-04-03 07:12 · Score: 1

It is somewhat complex.. the "extra butter" that gets added would be separate, so there would be no consistent measure beyond the base amount.. you could label the popcorn as made (without butter-like topping), and the content for the topping separately. The *FACT* is, that nobody actually ordering said popcorn really cares. Most people are aware that the popcorn itself is moderately light on calories/fat, and the additional topping is very heavy. Also varies by size, and packing... some people will pack much more popcorn into a container than others... unless you expect the theaters to break out the measuring spoons, and scales to dish out the popcorn.. meaning higher packaging costs, and prices (already exorbitant).

--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
Re:But... by ceoyoyo · 2012-04-03 07:20 · Score: 1

Yes. People look at calorie values all the time, if they're available. Some people will choose not to buy popcorn, or buy less, if they know the ridiculous number of calories that are actually in movie theatre popcorn.
Re:But... by hamalnamal · 2012-04-03 07:20 · Score: 1

OK so you put different calorie counts for every snack combo: butter, no butter, extra butter, light butter (where butter = whatever the fuck that stuff actually is). All the old cups and printing plates at some point become landfill. Then a change is made... more landfill.
Except these things take a certain amount of time to implement and companies are generally given some leeway.
For example, recently Canada changed the warning labels on cigarettes again. You know how they worked the change, all packs made after a certain date had to have the new labeling. Thus we are currently in an in between period where some of the packs I buy have the new labeling and some have the old. Eventually the old packs run out, and all you have is the new labeling. Seems like they'd do the same thing for this Movie Snack thing if it was implemented.

Thus no extra fill for the landfill.
Re:But... by RandCraw · 2012-04-03 07:24 · Score: 1

What would happen if a bucket of popcorn reported the following nutritional data:
1200 Calories
1500 mg sodium
60 grams saturated fat (more than 2 Big Macs, from the coconut oil)
Do you think theater owners might object? Do you think parents might object?
THAT's the downside of posting the nutrients.
Popcorn Calorie Bomb
Re:But... by jandrese · 2012-04-03 07:26 · Score: 2

The downside is that Fox News gets to run 2 months of stories about how the socialist government is even trying to get between you and your movie popcorn and you had better not even think about voting for them again; fair and balanced.

It is depressing how much stuff is not being done in Washington because of how it would play out on the nation's most watched news channel. I firmly believe that the hyper scrutiny of the 24 hour news cycle is the primary cause behind the total partisan gridlock in Congress today. If you can't make a basic compromise without being called a traitor for weeks in the "news" then you can't expect to get anything done. Worse, the people who did buck the trend and try to get stuff done? They're out and replaced by wackos from the extreme fringe of the party.

--

I read the internet for the articles.
Re:But... by Mindcontrolled · 2012-04-03 07:53 · Score: 1

Aye, that's about all there is to reasonable dieting. Been in the same boat. Today, I just follow a simple "eat no crap" policy. I cook my own stuff, no ready-made ingredients, fresh produce, meat, poultry, whatever, keeping a rough eye on the calories. No fad behind it. I do avoid ready-made stuff - it usually provides more calories per portion that I do find satisfying than home-cooked stuff. Sure, I am not ideological about it, and I do occasionally give in to some industrial snack-crap, but if you do not let that dominate your diet, you'll see the weight and the blood analysis drift toward what it should be. That's all there is to it. Don't eat crap.

--
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Re:But... by tomhath · 2012-04-03 08:09 · Score: 1

FTA:

President Obama’s chief health adviser, thought the requirement was unnecessary and would probably be lampooned on Fox News...
They're afraid of what Fox and Limbaugh will say? Actually this is a valid concern; would a person who went up to the snack bar in a theater really be influenced to not buy a box because a sign says it contains 300 calories? Maybe there are more important things for the FDA to do.
Re:But... by kheldan · 2012-04-03 08:32 · Score: 1

The "downside" so far as people are concerned, is that they'd feel guilty about eating the fatty shit foods they so adore, and since for most people that's what little pleasure they have in their droning, dull-as-shit lives, they won't tolerate it. That, and they're addicted to the shit. So they'd rather be blissfully ignorant, and fat, and complain about it, while conversely asking constantly for a magic pill to make them thin in a matter of days.

I applaud you for your efforts to get your weight under control. Here is my one piece of advice: If it doesn't have nutritional information, then you probably shouldn't eat it at all. Period. Has worked for me for years now, and I used to weigh ~320lbs, now I 'm down to 200lbs and race bikes competitively, and I'm in my mid-forties. If I can do it, you or anyone should be able to do it, too.

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Re:But... by Calos · 2012-04-03 08:38 · Score: 2

STRAWMAN SIGHTED.
Criticism of the current administration can be made regardless of your political persuasion.
See, this is why I can't take the you seriously, because fucking drama queens like you don't understand why having multiple logical fallacies in one screed is bad.
Know thyself.

--
I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
Re:But... by Nimey · 2012-04-03 09:07 · Score: 1

How very schoolyard of you. You've ignored my argument and chosen to throw back "NO YOU" like a first-grader.
Your mother must be proud.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Re:But... by SuperKendall · 2012-04-03 09:41 · Score: 1

You are eating the wrong lobster. I don't like butter at all and use pretty much none on my lobster; I find lobster delicious.
I think people who slather butter on lobster are criminals who deserve really cheap lobster since they will not even taste anything.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re:But... by ShakaUVM · 2012-04-03 10:00 · Score: 1

>I wish calorie information was on all foods, everywhere
Ditto. There's absolutely no reason that big businesses can't create calorie counts for all of their foods. (Small businesses, yes, it can be expensive.)
My main gripe is that they don't list caffeine content on foods. Mormons want to avoid it, college students want to ingest more of it. Everyone has an interest.
Re:But... by AnalogDiehard · 2012-04-03 10:13 · Score: 1

When was the last time you studied the ingredients and nutrition table of microwave popcorn?

Any of the butter flavored ones are LOADED with trans fat.

I buy the unflavored popcorn and add my own melted butter at smaller dosages - tastes much better, the dairy product has zero trans fat, and you can don't need the ridiculous amount that is packaged with the buttered ones.

--
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Re:But... by AmericanGladiator · 2012-04-03 10:28 · Score: 1

+1 Thank you for some rational thought on this.
I read the article's summary and thought "Welcome to the nanny state".
Re:But... by Calos · 2012-04-03 11:04 · Score: 1

Wow.
I did not just say "NUH UH YOU" - I explained what was wrong with your post, which is more than what you did for the AC. What's more, I didn't try to co-opt your misstep to match my world view, nor insult a (loosely defined) group that I perceive you to be associated with (even though I'd have much more evidence to make that association then you did with the AC).
And your reply is that I'm the childish one, and try (if you can call it that) to invoke emotion... so that, what, I might concede for guilt to my mother?
You're ridiculous.
Oh, and so you can't claim I'm ignoring your argument again (not that I see the relevance): what is your argument? I checked your post again, and all I see is you shouting about logical fallacies and then making ad hominems. Ignoring the ad hominems, shouting "STRAWMAN SIGHTED" is not an argument, unless you proceed to explain how, where, and why - it's too nebulous to be debatable. Shouting "STRAWMAN SIGHTED" is not even base contradiction, as it does not show that you disagree with the conclusion, just the means to the conclusion that the poster took.

--
I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
Re:But... by Tynin · 2012-04-03 11:11 · Score: 1

The *FACT* is, that nobody actually ordering said popcorn really cares.
The way you capitalize really sells your point well...

Some people own things like the the kill-o-watt wall meter because they want to know things. The establishment could post on something saying what the given nutritional values were, it isn't like they don't have the most insane markup of any nontraditional food court. Like the parent said it would not be difficult or expensive. Plus some people are generally swayed by raw empiricism. Finding out how horrible the toppings are, and how small the serving size really is, may just be enough to allow someone to make a more informed opinion.
Re:But... by russotto · 2012-04-03 14:53 · Score: 1

...what in the world would the downside of having the energy content for movie snacks posted? It's not as if it would be prohibitely difficult or expensive to calculate for the vendors.
Every regulation has a cost, even if each regulation's cost isn't prohibitive in itself. As you pass regulation after regulation, even if each looks individually good in itself, you build up a barrier to entry to the regulated area of commerce that is so great that only someone who can afford to have a whole compliance department in charge of keeping track of all the regulations can manage to stay in business. And thus you kill entrepreneurship and small business in that area of commerce.
You can see this in practice when health departments shut down kids' lemonade stands.
Re:But... by sjames · 2012-04-03 20:17 · Score: 1

The current crazy price of theater popcorn is in no way driven by product or labor cost. For the prices they charge, each kernel should be individually popped and lovingly placed in the bucket.
As for exact calorie counts, I would think an average based on what the employees are instructed to do will be close enough.
Re:But... by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2012-04-04 03:40 · Score: 1

Wasting your time. This is the same dude who - earlier in this discussion - posted such gems as "you're retarded" and "just die" in lieu of logical arguments.

FDA LOL by Voogru · 2012-04-03 06:45 · Score: 1

“I never have and never will approve a new drug to an individual, but only to a large pharmaceutical firm with unlimited finances.”
-Dr. Richard J. Crout,
Director, Bureau of Drugs, FDA
Source: Quoted in The Spotlight, January 18, 1982

Re:FDA LOL by IwantToKeepAnon · 2012-04-04 01:32 · Score: 1

So he won't approve the drug of Joe Street has in his overcoat? Good. There needs to be someone backing the drug to be responsible for it when it causes cancer in half the recipients. You know, those class action law suits you see on TV. I think the US is too litigious already but when you rush a drug to market and bypass the doctors and advertise straight to the public, then yes you need to be liable and you need near unlimited finances to prove you can stay around for a while in case something does go wrong.

--
"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy

Re:What is this story about? by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2012-04-03 06:47 · Score: 1

The White House cares because they (Obama) would take the blame for more Nanny Government. Besides, let's face it, posting calorie information for movie theater popcorn is the height of silliness.

Re:Broadly true. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-03 06:52 · Score: 1, Interesting

Being against those who use questionable science as a blunt instrument to advance their political agenda is not "Anti-science".

Republicans are not distrustful of Science, they are distrustful of politicized scientists and various hangers on.

Since Democrats are generally very agreeable to expanding government, regulations and taxes, they welcome any tool, such as questionable science, that furthers their goals.

More of the MPAA's doing? by NoKaOi · 2012-04-03 06:53 · Score: 1

Obviously, as seen in other issues (i.e. ACTA) the MPAA has the president in their pocket. Isn't it true that movie theaters make all their money on concessions, because they give nearly all of the money from ticket sales to the studios? If you post calories then people buy less popcorn, so you reduce concession sales. If the movie theaters can't stay in business selling concessions, will more of the ticket price have to be kept by the theater, thus reducing the profits of the MPAA members?

Re:More of the MPAA's doing? by Xtifr · 2012-04-03 07:45 · Score: 1

If you post calories then people buy less popcorn, so you reduce concession sales.
[Citation needed]
As far as I can tell, most of the theater-going public seems to consider the purchase of popcorn a mandatory part of the theater experience.

Re:What is this story about? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2012-04-03 06:57 · Score: 1

A gallon of fat and salt drenched popcorn probably has a lot of calories and everyone should know that but this is probably more political hay making, much like the light bulb ban.

--
Time to offend someone

Re:Broadly true. by GameboyRMH · 2012-04-03 06:59 · Score: 4, Funny

Great now we've got calorie denialists. Awesome.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by Nimey · 2012-04-03 07:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

You don't have an unimpinged right to choose if you're prevented from getting all the facts, fuckwit. This is an attempt to let consumers have the facts SO THEY CAN MAKE INFORMED CHOICES.

You are entitled to your own opinions. You are *not* entitled to your own facts.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem

Proposal by srussia · 2012-04-03 07:05 · Score: 2

Mandatory nutrient labelling for dirt. Won't anyone think of the children with pica?

--
Set your phasers on "funky"!

Re:Proposal by KhazadDum · 2012-04-03 07:26 · Score: 2

Mandatory nutrient labelling for dirt. Won't anyone think of the children with pica?
And this is why people like Colbert have an assured job.
Because idiots like you will always take it to an extreme over putting a label of numbers onto some object. As if more consumer awareness is bad.

Re:Broadly true. by hamalnamal · 2012-04-03 07:06 · Score: 2

I partially agree with

Republicans are not distrustful of Science, they are distrustful of politicized scientists and various hangers on.

But I do think there are some that do completely disregard science (eg. Young Earth Creationists). I have been given the impression by the media that this is a significant part of the republican party, but who knows, it is the media we're talking about.

However I am curious as to what you mean by questionable science. Are you towing the standard "Climate Science isn't real science" line, or something more concrete than that?

I'm not trying to be contrary or anything, it's just I haven't kept up on American politics and domestic affairs nearly as much since I moved away and want to know what you are specifically referring to.

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by cpu6502 · 2012-04-03 07:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

A free market only works if the consumer is making informed decisions about what they are buying. Adding calorie/nutrition information to food products gives them that information. Publishing reports about Foxconn workers committing suicides also helps consumers be informed.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by MarcoAtWork · 2012-04-03 07:08 · Score: 5, Informative

Personally I view it as protecting the right to sin. We have to have free choice, which means we have to have the right to be able to freely choose what is wrong for both us and society.

how can the choice be truly free if you don't have access to information about your choice? And how is legislating access to information impinging on your freedom? You can still eat a 1500kcal popcorn bucket if you so choose, nobody is forcing you to look at the nutritional information label.

It's just like if all food also had a carbon impact value as part of its labeling, you could still easily decide to buy fresh fruit from out of season imported from halfway around the world, or buy that coffee table you like so much made from rainforest wood, you just would be fully aware of the ramifications of your choice.

Or are you saying that having the information available infringes your right to be ignorant? in that case do you really believe your choice is free when you don't know if it's right/wrong for you/society (regardless if you want to choose right or wrong)? and what about the right of people that actually *do* want to make informed choices and so need the carbon/environmental/calorie data, shouldn't their rights be protected?

--
-- the cake is a lie

Re:Broadly true. by Nimey · 2012-04-03 07:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

Calorie denialism is just another symptom of the Republicans needing to disagree with the Other at every turn.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by SolitaryMan · 2012-04-03 07:13 · Score: 1

Nobody takes away the choice from you. Quite the opposite: you are given an opportunity to make informed decision.

Say you have two different buckets of popcorn.

In one case they just look different (buckets, not popcorn). The only way for you to choose is to either go for the prettier bucket or try both and choose based on taste.

In another case both buckets have additional info like nutrition info and ingredients. So now, you can still choose prettier bucket or try both and choose based on taste. However, now you can also choose based on nutrition and ingredients, deciding which one is best for you. For example, now, based on nutrition info you can assess how big of a bucket you need.

Personally, this is how I choose pretty much everything at the supermarket: I look at ingredients. If something looks suspicious, I don't but it.

Why am I robed of that choice at the movie theater?

--
May Peace Prevail On Earth

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by ceoyoyo · 2012-04-03 07:19 · Score: 2

"But it's the issue that the "Government" is forcing businesses to reveal calorie count in the name of trying to create a more healthy society, and thus subtly impinging on a person's ability to make a choice for good or ill."

The government forcing businesses to make information available is impinging on someone's ability to make an informed choice?

I can't tell if you a) are supremely ironic and also supremely subtle b) don't read what you write or c) normally write for Fox news.

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-03 07:19 · Score: 1

It seems what you really want is the right to be ignorant of the consequences of your sinning before you do the deed. No one is telling you that you can't buy and eat as much popcorn as you want. What's being done is informing you of what that will mean for your health in an objective way. You don't have a right to avoid facing facts, though you are free to oppose laws that make you face facts, but at least then face the fact that you are trying to avoid facing facts. Hmm... I think I see the problem here.

Re:Broadly true. by Raul654 · 2012-04-03 07:21 · Score: 1, Informative

"Republicans are not distrustful of Science, they are distrustful of politicized scientists and various hangers on." - This is flatly untrue. Republicans deny or abuse science when science interferes with their pro-business agenda (the tobacco-cause-cancer and CO2-causes-global warming denial being a great examples thereof), or when they want it to say things it doesn't (like about fetal pain in early stages of pregnancy). Go read this book.

--

To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-03 07:21 · Score: 1

Without better information (although that is subjective, is calorie count the only information needed to make an informed decision?) then you have a "nanny" state the keeps you ignorant to control your actions.

You could make an argument that no information is better than government selected information, but I'd guess in practice you'd find that the FDA mandates information that is helpful for understanding the health consequences of your choices. If they don't, then you change the institution, not hide all information or let those who are selling you the product control the information.

There is one argument that you could make, because humans are so strange, but it would require some experiments: people may eat more popcorn perceiving that the nutrition information has somehow blessed their choice. (Perhaps some sort of known danger is considered less harmful than unknown danger effect?) I would want to see some hard data.

Re:Broadly true. by Reverand+Dave · 2012-04-03 07:21 · Score: 1, Informative

It's widely known and even some scientists hold the point of view that calories are a myth that is based on shaky science. God gave us these calories to use as we see fit, not the other way around!

Jesus how do the global warming denialists do that? I think my IQ dropped a few points just thinking that phrase.

--
I got here through a series of tubes

Re:Broadly true. by ByOhTek · 2012-04-03 07:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Republicans distrust any science that disagrees with what they believe, and then call it politicized. Democrats do the same damn thing.

That being said, it seems a lot more disagrees with the republicans than democrats, and the republicans do seem to extrapolate to a lot of 'neutral' science in their mistrust.

And neither side is against big government. Disagreement only seems to be as to which part of the government should be bigger.

--
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).

FDA are in the pockets of every food lobbyist by Theovon · 2012-04-03 07:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

There are medical researchers finding that high sugar intake fosters cancer growth, finding this to be particularly evident in those who have cancer. Will the FDA ever label sugar appropriately? Nope. There's even less a chance they'll do this with corn syrup, given the corn lobbyists.

Speaking of corn, imagine having a corn allergy. Actually, it's not necessarily corn per se, but expressions of certain genetic modifications and some of the molds that grow on corn. But basically every processed food has corn derivatives in it. You name it, it's derived from corn. Citric acid (a common preservative used in just about everything), ascorbic acid, microcrystaline cellulose, xanthan gum (a common thickener, derived from an organism grown on corn), fructose, dextrose, "natural flavors", MSG, etc. And they're added to everything from table salt to orange juice. (Why the hell they would need to add corn-derived citric acid to orange juice beats the hell out of me.) And if you search the web for "corn allergy", you'll get the impression that a corn allergy isn't incredibly rare, and there are communities of people who work really hard to figure out which food products aren't treated with corn products. Imagine being unable to buy CHICKEN without being at risk. That's right, almost all chicken sold in grocery stores has corn-based additives. A corn allergy may be rare, but the sheer ubiquity of corn products makes it so that absolutely everyone with a corn allergy in the U.S. will suffer. Nevertheless, the FDA flatly refuses to even create a legal definition of corn, let alone require products to mention it on the label. Even organic farmers spray their produce with corn derivatives as a sort of non-toxic enrivonmentally friendly pest deterrent.

If you have a corn allergy, you are royally fucked.

Re:FDA are in the pockets of every food lobbyist by Thing+1 · 2012-04-03 10:50 · Score: 1

If you have a corn allergy, you are royally fucked.
Thank you, government subsidies, for unintended consequences. (I gave up HFCS years ago, and lost over 50 pounds.)

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:FDA are in the pockets of every food lobbyist by drinkypoo · 2012-04-03 23:27 · Score: 1

Thank you, government subsidies, for unintended consequences
I have a problem with this mindset. You seem to assume that there are not very well-trained and intelligent people working in government. There are. SOMEONE raised this objection before these subsidies were put in place. Then they were put in place anyway due to simple human greed.
These are therefore not unintended consequences. These are intended consequences. Note how much money the government makes rubberstamping Big Pharma's solutions to these problems. You really think nobody involved in the process was smart enough to see that coming?

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:FDA are in the pockets of every food lobbyist by Thing+1 · 2012-04-04 01:27 · Score: 1

I'm not sure I follow you. Did you think William Randolph Hearst had a police state in mind when he campaigned to make marijuana illegal? There certainly are unintended consequences to greedy decision-making.

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:FDA are in the pockets of every food lobbyist by drinkypoo · 2012-04-04 02:05 · Score: 1

Did you think William Randolph Hearst had a police state in mind when he campaigned to make marijuana illegal?
In a word, yes. Hearst was part of a power structure in a position to profit from such an arrangement. We already knew the consequences of such actions, it's not like prohibition was a new concept. The forces that control our nation today, which have come into power through economic manipulation of politics, have tried numerous times to wrest control from the people in a variety of ways and have only recently succeeded.
If it sounds like I'm talking about a shadowy conspiracy of families which spans generations, just consider how implausible is such a thing really? There are multi-family businesses which span generations, and they operate with a mere profit motive. Meanwhile the Gates fortune is based on funneling funds directly to Hitler's S.S.* (a well-documented connection which indicates that the Gates in question could not possibly have been ignorant of the facts or the repercussions) and Monsanto is still one of the most powerful corporations in America (or, in fact, the world) even after poisoning American G.I.s... and the world, for decades; thus proving that you can carry off atrocities against first world citizens in plain sight, profit from it, and not only get off scot-free but in fact thrive. And all it takes is a few paltry dollars (in the grand scheme of things) to some willing politicians, who are professional liars.
* In fact, you can make a clear Nazi connection to a disturbing number of powerful families in America today; it's a fun exercise in Googling to find them from reputable news outlets amongst all the wackos, but the links are out there. I, however, have spent enough time on this rant for one day. If the material were harder to find I would probably go to the trouble.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:FDA are in the pockets of every food lobbyist by Thing+1 · 2012-04-04 07:55 · Score: 1

Thanks. I hadn't thought it was so devious. It is good to know history. Thanks again.

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.

Re:Broadly true. by Elbereth · 2012-04-03 07:30 · Score: 4, Informative

Bill Maher is an outright germ theory denier. Most of the Republican party denies evolution and global warming. The Democrats are slightly better, in my opinion, but they've still got a bunch of flakes who have elevated a good idea (organic food) into some kind of pseudo-religion. My sister is like that. She thinks that organic food has magical properties that make it somehow better than any other food. She also refuses to give her kids vaccines. It's funny, because she'll rant about how anti-science the Republicans are in one breath, then rant about some bizarre anti-vaccine conspiracy theory in the next.

People are hypocritical, ignorant morons. That includes you, me, and everyone else. Thinking that you're immune to this kind of cognitive bias is yet another form of cognitive bias (known as bias blind spot).

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by PrescriptionWarning · 2012-04-03 07:30 · Score: 1

We will always have the right to eat whatever loaded calorie crap we want (I know I love my taco bell burrito despite it being so many calories), but if just 5% of people will choose to consume less after seeing the whopping calorie count of a tub of buttery popcorn that can be a ton of money saved by our government trying to cover people who don't may not have healthcare and ultimately are a drain on the taxes we all pay.

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by Xtifr · 2012-04-03 07:36 · Score: 1

You can still eat a 1500kcal popcorn bucket if you so choose, nobody is forcing you to look at the nutritional information label.

More importantly: you can still eat a 1500kcal popcorn bucket even if you do choose to look at the nutritional information.

(As a side note, totally irrelevant to anything you said, all of which I basically agree with: please learn what a "comma splice" is and how to avoid it.)

Re:Broadly true. by ThreeDeeNut · 2012-04-03 07:47 · Score: 2

Very clever... very sinister though as well. Problem is where does it end? Does the little Italian shop down the block now also have to label calories? How bout the ice cream shop? how bout the pizza place? Ok, so they all adopt the new law and now everything has to be carefully measured... the cheeze, the scoop, etc. across the board everything now has to have some stupid label to tell you what you already know (or would if you actually cared). Oh, you put too much cheeze on that pizza accidentally? Well then you need to be fined for breaking the law and we may have to close your shop till the FDA completes the audit. That audit run by overpaid govt employees, oh the tax payers can pay it. Yea, that's going to work well. I cant wait. No more improvisational cooking... only from strictly approved cookbooks where every calorie can be counted. I mean seriously think it through and you will see that its absurd. Just as absurd as thinking solyndra is going to resolve the environmental problems. I mean what happened to all the precious science and facts with that one? Now they are not important? Talk about denial. Look... I am sure some nuts think the environment is not in danger from mankind, but the vast majority of the right actually just think the regulation offered by the left will do nothing but give special interests even more power than they already have and knock out competition. Look at the carbon tax for a terrible plan to increase the pollution while looking green (with greed). Great on paper, terrible on the environment. If the left (or the right) came up with a way to not pollute and offer solutions no one would be a denailist... they would be consumers. Good ideas get bought. I am not a supporter of nuclear power and have hope in wind power but I dont think people should be forced to accept either. Both need research, both need development neither should get any help from the govt and the one that offers the best price to performance should win. No subsidies, no games, just business. BTW: I'm not right or left. I don't think the right is any more credible these days than the left but the idea of a small government with limited reach is certainly one I agree with. Unfortunately neither party wants that any more.

Attack of the killer labels by WaffleMonster · 2012-04-03 07:55 · Score: 1

We can stand around and argue the merits of labeling requirements and food regulation all day long. There are an endless series of tradeoffs I don't much know shit about and therefore will refrain from offering an opinion.

What is not acceptable about the FDA are labeling requirements that allow knowingly factually incorrect information to be stamped on food labels. Tweaking serving size so that trans fat content is below the .5 threshold and therefore always reads zero should in my view be considered a criminal act.

If the argument is knowledge of whats in our shit will negativly effect sales and you can somehow establish this (leaked memos, admissions..etc) to be the case then I would be happy to see all such fucktards regulated into bankrupcy.

If the argument is cost benefit about the practical implications of labeling custom or frequently changing items then external input from politicians representing the public seems like a credible activity.

Re:Broadly true. by Calos · 2012-04-03 07:56 · Score: 1

Yeah, but if you make an effort to consistently consider the broader view with an even hand, and don't take every opportunity to assert your moral/ethical/intellectual/ideological "truth" at the expense of others, well, you just don't get that same sense of self righteousness that you're entitled to.

That is, unless you can extract self righteousness from the position of being more even handed and trying to remove personal bias. But that doesn't come with the snarky one-liners that make it so fun. Sound the beige alert, all I know is that my gut says maybe. Yawn.

--
I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by Khyber · 2012-04-03 07:57 · Score: 1

"You are entitled to your own opinions"

Not in any professional world I know of that requires licensing.

Example: Medicine. If you're not qualified to give medical advice, you're not entitled to any opinion. You don't even have the title in the first place which would give you legal authority to that opinion.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.

Re:Broadly true. by mcgrew · 2012-04-03 07:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

Holy fuck, dude, wtf is wrong with posting calories in food? It's meaningless to me, as I have no weight problem (I have problems putting it on, not taking it off), but I know a lot of fatasses who could use all the help they can get shedding pounds.

Nobody's saying "fattening foods are illegal". What it is is simple education -- popcorn's not supposed to make you fat. But a whole bucketful of it swimming in trans fats? Hell yes a whole bucketful is fattening, print the "10,000 calories, 9,000 from trans fat" on the tub.

I'd like to see a truth in labeling law. I worked at a drive in theater when I was a teenager, and the "butter" for the popcorn was hydrogenated soybean oil. So someone thinks they're getting butter (caloric but good cholesterol) when they're raising their bad cholesterol.

Jesus H Christ, you want the freedom to rip me off and poison me? Typical right wing... corporate rights foremost, human beings' rights don't matter. I should have the right to know what I'm eating. Making you print the damned TRUTH about what you're selling is hardly something to get bent out of shape about.

--
Free Martian Whores!

They Also Need To Label Sodium by Paul+Slocum · 2012-04-03 07:58 · Score: 1

I live in New York where all chains are required to post calories, and it's fantastic! It makes it so easy to choose the correct portions. However food producers are definitely cranking up the salt to compensate now. You can't add sugar or fat without adding calories, but you can add salt.

Re:Broadly true. by GameboyRMH · 2012-04-03 08:01 · Score: 1

Well right now calories and other nutrition information are displayed on most packaged foods and I'd expect some margin for error is allowed...doesn't seem to cause too much trouble.

If anyone thought Solyndra was going to resolve "the environmental problems" they're an idiot. The Solyndra bailout was stupid at best, I won't deny that. It might have made some sense if tariffs had been put on imported solar panels *before* trying to bail out a company that was losing money at an alarming rate.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by triffid_98 · 2012-04-03 08:07 · Score: 1

but if just 5% of people will choose to consume less after seeing the whopping calorie count of a tub of buttery popcorn that can be a ton of money saved by our government trying to cover people who don't may not have healthcare and ultimately are a drain on the taxes we all pay.

I respectfully disagree. People who live longer cost the state a lot more. Sure there may be more short term costs, but long term it's a total win when you consider what we spend on Medicare and Social Security

HINT: That's approximately 40% of the Federal budget and going up every year.

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by roman_mir · 2012-04-03 08:08 · Score: 1

Bullshit. If there is actual market demand for this type of information on snacks, etc., then it's up to the consumers NOT TO BUY THEM until they find the snacks that do post this information, or until the companies figure out what the people are looking for.

As usual, this has nothing to do with the government and obviously government isn't authorised to do any of it, but that's how you sell out your freedoms every day, day in, day out, and once you sell out your freedoms on anything, the rest is peanuts.

--
You can't handle the truth.

Re:Broadly true. by GameboyRMH · 2012-04-03 08:09 · Score: 1

Oh dear I've triggered Poe's law again :-(

I agree that the info should have been posted, but you can see why the Obama administration has worked against it, with the "disapproving Michelle Obama" photoshops already going around. It would have seriously irked right-wingers.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:Broadly true. by roman_mir · 2012-04-03 08:10 · Score: 1

Well, yes, a calory is not a calory, but there is more politics involved in this than you realise, from farm subsidies, to social assistance, to price fixing and elections, etc.etc.

--
You can't handle the truth.

Re:Broadly true. by compro01 · 2012-04-03 08:14 · Score: 1

You brought up tobacco. If it is so deadly and dangerous how come there hasn't been a complete ban of the product?

1. Any attempt to do so would make the current healthcare debate look like a snowball fight.

2. Any thinking person would realize that's an exercise in futility, much like the majority of the war on drugs.

Methane is 15x the greenhouse gas that CO2 is, but there isn't any money in taxing cows so instead they are taxing carbon emissions because that is a much bigger tax base

Manmade emissions of CO2 are roughly 667x greater (330 million tonnes of methane vs. 220 billion tonnes of CO2) than manmade emissions of methane. Even at a 15:1 ratio in effectiveness, it's only about 2.25% of the effect. Clamping down on methane emissions would do absolutely fucking nothing compared to working on CO2.

--
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time

Hey White House by toriver · 2012-04-03 08:16 · Score: 2

The A in FDA stands for Administration. If you do not want them to administer the areas of food and drugs, just shut them down already.

Re:Broadly true. by ThreeDeeNut · 2012-04-03 08:16 · Score: 1

Read about carbon taxes/credits, then you tube it. Take a good look at how politicians use "science" and misinformation to push a political agenda that lines their pockets, creates MORE pollution and gives companies in on the scheme a "green" seal of approval. Unfortunately greed has infiltrated both sides of politics and "science" (if you can even call it that) is used as "definitive proof" by paid off scientists to push an agenda. Personally I am skeptic of just about all science used in politics these days. Like the internet, you can find your "proof" by simply asking for it... The questions i think all people should ask in every case of science is "who made this report and why did they make it?". Where did they get their grants and who are their supporters.... follow the money trail (when you can).

Re:Broadly true. by Guppy · 2012-04-03 08:17 · Score: 1

You brought up tobacco. If it is so deadly and dangerous how come there hasn't been a complete ban of the product?

Probably the experience of Prohibition? On second thought, no -- It's clear we haven't learned anything from that.

In any event, opponents of smoking mostly have been contained to nibbling away at the edges when they can find an argument strong enough to overcome opposition -- blocking certain channels of advertising (save the children), limited bans in certain locations (2nd-hand smoke affecting non-consenting persons). The graphic-images-on-cartons move might have a shot, but is currently engaged in legal ping-pong (and will probably go to the Supreme Court eventually).

Re:Broadly true. by ThreeDeeNut · 2012-04-03 08:17 · Score: 1

well said.

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by tomhath · 2012-04-03 08:22 · Score: 2

The difference isn't whether you have the facts. The difference is whether you need to look up the calorie content of a serving of popcorn versus requiring the vendor of popcorn to post the calorie content. If you care you could probably get a pretty good idea with about 10 seconds of searching. Nothing prevents you from getting the facts.

Re:Broadly true. by ColdWetDog · 2012-04-03 08:32 · Score: 2

Denial Denialism?

Where does that get fun?

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Re:Broadly true. by MimeticLie · 2012-04-03 08:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

Bill Maher's like the left-wing Rush Limbaugh from what I understand.

Except people actually listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Ignorance is essential to true decision making by Xaedalus · 2012-04-03 08:43 · Score: 2

It seems to me that ignorance is inversely proportional to the ability to make a conscious, self-determined choice. The more information I have about a given set of options, the less I'm able to make a choice based solely on my own preferences. Instead, I'm hampered by the knowledge that one particular option is better for me than others as determined by sources outside my control, and therefore (perhaps against my personal inclination) I'm going to lean towards the option that is better for me.

In this particular instance regarding calorie count, I'm aware due to education and awareness campaigns that more calories without moderation are a bad thing, both for me and for society. Morally, I know that I should reduce calorie intake to a moderate amount that is healthy for me. Moreover, the government and social scientists are aware that providing me with objective data that clearly states the best way to take care of myself is going to incentivize me to make the right choice. By capitalizing on these memes and trends, and posting calorie counts plus other nutritional data that is factual and accurate, the government and society is trying to push me to make the right choice both for society and myself. While the data may be factually, statistically, and scientifically accurate, the way and method in which it is introduced to me is biased. I already know that the Triple Baconator is bad for me, but by showing me calorie count, I'm going to make a further emotional connection that the Baconator is bad, read information that verifies that it is bad, and further convince myself that I should eat a salad instead. At that point, my will to choose is weakened, and I'm probably going to go with the salad.

The point I am trying to make is that by increasing the amount of data available for consumers to read, thus reducing ignorance as close to nil as possible, we are actually eroding the ability of people to make conscious, self-determined choices based on what they prefer. Instead, it influences people to choose the "correct" option (correct meaning that the data says that option A is more optimal than option B, and only idiots would prefer a less-optimal solution). And if we choose the "correct" option every time, how long before that becomes the only option?

--
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.

Re:Ignorance is essential to true decision making by Nimey · 2012-04-03 09:25 · Score: 2

At this point I think he's trolling. Nobody's that stupid.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Re:Ignorance is essential to true decision making by jezwel · 2012-04-03 14:43 · Score: 1

Do you work at an advertising agency? Or for a political party? O, maybe Diebold or some other electronic voting machine company?
You are already biased by advertising, cultural upbringing and environment. Remove factual information so that your 'decisions' are based on gut instinct flavoured by your upbringing, yep that's the way to make a good choice.
Maybe you should look into amnesia so that you're not biased by any learnings from previous mistakes - that way you can continue making those same 'true decisions' in blissful ignorance.
Re:Ignorance is essential to true decision making by doston · 2012-04-04 05:45 · Score: 1

It seems to me that ignorance is inversely proportional to the ability to make a conscious, self-determined choice. The more information I have about a given set of options, the less I'm able to make a choice based solely on my own preferences. Instead, I'm hampered by the knowledge that one particular option is better for me than others as determined by sources outside my control, and therefore (perhaps against my personal inclination) I'm going to lean towards the option that is better for me.
In this particular instance regarding calorie count, I'm aware due to education and awareness campaigns that more calories without moderation are a bad thing, both for me and for society. Morally, I know that I should reduce calorie intake to a moderate amount that is healthy for me. Moreover, the government and social scientists are aware that providing me with objective data that clearly states the best way to take care of myself is going to incentivize me to make the right choice. By capitalizing on these memes and trends, and posting calorie counts plus other nutritional data that is factual and accurate, the government and society is trying to push me to make the right choice both for society and myself. While the data may be factually, statistically, and scientifically accurate, the way and method in which it is introduced to me is biased. I already know that the Triple Baconator is bad for me, but by showing me calorie count, I'm going to make a further emotional connection that the Baconator is bad, read information that verifies that it is bad, and further convince myself that I should eat a salad instead. At that point, my will to choose is weakened, and I'm probably going to go with the salad.
The point I am trying to make is that by increasing the amount of data available for consumers to read, thus reducing ignorance as close to nil as possible, we are actually eroding the ability of people to make conscious, self-determined choices based on what they prefer. Instead, it influences people to choose the "correct" option (correct meaning that the data says that option A is more optimal than option B, and only idiots would prefer a less-optimal solution). And if we choose the "correct" option every time, how long before that becomes the only option?
That's a well written, but twisted post. Your argument sets the Baconator up as an hapless commodity that's not hyped and has no marketing behind it at all! When a kid's favorite rap singer (baseball player, cartoon character, whatever) is shown on commercials eating the Baconator while in his stretch limo, and enjoying his fabulously trim body, all of a sudden the lousy nutritional information seems like only a slight (and inadequate) re-balancing of the playing field. If consumers weren't already influenced by marketing pushing them to make irrational choices, you might be correct, but they most certainly are. Also, look at the photos of the Baconator. You don't anything approaching the actual Baconator until it's arrived in the box. Does it ever look like the Baconator pictured? Nope. It's usually a disgusting grease-ball and looks nothing like the marketing photos. So your argument is great, but for the fact that there's a huge marketing effort pushing consumers to make irrational decisions to buy the awful thing. The paltry nutrition data is a completely inadequate counter effort that doesn't even come close to countering the obscene marketing push for the Baconator. I'm not even sure the nutritional data could qualify as any kind of counter marketing. I might agree with you, if instead of some lousy nutrition data, the government wanted to run TV ads showing (rightly) the huge fat gut and disease the Baconator causes. Or maybe something like globs of fat clogging arteries...something akin to what's happening with smoking.
Re:Ignorance is essential to true decision making by lurker1997 · 2012-04-04 07:55 · Score: 1

I see your point and it makes sense, but I think I disagree.

When I read this last night, I thought I agreed with it and thought I would mod you up if I had the points. Then I went to the grocery store today. As a rule I eat pretty healthily but I routinely get some kind of sweets for after dinner. In the store today, some muffins caught my eye. They were average sized carrot muffins with a decent coating of icing on top. I was about to buy them when on a whim I checked the label. There were 550 calories in each muffin! Maybe everybody else already knew this, but I was blown away.

As much as I don't mind indulging in unhealthy things, I don't think its cool to have a 1100 calorie dessert (I would have eaten two for sure). What you wrote is correct in that I did make the "correct" choice and not buy the things, but I did chose what I prefer, which is not to make a pig out of myself.

Re:Broadly true. by ThreeDeeNut · 2012-04-03 08:48 · Score: 2

to small businesses and little restaurants, this type of regulation would be exceedingly hard to enforce, expensive to the consumer, expensive to the restaurant, and once again puts the govt in charge of your well being.... I personally don't pick up a bacon cheese burger and think "now that looks healthy and nutritios" or a salad and think "god this has to be bad for you". I honestly don't think anyone is that stupid. Besides, a coke is about 230 calories... so is a large salad with some nice carrots, onions, and other veggies with a little chicken. Which is better for you? The information still relies on an alert consumer with enough intelligence to know whats good and bad for them unless you detail every fact, every piece of data on every ingredient etc and you read understand un digest all of it. The left unfortunately seems to think they need to protect people from themselves.... they do not.

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by Xaedalus · 2012-04-03 08:51 · Score: 1

Because you're not actually choosing anything. You're simply sorting for the optimal combination to meet a given need, given the input of data. You're going to use that nutritional information, combined with the ambient data you've already collected and processed about what's healthy for you and what isn't, and you're going to arrive at the best, most optimal product that balances your desire against the mandate to remain healthy.

If you took away all that information and were left with the two buckets, then it's _you_ who has to deal with the uncertainties and make the choice, and then discover the consequences. To me, what you've described is the desire to reduce uncertainty so that you can make the correct choice.

--
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.

Nice turn of phrase. by rpresser · 2012-04-03 08:54 · Score: 1

"Give and take over". What a wonderful description.

FDA's war by harvey+the+nerd · 2012-04-03 09:00 · Score: 1

The FDA has been at war with the supplement industry for over 50 years. So we only have second class nutrients in many vitamins and vitamin formulas that suck. The FDA, pharma's industrial whore, has been seething and conspiring to usurp and overthrow the DSHEA since 1994.

The RDAs are whacked out lies in many cases. This clearly true for vitamin C and D3, probably many more including several "near vitamins".

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by Nimey · 2012-04-03 09:05 · Score: 1

Right, right, everyone's got Internet access and smartphones.

Don't be an idiot.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem

Re:Broadly true. by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-04-03 09:06 · Score: 2

You missed his whole point. Corporations, such as the one that owns Olive Garden, would have no problem with this regulation. They cook everything at the corporate kitchen with precisely measured ingredients. It is the little independent restaurant run by a man and his wife where they cook each dish up individually that would be killed by this. The big chain restaurants would love this as it would raise the cost for the independent restaurants more than it would for the chains.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by Nimey · 2012-04-03 09:11 · Score: 1

There's a word you should understand; it's called "context".

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by roman_mir · 2012-04-03 09:14 · Score: 1

No, you are retarded because you have already given up your actual important freedoms to life, liberty, property and even pursuit of happiness, everything is being taken away from you by the government because you have given up the actual idea that there is a LAW above the government, which enumerates precisely what the government is allowed to do.

Instead you have given up, given it these sweeping powers to do whatever it wants to do and then maybe you are even surprised: how come the POTUS doesn't give a shit and doesn't ask Congress for declaration of war before starting one, how come POTUS decided that he has all the rights to kill US citizens without a trial, how come you can now be indefinitely detained by your military without access to a lawyer, without any way even to tell anybody where you are.

You think you are getting something from government when you give up your actual freedoms?

Calorie count?

You deserve every bit of it.

--
You can't handle the truth.

Re:Broadly true. by cayenne8 · 2012-04-03 09:16 · Score: 3, Informative

I honestly don't think anyone is that stupid.

You've obviously never worked at a job where you face and have to deal with the general public.

Growing up, and early in school, I worked as a busboy in restaurants, when old enough a waiter and bartender. I've also worked retails....and from those experiences, you basically understand that about 90% of the people out there are pretty much fucked in the head...stupid....idiots.

I don't say that lightly...but when you deal with the avg "joe" on a daily basis, it really just kills you to see the ignorance and just general lack of display of intelligence out there. This was pretty far back for me, and I have to imagine in this day in age....it is even worse.

As hard as it is to believe, yes...there are a LOT of people out there, that do not comprehend that eating McD burgers and fries multiple times a week (hell, multiple times a DAY), washing it down with full sugar cokes....and having Twinkies as snacks in between those meals...will kill them and make them fat.

Yes, there are a lot of them out there, that are that stupid.

I know I come off sounding very elitist when I mention things like this....but after working those jobs, and talking to others that have done the same for any significant length of time, you sadly have to admit it is true. And when you understand that, well, I just am not surprised that much anymore by any strange news report, or anything 'interesting' I come across while observing the common man in the street.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Re:Broadly true. by Nimey · 2012-04-03 09:17 · Score: 1

And believe him, even.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem

Re:Broadly true. by Nimey · 2012-04-03 09:19 · Score: 1

Organic food /is/ better, and here's why: no pesticide residues going into your body.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem

Re:Broadly true. by cayenne8 · 2012-04-03 09:38 · Score: 2

(2nd-hand smoke affecting non-consenting persons).

Trouble is...it isn't just this...

I can understand the bans in public buildings, government buildings where people HAVE to go...but , how do they justify this in PRIVATE places like bars and restaurants, where no one holds a gun to your head to go work or be a patron there??

I don't get that one.

And hell, I'm trying to quit smoking now....doing well,and not having smoking at place IS a help to me not being tempted, but still....why can the govt. ban smoking on private establishments like that? Doesn't seem right, and curtails liberty on a legal behavior, that isn't being forced on anyone.

If a bar/restaurant wants to be non-smoking and figures they can make money off it, more power to them...I'll be spending my money there too, but if a private establishment want to allow smoking....they should be allowed to do it, since the act of smoking itself isn't illegal....

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by SleazyRidr · 2012-04-03 09:38 · Score: 1

Assuming you know what they're actually putting in it. Are they using real butter or a substitute? Which substitute? Was it popped in oil? What sort of oil? etc....

--
Is 1563649 a prime number?

Re:IRL lolling status: lolling by roman_mir · 2012-04-03 09:41 · Score: 1

No, wait a second, you are right. I only have 2 teeth left and my pants are constantly full of it, I have only one eye and no nose, and my face is mostly burnt off. People squeal around me like pigs, you are right, that's it, that's the argument.

--
You can't handle the truth.

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by doston · 2012-04-03 09:48 · Score: 1

Bullshit. If there is actual market demand for this type of information on snacks, etc., then it's up to the consumers NOT TO BUY THEM until they find the snacks that do post this information, or until the companies figure out what the people are looking for.

As usual, this has nothing to do with the government and obviously government isn't authorised to do any of it, but that's how you sell out your freedoms every day, day in, day out, and once you sell out your freedoms on anything, the rest is peanuts.

What freedoms are being sold here exactly? Freedom to not know what's in the mystery popcorn you're eating?

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by roman_mir · 2012-04-03 09:56 · Score: 1

WHAT FREEDOM?

Tell me something, go look in the Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of USA, where the fuck does it say that the gov't can dictate to the companies HOW TO RUN BUSINESS?

That's the freedom - freedom to do business without being interfered by the government, freedom to you own property, freedom for people to not be forced by government to do business in a way that government dictates, and instead do business as it is supposed to be done - by market choosing voluntarily to buy or not to buy products.

The most important part is not even this specific case, it's the entire principle, and it's absolutely true, and it's been shown for hundreds of years now - the moment you close your eyes (or even wildly cheer) about government doing something that it is UNAUTHORISED BY CONTRACT to do, by the law that is above the government, you are done.

You are done. There will be nothing that they will not do and you will have nothing to say about it. Obama came out with this nonsense on: 'activist judges', when he heard they may overturn his treasonous idea of this insurance mandate, well it's the same thing, but it doesn't really matter anymore, does it? Because before you even get any of this forced insurance you already have all the benefits of extrajudicial killing and imprisonment by the POTUS, no judge, no jury, he is everything, including being an executioner.

What difference does it make, I guess, if he also forces some businesses to put whatever labels on their products. Obviously that's the carrot he is buying you with, while he is beating you into a pulp with his stick.

--
You can't handle the truth.

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by neonKow · 2012-04-03 10:12 · Score: 1

I'm not being given any more of a choice to sin (eat popcorn) or not (eat . . . less popcorn?) if the FDA doesn't have the theater print nutrition facts on the popcorn bag. There's nothing inherently good or bad about nutrition facts. Unless you believe that they should be removed from ALL food products, your argument is completely invalid.

Re:Broadly true. by Elbereth · 2012-04-03 10:21 · Score: 1

Bill Maher is a bit of an odd case, because he's a self-professed Libertarian, yet some of his opinions border on European-style Social Democracy. Depending on the issue, he can range from center-left to center-right. Ever since the GWB presidency, he's moved further and further to the left, however. He's actually fairly intelligent, quite funny, and an unrepentant douchebag. For years, I was willing to give him a pass on his douchebaggery, because I thought he was funny. Recently, however, he's stepped up his douchebaggery to higher levels, and I've since read about some really crazy things, like the aforementioned anti-vaccination beliefs. He's also a big supporter of PETA, which seems to attract douchebags from the left. I used to support PETA, but their douchebaggery reached epic proportions in recent years, which ended up driving me away.

I've tried to avoid having any contact with the anti-vaccine movement, but the ones that I've come across have indeed been on the hippie side. Like I said earlier, I think it's a bit arrogant to think that one's own affiliations are less hypocritical or ignorant than the opposing views; in my experience, it's equally likely that you'll run into people on the left or the right who "know in their heart" that they're right, without any kind of objective evidence (and, even, in the face of evidence to the contrary).

Personally, I lean toward the socialist side, but that's not really important. What's important is that everyone develop critical thinking skills, so that they can have informed opinions. Having informed opinions is much more important than where you lie on some political chart.

Rather than calories.... by AmericanGladiator · 2012-04-03 10:44 · Score: 1

I care more about ingredients. Calorie counts are mostly useless to me. If you tell me something's first ingredient is corn syrup I'm going to assume it's high in calories, low in nutritional value and not good for me. With popcorn, I want to know if they are using real butter or something else. Because you know what, I want real butter damn it! Don't kill me slowly with poly unsaturated fats. The lipid hypothesis is slowly being shown to be false and saturated fats have long been demonized when they are now being found to be good for you (and conversely poly and mono unsaturated fats not so good). Google "French paradox" for starters.

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by Thing+1 · 2012-04-03 10:47 · Score: 1

I respectfully disagree. People who live longer cost the state a lot more.

DEATH AT BIRTH! It's the only way to be maximally efficient! (Thanks Jonathan Swift.)

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.

Forget the popcorn, label beer by ffflala · 2012-04-03 12:02 · Score: 1

Why don't we have nutritional content labels on beer, wine, and other forms of Alcohol? Alcohol has calories; even if they're devoid of any other nutritional value, it still packs a lot of calories. It seems bizarre to me that, of the two bottles required to fix one's rum and coke, only the coke bottle will be labeled with caloric information.

Re:IRL lolling status: lolling by roman_mir · 2012-04-03 12:14 · Score: 1

Single celled organisms cannot abuse me, you are gravely mistaken.

--
You can't handle the truth.

Re:Broadly true. by Larryish · 2012-04-03 12:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html

Contrary to what most people believe, "organic" does not automatically mean "pesticide-free" or "chemical-free". In fact, under the laws of most states, organic farmers are allowed to use a wide variety of chemical sprays and powders on their crops.

So what does organic mean? It means that these pesticides, if used, must be derived from natural sources, not synthetically manufactured. Also, these pesticides must be applied using equipment that has not been used to apply any synthetic materials for the past three years, and the land being planted cannot have been treated with synthetic materials for that period either.

Most organic farmers (and even some conventional farmers, too) employ mechanical and cultural tools to help control pests. These include insect traps, careful crop selection (there are a growing number of disease-resistant varieties), and biological controls (such as predator insects and beneficial microorganisms).

ORGANIC PRODUCE AND PERSONAL HEALTH
When you test synthetic chemicals for their ability to cause cancer, you find that about half of them are carcinogenic.

Until recently, nobody bothered to look at natural chemicals (such as organic pesticides), because it was assumed that they posed little risk. But when the studies were done, the results were somewhat shocking: you find that about half of the natural chemicals studied are carcinogenic as well.

This is a case where everyone (consumers, farmers, researchers) made the same, dangerous mistake. We assumed that "natural" chemicals were automatically better and safer than synthetic materials, and we were wrong. It's important that we be more prudent in our acceptance of "natural" as being innocuous and harmless.

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by roman_mir · 2012-04-03 12:18 · Score: 1

There is no such thing as 'civil rights', there are only human rights, and what you, single celled amoeba call 'civil rights' is a mix of entitlements and obligations. Obligations are placed upon some by the threat of gov't violence so that the majority is given their bread and circuses at the expense of the real productive part of society.

As to 'killing self', well, that suggestion should only come from those, who are willing to set an example, so go ahead.

--
You can't handle the truth.

The Nile De-nihilism by Oxford_Comma_Lover · 2012-04-03 12:25 · Score: 3, Funny

Denial Denialism?

Where does that get fun?

When you turn it into the Nile De-nihilism and accidentally start a literary movement about re-instantiating a dried-up river in a post-apocalyptic world?

--
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!

Re:The Nile De-nihilism by Tsingi · 2012-04-03 23:58 · Score: 1

Denial Denialism?
Where does that get fun?
When you turn it into the Nile De-nihilism and accidentally start a literary movement about re-instantiating a dried-up river in a post-apocalyptic world?
Opposed by radical right wing anti-denialites.

Re:Broadly true. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-03 12:29 · Score: 1

The most rational assessment of organic I've ever seen on Slashdot.

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by SolitaryMan · 2012-04-03 12:49 · Score: 1

How the fuck am I selling my freedom by demanding from the manufacturer info on the shit they sell?

--
May Peace Prevail On Earth

Re:IRL lolling status: lolling by roman_mir · 2012-04-03 13:38 · Score: 1

I don't waste insults on things that don't bother me, and you bother me no more than a tick on a pigs ass, and it's not my pig, so carry on.

--
You can't handle the truth.

Re:Broadly true. by ChromeAeonium · 2012-04-03 14:29 · Score: 1

So that's why I've never seen any organic horseradish. No pesticides must mean no yummy insecticidal allyl isothiocyanate. Allyl isothiocyanate is the tastiest pesticide. Unless by no pesticides you mean that only natural poisons are allowed, and synthetic ones, regardless of the actual risk posed by the low dose, are not, in which case, appeal to nature.

Remember when some twat said that pepper spray is 'basically a food product'? Ignoring the dose and focusing on the origin is just as nonsensical here.

Re:Broadly true. by demonlapin · 2012-04-03 14:30 · Score: 1

Busboy? Please. You're talking about people who are wealthy enough to eat at restaurants. Trust me, they're even dumber than you think.

Calories is almost useless information by manu0601 · 2012-04-03 14:39 · Score: 1

I know this is not the white house point, but calories is almost a useless information for people looking to loose weight.

For instance, paper has a lot of calories, but nobody will get fat at eating paper. For a more edible example, walnuts have more calories than soda. Does anyone really think that walnuts increase obesity better than soda?

The right information we should have on label is the glycemic index

Re:Broadly true. by demonlapin · 2012-04-03 14:46 · Score: 1

popcorn's not supposed to make you fat

Why on earth would you believe this? Popcorn is nothing but starch, which is basically just sugar. If you add liquid butter-flavored oils to it, you have sugar + oil. In another context, this is known as "cake icing". And yet nobody has any misconception what a 100% cake icing diet would produce.

I know a lot of fatasses who could use all the help they can get shedding pounds

Yeah, but I've struggled with my weight my whole life, and I can tell you that a lack of product labeling has never - ever - been a factor in my gain or loss of weight. The ingredient list is useful to people with allergies, but the kind of people who read nutrition labels don't need anyone to tell them just how caloric a Snickers bar is. They might be fat, but they know why.

Re:Broadly true. by ThreeDeeNut · 2012-04-03 14:58 · Score: 1

though maybe not as vehemently, i agree there are people with varying levels of intellect. In such an instance as this we are dealing with politics and policing. Both cost money and manpower. Whether we expend vast resources or not, the people with low intellect are likely to stay there not for any other reason than they were born unfortunately. I wish the world were different but as you note, some people aint so bright and will likely reject all things which would elevate themselves from their plight but simply lack the resources (mentally, physically, monetarily, or others). Like the whale in the hitchikers guide... sometimes u just get the shaft. So what do the oversights and stipulations successfully accomplish? They are not going to make people more awake. Really the only people who benefit are the wise who will use the information. But wouldnt the wise already be attending to themselves to keep themselves alive and prosperous? Instead we force people to pay taxes for something which will not help the target audience in any appreciable way, will cost dearly to the people who work hard and are already wise enough to avoid obvious pitfalls and removes choice... especially if fanatically sought after. ie: school lunch mandates. If people really demaded that food be labeled properly, then they should do so with their dollars at the local level. then they would get the facts that would really matter. Look at health food. Lately the surge is in the healthy eating and look organic is doing well, small farms are appearing in cities, food stores are going organic, etc. That is the free market working and doing so AROUND legislation. The people demanded it with their dollars and got what they wanted! The same is true throughout so many successful industries. You know how a restaurant with a bad rep is basically done for if you worked in the industry... the people govern what stays and goes in a very natural way. The real problem in my opinion is that the big companies get so strong that they force legislation with donations and influence to allow them to pass laws that limit competition via higher cost of doing business. That is when it gets scary and we past that point a long time ago.

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-04-03 15:13 · Score: 1

I'm not sure I agree with it, but here's the issue.

I like the Bloomin' Onion ® from Outback Steakhouse. I don't eat it very often--the last time I had it was a little over a year ago. It's horribly unhealthy, but also quite tasty. It's a nice nosh with beer.

The argument, of course, is that by printing calorie counts and exposing unhealthy foods, you're giving people information in order to make healthier choices. Those people who would like to eat healthy have no way of knowing that the Bloomin' Onion isn't particularly healthy. After all, onions are a vegetable, right? Vegetables are good for you!

However, you could also argue that those who wish to eat healthier foods can go become informed. There are plenty of books and magazine articles and on-line information available. So adding calorie counts to a menu isn't for those people who want to eat healthier because they're taking steps to do just that. Instead, it is to inform those people who don't really think about it.

If I go to a restaurant and order a chocolate cake, I'm going to see a calorie count which tells me how unhealthy it is. However, eating chocolate has other beneficial psychological effects. Why doesn't the government include this information--how happy is this chocolate cake going to make me? I can't make this kind of judgement when all I'm getting is one side of the story.

Dear Obama Admin by Ralph+Spoilsport · 2012-04-03 15:31 · Score: 2

One of your flunkies said:

'They want a world that doesn’t exist anymore,'

No, they want a world that isn't this neoliberal war-mongering kleptocracy cooked up by BushCo and cheerfully continued by the Obama Admin. You know -a world where there's a sense of common decency and a vibrant social contract between people, and not this dog-eat-dog psychopathic me-first Randian horsecrap we've been force fed since Reagan.

--
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.

Re:Broadly true. by pinkj · 2012-04-03 18:05 · Score: 1

The only study referenced in this piece is 'Gold, L.S., et al. (1992) _Science_ Vol. 258, pp. 261-265' which is 20 years ago. Though I'm sceptical of the organic movement and its claims, I'd like to have more data on this piece's premise as there are assumptions made. For example:

'For obvious reasons, organic farmers have done little, if anything, to dispel the myth that "organic = chemical/pesticide-free". They would only stand to lose business by making such a disclosure.'

Are all organic farmers cut from the same cloth with the same methods? What about farmers who try to grow crops without any pesticides at all?

Re:Broadly true. by DigiShaman · 2012-04-03 18:36 · Score: 1

Dittohead here (8 years+). BTW, that means I enjoy the show. It does *not* mean I agree with everything he says. Anyways, Rush Limbaugh is where he's at in the media because of his bombastic no hold barred attitude. He's also extremely articulate and intelligent. Although it does help to have a staff that helps him prep before the show and screen calls. Anyways, it's easy so understand why he's been divorced so many times. He's bluntness is a major turn-off for most women. The one's that do listen regularly find it charming in an assertive confident manor.

Rush actually stated at one point that he was given an offer to host a liberal talk show. He said he declined out of principle (obviously, he's a conservative) of course. But I have no doubt that man is extremely intelligent enough to play devils advocate and play the other side. If he wanted too, he could run rings around Bill Maher as a liberal more than he is.

Ya. He's that good.

--
Life is not for the lazy.

Re:Broadly true. by DigiShaman · 2012-04-03 18:51 · Score: 1

I should have the right to know what I'm eating. Making you print the damned TRUTH about what you're selling is hardly something to get bent out of shape about.

I don't know about you pal, but I could read let alone understand half the shit printed on that list. Maybe if I had a PHD in chemistry. Anyways, down the hatch it goes.

What? Wrong attitude to have? Well, what good that label did.

--
Life is not for the lazy.

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by damienl451 · 2012-04-03 19:25 · Score: 2

That might have been the case a few decades ago but, nowadays, it is quite easy to check beforehand. Most chains tend to have the information online. If they don't you're free to complain and choose not to patronize them. I for one do not go to any restaurant that doesn't post a full list of allergens on their website because I don't want accidentally find out that there was something I can't eat in the food (trip to the ER? Not thank you!).

Now, I don't think it's that big a deal if restaurants were mandated to post this information. Most of them do it anyway and it seems like good business to me. For one thing, they wouldn't lose the custom of people like me. But even if they don't, the choice is still yours: if you're starving and you don't want to drive, then you've made your decision and, apparently, you don't value this information all that much.

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by damienl451 · 2012-04-03 19:33 · Score: 2

I don't think anyone is preventing pressure groups from publishing reports about the nutritional contents of food. The question is whether Apple should be mandated to disclose information about working conditions and whether consumers should be shown pictures of their device being assembled in China.

My understanding is that, if consumers are really concerned about nutrition, then they will tend to get that information. Nowadays, most places already provide this information and use it as a selling point (you can eat healthy at $fast_food_joint). If you choose to go to a place that doesn't make this information available, then it's your decision and it must mean that you don't care all that much about nutrition.

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by sjames · 2012-04-03 20:09 · Score: 1

Where's the intimidation or coercion of people? Do you oppose the well informed consumer in general, or just when it comes to popcorn?

Why not remove ALL consumer information?

Re:Broadly true. by Obfiscator · 2012-04-03 21:22 · Score: 1

Just take care to cook or bleach vegetables before eating. No synthetic fertilizers means waste products are often used (in some places, human waste). I'm all for reduce, reuse, recycle, but that's a great way to get amoebic dysentery.

--
"Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." -Indiana Jones

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by triffid_98 · 2012-04-03 22:48 · Score: 1

Nonono, we need you young people to pay for the benefits of existing retirees and/or get shot up protecting our citi^H^H^H I mean our overseas business interests.

All hail our overlords Haliburton, Unocal and the IMF

Re:Broadly true. by Tsingi · 2012-04-04 00:52 · Score: 1

Remember when some twat said that pepper spray is 'basically a food product'?

It is. So is heroin. In either case it's still a bad idea to dump a lot of it down your throat.

Re:Broadly true. by Tsingi · 2012-04-04 00:53 · Score: 1

Just take care to cook or bleach vegetables before eating.

I'm hoping you mean 'blanch'

Re:Broadly true. by mcgrew · 2012-04-04 00:54 · Score: 1

I just looked it up, a bag of microwave popcorn is 180 calories. A whole bag. Popcorn is mostly air. But that's before butter, and there's probably 3 or 4 bags in those huge buckets you get in the theater. That twenty ounce Pepsi you wash it down with (These days a "small coke", 40 years ago 16 oz was a large) is 260 calories.

Anybody that could put down a bucket like that can put away a lot of any kind of food. I notice whenever I see any of the fat women who work in my building, they almost always have food in one hand and a soda in the other.

I think if I were overweight and wanted to lose, I'd pay pretty close attention to calories.

--
Free Martian Whores!

Re:Broadly true. by mcgrew · 2012-04-04 01:37 · Score: 1

How about that, not even 9:00 and I learned something (had to look up Poe's Law). I thought that was a little out of character for you.

--
Free Martian Whores!

Re:Broadly true. by Politburo · 2012-04-04 02:53 · Score: 1

We're talking about a hypothetical regulation, so it's hard to argue that the little guy would be killed by it. OP set up a nice strawman where people would be shutdown for putting too much cheese on a pizza and only "strictly approved cookbooks" would be allowed, but literally no one has proposed such a system.

If you look at jurisdictions that have calorie count laws, they exclude smaller operators and only apply to establishments with (e.g.) more than 5 locations in the jurisdiction. And even if you didn't want to exclude small operators, you could have a simple regulation that says establishments provide the best estimate of calorie count, or a range 10% on either side of that, or whatever. It doesn't need to be an exact number, that's a red herring. In practice, most of the restaurant calorie counts I've seen are a range since it is understood there is variability in the product.

Re:Broadly true. by Anomalyst · 2012-04-04 03:43 · Score: 1

Lets not discount the carefully concocted dataset hockey stick extrapolations by the caloric alarmists.

--
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.

Re:Broadly true. by Anomalyst · 2012-04-04 03:46 · Score: 1

Thinking that you're immune

One is only immune after being vaccinated and contracting autism.

--
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.

Re:Broadly true. by Tristonian · 2012-04-04 06:04 · Score: 1

People are hypocritical, ignorant morons. That includes you, me, and everyone else. Thinking that you're immune to this kind of cognitive bias is yet another form of cognitive bias (known as bias blind spot).

Well played!

Re:Broadly true. by shiftless · 2012-04-04 10:48 · Score: 1

I personally don't pick up a bacon cheese burger and think "now that looks healthy and nutritios"

I do.

Which is even even more reason to not want these stupid sons of bitches in my business. They've already gone for enough already. The FDA needs to abolished.

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by shiftless · 2012-04-04 10:53 · Score: 1

It's convenient that you can turn your brains off like that whenever you don't want to argue something on the merits, but it makes you look awfully stupid.

We've already fucking argued this on the merits, for centuries. Government intrusion into our lives = BAD. Our Founders figured this out after years of bloody years, and even wrote it all down on a helpful document for us (the Constitution)....which we then promptly ignored and continued down the same foolish, doomed path of increasing government power. It's gotten out of control and if you are unable to see what the GP sees, then maybe you need to inch your head out of your ass a few clicks and have a peek around. We're presently on the verge of global economic collapse, followed by WWIII, precisely because of this exact type of thing. Any time the government is given power, it's never given back and more is always taken, until it all crashes down in misery and disaster. Please, wake up.

Re:Broadly true. by godefroi · 2012-04-04 11:35 · Score: 1

Bleach. Soak them in bleach. Used to be all the rage, now it's falling out of favor, or so I've heard.

--
Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by ceoyoyo · 2012-04-05 04:47 · Score: 1

"Why doesn't the government include this information--how happy is this chocolate cake going to make me?"

Because you're in a better position to measure how happy chocolate cake makes you, while the people that made the cake are in a better position to measure the number of calories in it?

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by Nimey · 2012-04-05 12:15 · Score: 1

Internet Libertarian tactic #2: shouting "WAKE UP" because you disagree with someone.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem

Re:Broadly true. by JackieBrown · 2012-04-05 23:08 · Score: 1

And hell, I'm trying to quit smoking now....doing well,and not having smoking at place IS a help to me not being tempted, but still....why can the govt. ban smoking on private establishments like that?

I quit after the health care bill was passed because I knew to pay for the increases, insurance companies would raise rates and that they would start with the smokers.

I am not sure if you are against medical help, but Chantix really worked for me and some others at my job (and my mom who smoked for 40 years - I smoked for 15.) Nicotine patches and gum didn't help me at all (I just doubled my nicotine intake with those.)

Re:Broadly true. by Coren22 · 2012-04-06 05:01 · Score: 1

I always support people eating tasty animals. Those other people who do more harm than good however just need to take a hike...

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Re:Broadly true. by Coren22 · 2012-04-06 05:29 · Score: 1

I also have tried the gum, and failed, but my current health insurance doesn't cover perscriptions until you have hit your deductible, so most drugs are rather expensive. Do you happen to know how much Chantix costs?

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Re:Broadly true. by Coren22 · 2012-04-06 05:31 · Score: 1

Totally agree on the private establishment thing. When Maryland enacted that legislation, it just made it so the bartenders/waitresses had to take more breaks to get their nicotine intake, and made us smokers have to go outside to smoke. It didn't change the number of people smoking any, and many private establishments already had the proper air handlers for the indoor smoking, so now that was a wasted expense.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Re:Broadly true. by Coren22 · 2012-04-06 05:54 · Score: 1

I switched to drinking mostly water. Gave up the sodas, but it doesn't help. There unfortunately isn't anything you can do where I work about eating a healthy lunch if you don't bring it with you. Unfortunately I am so out of it in the mornings that I can't remember to grab food for the day, so am stuck not eating lunch or eating crap food.

Personally, I think it will take increased activity for me to lose weight, I need to work on those sit-ups.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by Uberbah · 2012-04-09 00:31 · Score: 1

We've already fucking argued this on the merits, for centuries. Government intrusion into our lives = BAD.

Because the government telling corporations that they can't sell you rotten food or dump toxic waste into your water supply is EXACTLY the same as government tapping your phones or forcing you to worship the state religion.

Randian idiots...

Re:It's all about an unimpinged right to choose by Uberbah · 2012-04-09 00:38 · Score: 1

Wish the Randian morans would go ahead and move to their Libertarian paradise so they can see their ideology in full glory....

179 of 238 comments (clear)