First off - I know we're getting a little derailed. And I'd like to say that I don't want to foster hostility in this thread. However, I do have some strong feelings about rights and entitlement and the difference between what is right - i.e. helping people out, sharing information, giving accurate nutritional data - and what is a right - i.e. my ability to access data that the government has collected about me, or to work in an environment free from discrimination over the fact that I've got girl bits.
First of all, I don't think anybody's being hostile. At least, that's not the vibe I'm getting anyway. But...
Are you saying that people don't have
a right to know what they're eating? Because (
and I could be reading your statements wrong) that's how I'm taking what you're saying.
Do I or do I not have the right to know what I eat?
On food products - yes. On restaurant meals? Not so much. Even now it's only chains with at least 20 locations, and on 'permanent' menu items and nutritional information only - ingredients are not needed.
At the moment, the terms are extremely vague. The FDA will be adding further and more specific regulations as time goes on.
And, chain restaurants are already obligated to provide their customers with nutritional information. They don't have to post it on a huge sign so you can see it as soon as you walk through the door, but if you ask to see their nutritional information, they have to show it to you.
The reason that the Health Care bill is making it mandatory for certain restaurants to show their customers the nutritional information upfront is because most people don't take the time to consider the reality behind what they're eating. Some people just don't care and some people aren't educated enough about health to realize what they're eating. And, since people have the right to know what they're shoveling into their mouths, the Health Care bill is making is mandatory for certain restaurants to provide that information to their customers upfront.
Also, the reason that the bill targets restaurants with 20+ locations is because that is where the
huuuuuge majority of our country's citizens eat. Most people eat at places like McDonald's, Wendy's, Taco Bell, Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken. The minority of our population eats at locally owned and operated restaurants.
And as such, only the recent law gives any 'right', there's no constitutional or moral right to the information.
Think of it this way - your (hypothetical) mother in law invites you over for dinner. You ask her how about the nutritional information. Do you have a right to know? Or can she tell you "Eat it or don't eat it. I'm not going to tell you more."
Now, it would be nice if she was a nice MIL and told you what was in there, and how much 'some' flour really is... but ultimately your right is to decide whether or not to eat it, to chew her out and boycott her house in the future... but without a law saying that she has to tell you, any information she passes on is voluntary.
There's a gigantic difference between eating at your mother-in-laws and eating at a corporately owned restaurant. My mother-in-law isn't a business and,
therefore, has no obligation or any claim to responsibility if someone gets sick from eating her food (
unless she poisoned them on purpose, but that's a completely different story). Restaurants,
on the other hand, since they are
businesses, are legally responsible for the safety and well being of their customers. The Health Care bill,
by forcing restaurants to post nutritional information on their menus, is doing nothing more than adding a stipulation to maintaining that safety. The information is already there, but, before this Health Care bill passed, customers had to ask for it. Now, it's already provided for them.
I don't really understand how
anybody could have a problem with this.
I'm pretty we also don't have a right to know what color the bins they store their coloring in are, or what size vats they use, or a lot of other information that would have no bearing on their ability to compete. Just like you don't have a right to know what kind of car I drive, or what my favorite color is. My point is that there is a lot of information that exists that we don't have a right to. It might be shared, it might not. But the existence of information doesn't mean that anyone is entitled to it.
You're right - I don't have the right to know what kind of car you drive or what your favorite color is. But, that's only because it has no effect on me, my life, my safety or my well being at all. What I eat at a restaurant
directly effects me, my life, my safety and my well being, which is exactly why I,
as a customer, have the right to know what I'm eating.
Once again, I don't understand how
anybody can have a problem with this.
Is that true? Because when this first came up with the New York legislation, I thought part of the argument was that many restaurants had not actually done the calorie calculations on their food and wanted to be compensated for the expense. Which is a point in favor of chains that voluntarily compile the info. Dunno for sure, but I don't know that having information obligates you to share it. Do I have to tell my husband how many guys I dated before him if I actually keep count? Does Outback have to tell us how many of its kitchen employees have culinary degrees? Does Oscar Meyer have to tell us how close them come to the limit of parts per million allowed of the really scary parts of the pig in its hot dogs? (What part of the pig does a hot dog come from, anyway?)
Most of your examples have absolutely nothing to do with food, so I don't know why you're bringing them up. How can you compare knowing the nutritional information of a food item to telling your husband how many guys you dated before you met him? I've heard of reaching for straw men, but...wow.
And, no - Outback doesn't have to tell you how many of it's employees have culinary degrees, because it doesn't effect you what-so-ever. Would it be nice to know if the person cooking your food was a scholastically trained professional? Yeah, it would be. But, does it have any bearing on the nutrition and/or safety factor of the food that you're putting into your mouth? Nope, not at all.
And, chain restaurants
have to,
by law, maintain records of the caloric information and nutritional information of their food. Before this Health Care bill passed though, they didn't have to publicly post this information. As long as they kept records on file with the FDA and kept printed records locked away in a filing cabinet somewhere in the back offices, they were abiding by the guidelines. The only difference - the
only difference - is that they now have to take those printed records that were in the filing cabinet and put them on the menu.
I don't really see the hypocrisy. He's not saying that information is bad, or that it shouldn't be shared - just that it's not an entitlement. Just like we don't have a right to the information on this website. If we did, then the owner could never take it down, probably couldn't delete posts... Saying he's being hypocritical is like saying that I shouldn't accept a free TV unless I think everyone has a right to a free TV.
You don't see it? Wow.
He basically said that he doesn't believe that people have the right to information. Yet, here he is, on a website that is purely dedicated to providing people with information. Surely you can't be missing the hypocrisy in that.
And, just for the record, I'm not trying to pick on him. That's not why I brought it up. It just struck me as a little odd that someone could actually think that we,
as human beings,
don't have the right to information.
And the soy milk lattes have more sugar than the normal. Just in case you were every curious!
