Should "Happy Meals" Aimed at Kids Be Banned to Help Curb Childhood Obesity?

[The_Dude 1,142]

It's ok to be queeer, but your dead if you kill and eat a deer.

Have you ever actually been to California, or even outside of Texas for that matter? But again Paul, you're wrong, this isn't infringing upon any rights, nor is it the government trying to control you.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What about people on medicaid who aren't paying any premiums - where is their incentive?

Medicaid people should subscribe to active health management with the possibility of higher co-pays or some contribution to the cost of their health plans if they refuse. Along the same lines, there's talk of requiring welfare beneficiaries in this here state to undergo random drug testing. I'd be quite supportive of such initiative. The hand that reaches out to help those that have fallen on hard times should be able to request some show of personal accountability on the benficiary's part.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Have you ever actually been to California, or even outside of Texas for that matter? But again Paul, you're wrong, this isn't infringing upon any rights, nor is it the government trying to control you.

I lived in the most liberal state in the country or 3 1/2 years..... and despite the rhetoric, it's not Cali, it's Minnesota... Despite queen RWN Michelle Bachman, Minnesota is very damn liberal/left leaning/heavily regulated.... You paid for it too up there. I moved back home for good reason. Well, that and the cold ####### winters.

You miss the point entirely if you think I said one word about this infringing on anyone's 'rights' though. I never said that. Hasn't been my point on this direct action. It's the consequences that come with the action and the fact that it does nothing to address the actual problem. Though this is typical leftwing liberal philosophy. Place blame where it isn't due and punish others for the mistakes some people make. After all, if one person is guilty then everyone must be punished.

[Jenn! 918]

Medicaid people should subscribe to active health management with the possibility of higher co-pays or some contribution to the cost of their health plans if they refuse. Along the same lines, there's talk of requiring welfare beneficiaries in this here state to undergo random drug testing. I'd be quite supportive of such initiative. The hand that reaches out to help those that have fallen on hard times should be able to request some show of personal accountability on the benficiary's part.

Agreed.

Also agreed with Paul on the point of restricting fast/junk food from food stamp eligibility.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I lived in the most liberal state in the country or 3 1/2 years..... and despite the rhetoric, it's not Cali, it's Minnesota... Despite queen RWN Michelle Bachman, Minnesota is very damn liberal/left leaning/heavily regulated.... You paid for it too up there. I moved back home for good reason. Well, that and the cold ####### winters.

You miss the point entirely if you think I said one word about this infringing on anyone's 'rights' though. I never said that. Hasn't been my point on this direct action. It's the consequences that come with the action and the fact that it does nothing to address the actual problem. Though this is typical leftwing liberal philosophy. Place blame where it isn't due and punish others for the mistakes some people make. After all, if one person is guilty then everyone must be punished.

Paul, you get all self-righteous and indignant whenever some body organization curtails the amount of allowable ####### in your food. You have in the past made the assertion. I think you are far too entrenched in this partisan mentality of yours. They are trying to make food healthier, not poorer. If that means you have to have less salt on your burger and no Dora The Explorer toy with your burger, then so be it, i'm sure you'll survive. You still have the option to be stupid, go home and dump as much salt on the burger as you want. You can even stop by the toy store on the way home and pick yourself up that little toy.

[DEDixon 39]

Paul, you get all self-righteous and indignant whenever some body organization curtails the amount of allowable ####### in your food. You have in the past made the assertion. I think you are far too entrenched in this partisan mentality of yours. They are trying to make food healthier, not poorer. If that means you have to have less salt on your burger and no Dora The Explorer toy with your burger, then so be it, i'm sure you'll survive. You still have the option to be stupid, go home and dump as much salt on the burger as you want. You can even stop by the toy store on the way home and pick yourself up that little toy.

they are not trying to make food healthier.

[Amby 490]

they are not trying to make food healthier.

I think they are but they're finding it hard to do...

Eating out is usually more about gustatory delight than health, but now chefs are saying they could cut back on calories without affecting taste, according to results of a new study.

As such, restaurants could play an important role in battling the growing obesity epidemic, the Penn State researchers said.

Research nutritionist Liane Roe and colleagues surveyed chefs, restaurant owners and culinary executives from across the country to assess their perceptions of serving healthy foods in restaurants.

In the survey, 72 percent of the 432 respondents said they could trim off 10 percent of the calories in meals without customers noticing differences in taste, and 21 percent said they could trim off at least 25 percent of the calories. This small change could lead to a major impact on the obesity epidemic.

"Reducing intake by as little as 100 calories per day can amount to a significant weight loss over a year," said Roe, who is a coauthor of the paper on the team's findings published in the journal Obesity.

Calories vs. taste

Results showed that many chefs didn't know the calorie content of the meals they served, with 7 percent reporting they weren't at all familiar and 49 percent saying they were somewhat familiar with calorie content.

"If a large number of chefs don't know the calorie content of their food, they will be limited in their ability to modify what they serve to guests," said Roe.

Supporting the idea that healthy restaurant food is the "kiss of death," chefs seemed much more willing to create new reduced-calorie foods rather than modifying existing meals. Rolls explains that chefs might not want to modify their signature dishes for fear of losing sales or affecting their restaurant's reputation.

According to study coauthor of Penn State Barbara Rolls, chefs think very few customers would want that food. But what they don't know won't hurt them.

"Silent change goes on all the time in the food industry," Rolls said.

Obstacles to a healthy menu

In the study, chefs also rated their perceptions of obstacles to increasing healthy food in restaurants. Some 32 percent said low consumer demand was a major concern, followed by the need for staff skills and training (24 percent of chefs) and high cost for healthy ingredients (18 percent).

More than 70 percent of chefs reported that the success of a low-calorie meal hinged primarily on taste.

When asked about the most effective method for reducing calories in meals, chefs favored reducing portion sizes over "reducing calories per bite." However, when asked to pick specific strategies for reducing calories for two popular meals -- beef stew and apple pie a la mode, chefs most often chose methods of reducing fat. Rolls said this seeming inconsistency most likely shows a knowledge gap in the culinary field; the chefs surveyed may not fully understand the terminology of "reducing calories per bite."

By adding water-rich foods to menu items, such as fruits and vegetables, that are low in calories per bite, people can maintain the total weight they eat while reducing the calorie count. Some of her past research shows that people do not notice calorie reductions of up to 30 percent.

Not only would substituting fruits and vegetables reduce calories in meals, but it would improve nutrient intake. A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that fruit intake among Americans has fallen significantly within the last 10 years, while vegetable intake has remained steady. Overall, the majority of Americans aren't eating the recommended amounts of fruits or vegetables, the CDC study showed.

"It's important to figure out how to reduce the calorie content in meals in a way that keeps food just as enjoyable at the same price," Rolls said. "We're all responsible for what we eat, but restaurants can make it easier for us."

http://www.livescience.com/health/restaurants-reduce-calories-stem-obesity-101107.html

[Jenn! 918]

The easiest way to cut calories is to cut portion size.

[The_Dude 1,142]

they are not trying to make food healthier.

You are arguing semantics. The immediate issue is deceptive marketing, but the ultimate goal is better health. Get back to me when you actually have something substantive to contribute.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The easiest way to cut calories is to cut portion size.

Substitute those fries with steamed veggies or a salad. Choose a grilled meat over a fried meat. Portion size remains the same but your meal just got a lot easier on you.

[Danno 1,228]

These types of laws have no expectation of improving childrens health... they are simply implemented to "Move the ball farther down the field" so more powerful laws can be passed which might have a real effect.

The Left are kings of "incrementalism".

A big component of socialism is; WE are all responsible to each other. If the community pays your healthcare...... it dam well has a right to control what you eat.

[Sgt. McGee 27]

I agree it sounds extreme. However, how can we offer government subsidized health care and at the same time not apply government restrictions to incentivize good health? If we want people to have full liberty when it comes to the choices they make that might impact their health, than we also have to give them 100% accountability when it comes to financing the consequences.

Great question, but I think you came to the wrong answer. That was one of the reasons that government-subsidized health care seemed like a bad idea.

Mandatory minimum mile times and pull-up counts coming next?

[Jenn! 918]

Substitute those fries with steamed veggies or a salad. Choose a grilled meat over a fried meat. Portion size remains the same but your meal just got a lot easier on you.

I mean for restaurants - Amby posted an article about how chefs could reduce the calories in their offerings. Restaurant portion can be up to 1.5 - 2 times bigger than they should be - that goes quite a long way towards reducing the calories.

[The_Dude 1,142]

These types of laws have no expectation of improving childrens health... they are simply implemented to "Move the ball farther down the field" so more powerful laws can be passed which might have a real effect.

The Left are kings of "incrementalism".

A big component of socialism is; WE are all responsible to each other. If the community pays your healthcare...... it dam well has a right to control what you eat.

So according to Dannologic™, this is nothing more than the liberals trying to lay the groundwork for legislation that will lead to mind and behavior control by our government? You mean Battlestar Gallactica isn't just sci-fi?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think they are but they're finding it hard to do...

Great article, Amby. Very interesting.