We who are about to eat salute you (MS Bill Would Outlaw Serving Food to the Obese)

[nbs2]

So, I have noticed that one of the big complaints by those opposed to smoking bans is that there is not the same stigma placed on fat people. Many states have made efforts to make their people more healthy, by banning smoking, trans-fats, etc. But, smokers, by and large, are annoyed that the same restrictions are not placed on the obese.

Enter, the State of Mississippi. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0201081fat1.html)

[jsw]

Although I've yet to be affected by second-hand fat, I agree that the obese contribute excessively to the health care crisis. As someone who could lose a fair bit of weight myself, I'd be in favor of some (less idiotic) government steps. People are fatter now than 20 years ago, and it's not just because we exercise less. I personally blame the ways in which we now process foods, including the "nonfat" craze which essentially substitutes corn syrup for more-filling fat.

But I think all we really need to do is mandate 12" wide doorways for all eateries. That should fix the problem quickly enough, as long as you also ban drive-throughs. ;)

[Eraserhead]

I think all we really need to do is mandate 12" wide doorways for all eateries. That should fix the problem quickly enough, as long as you also ban drive-throughs. ;)

That is like living in tunnels under the ground like this :eek:.

100548

[Applespider]

Although I've yet to be affected by second-hand fat,

Lucky you. I've had a long-haul flight with two very large men sitting next to me where I did have to sit to one side of my seat to avoid touching his sweaty t-shirt. :(

However, while giving tax discounts on gym equipment, memberships etc might be nice, jsw is right about the food production and food educaiton side being a big part of the solution. Fat-free does not mean it has no calories!

[yojitani]

I don't see why there is no responsibility put here on the restaurants themselves. Surely it's because there's so much fat, salt etc. in restaurant food there is any motivation to ban 'obese people' from restaurants. It's not like the bill is doing them any favors.

[PlaceofDis]

I don't see why there is no responsibility put here on the restaurants themselves. Surely it's because there's so much fat, salt etc. in restaurant food there is any motivation to ban 'obese people' from restaurants. It's not like the bill is doing them any favors.

why is it the restaurants' fault? they're not forcing people to eat there.

granted i can agree that healthier standards could help the food that they make be of better quality.

[jsw]

I think manufacturers should be required to print total calorie, etc. information on packages, in addition to, if they desire, serving info - perhaps as a large "xxx CALORIES TOTAL" tag. I've seen too many people see the calorie info and not notice that it's for a mouse-sized portion.

In addition, I think restaurants should be required to make a best-effort indicator of the calorie content of each ordered item.

Too many people look only at fat calories, and too few look at the total calorie intake, which fundamentally is all the body cares about when it comes to storing fat. I know I'd personally like better info on total calorie content.

And, while I agree that people should look out for themselves, a lot of people need help doing so, and obesity is becoming/has become a crisis we need to deal with.

[LethalWolfe]

I think manufacturers should be required to print total calorie, etc. information on packages, in addition to, if they desire, serving info - perhaps as a large "xxx CALORIES TOTAL" tag. I've seen too many people see the calorie info and not notice that it's for a mouse-sized portion.

In addition, I think restaurants should be required to make a best-effort indicator of the calorie content of each ordered item.

Too many people look only at fat calories, and too few look at the total calorie intake, which fundamentally is all the body cares about when it comes to storing fat. I know I'd personally like better info on total calorie content.

And, while I agree that people should look out for themselves, a lot of people need help doing so, and obesity is becoming/has become a crisis we need to deal with.

You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. I've seen food packing that has "per serving" and "total package" info and I think it's a waste of space, IMO. Looking at "serving per package" and doing some simple multiplication isn't too much to ask. AFAIK restaurants are required to provide nutritional info on request and many chains have it posted on their website (some let you actually "build" a meal to see exactly what a big mac, large fry, and Dr. Coke gets you). The info is readily available.

Now, in regards to the state of Mississippi wanting to pass a law making it illegal for a restaurant to serve an obese person food that's just stupid, IMO.


Lethal

[SMM]

why is it the restaurants' fault? they're not forcing people to eat there.

granted i can agree that healthier standards could help the food that they make be of better quality.

I agree with you up to a point. But, the 'fast food' marketing is so focused on the young, it takes a very strong commitment by parents to avoid the trap. If you look at the age of today's parents, they were mainly born in the 80's. These are the people who themselves grew up in the 'fast food' era. Many of them have very limited knowledge of good nutrition.

If people stayed away from McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, Wendy's, Jack In The Crack, Domino's, etc, they would be much healthier. But, I am shocked at how many young people do not know how to cook. And, I am not referring to high skill levels. I am talking about basic food preparation. For many, if you cannot cook it in a microwave, they are absolutely lost.

When I grew up, if you wandered into the kitchen when Mom was cooking, she did not shoe you out, she put you to work. And during that time, she would teach us how to cook. She always made it fun and interesting. All of my family can cook, and most are quite skilled. We have now passed the same tradition down to a new generation. It does not take a great deal of skill to prepare, and cook, good basic meals. It is cheaper and much healthier. Yet, those promoting this lifestyle are silenced by the constant manipulation of the corporate marketers.

[Thomas Veil]

Enter, the State of Mississippi. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0201081fat1.html)I know that's got to be from The Onion, but you forgot to include the punch line.

[MacNut]

It seems more kids take the bus now, they complain that kids are getting fat. Well why not make them walk to school once in a while.:rolleyes: I never took the bus. I had to walk.

[.Andy]

It seems more kids take the bus now, they complain that kids are getting fat. Well why not make them walk to school once in a while.:rolleyes: I never took the bus. I had to walk.
Every day uphill both ways in the snow?

[Naimfan]

Every day uphill both ways in the snow?

Six miles each way! And through four feet of snow.....

[LizKat]

We are all only reaping what we've allowed to be sown.

We live in a culture where consumers are king but marketers are the prime ministers. What that amounts to is that the marketers run the place and we sit around trying to decide if it's ok to let frankie eat fish sticks 5 days a week and pizza on weekends or wil he maybe switch back to the MacNCheese if we offer it next Tuesday.

You think I don't actually know this frankie, right? Well ok, pick one, there's at least one frankie in your circle too. Very special, mustn't freak him out by hassling him over food choices and etc. SUCH INSANITY!!!

I'll tell you what. Someday some of the frankies are gonna grow up, read a nutrition or healthy lifestyles website and then they're gonna come for us. We should hope we're dead by then.

I console myself that there are lots of people who are still teaching youngsters how to cook (for fun! in 4-H clubs and scouts or just en famille) and how to balance a meal for good nutrition. One can bump into evidence of this just by poking around lifestyle sections in weekend editions of local newspapers.

BUT: I am alarmed that even within my own extended family, some of my sibs who are parents have allowed their pre-teen and teenaged children to dictate what they will or will not eat. What's on the "will eat" is junk. What's on the "will not eat" is just about everything currently in my refrigerator and cupboards. Basic, mostly fresh or at least plain ingredients.

I served brunch buffet style to some friends including their pre-teen boy awhile back and was asked afterwards for the eggs recipe. Startled, I said there were no eggs in the entrée. So what was the scrambled thing? Tofu, I said. Nah, the kid said. I know what that is, I don't eat that. I will never eat that. I didn't have that, I had the eggs. I wanted your recipe for the curried eggs, that was pretty good. Can you just write it in my iPhone so I can make it for my parents sometime?

Okaaaaaaaay. So I wrote it down for eggs, what the hell. At least he wants to learn how to cook. I thought it was interesting that he didn't object to my putting "some" instead of a precise quantity for the peppers and onions. So I think he's spent some time in the kitchen even if he can't tell tofu from egg at the table.

I dunno. I'm an aunt, not a parent. I have not had to put up with some kid telling me what he will or won't eat. The thing is, I don't remember getting away with that when I was a kid. Or, needing to. I don't actually remember having to learn to like eating different types of food. Something seems to have gone off the rails since then. We're probably letting it destroy the future health of too many in our own next generations. And again, I think the "it" is marketing! And of course some parental abdication. I don't know if I really fault the parents so much. The marketing is such an implacable, omnipresent force.

[MacNut]

Isn't the issue laziness, rather then what we eat. Nobody exercises anymore.

[PlaceofDis]

Isn't the issue laziness, rather then what we eat. Nobody exercises anymore.

its not quite so black and white. its a combination of both not exercising as much and the stuff that we eat.

[Iscariot]

Isn't the issue laziness, rather then what we eat. Nobody exercises anymore.

Calorie intake has continually gone up, while exercise levels have gone down. Poor nutrition is as much a part of the problem as a lack of physical activity.

There's no hard stats on how many calories an American eats in a day. Some investigations based on the total volume of food sold put the average American eating ~3 500 calories a day. Of course, there's no telling how much of that is wasted by being thrown out as leftovers, extras or spoiled, but it still sits as an incredibly high number than indicates, at the very least, a high level of excess.

That's not to say a lack of exercise isn't a huge contributor to the problem.

Topically, this kind of legislation is silly. The comparison being made is to a smoking ban in restaurants, but they're not really comparable. Anti-smoking legislation bans smoking, not smokers. A smoker can still go to any bar or restaurant, he's just not permitted to smoke inside the building. Will obese people not be permitted to eat inside the building?

A much more effective solution would be to tackle the problem at its roots. Nutrition and fitness education in schools is nothing short of a disgrace. Having even a halfway decent conversation with anyone about nutrition is almost an impossibility; most individuals don't even know what a calorie is, let alone how to effectively balance their diet. And people's knowledge of basic fitness principals is so low that they're willing to shell out hundreds of dollars for ab-crunchers, pectoral gyroscope stimulation engines with onboard computers and supplements that promise everything from "fat burning" to "muscle creation".

We need physical education taught in schools that is targetted to being fit and healthy, and not running laps or getting a college scholarship for football. Why are we not teaching kids the most important information they'll ever learn -- how to properly take care of the only bodies they'll ever have?

[hulugu]

its not quite so black and white. its a combination of both not exercising as much and the stuff that we eat.

I agree.

Remember that Americans eat more meat, more processed foods, and a far greater amount of sugar and HFCS than they used to. At the same time, Americans are living more sedentary lives, exercising less and driving more.

The more I look into what's in our food, especially after Michael Pollan's wonderful Omnivores' Dilemma, I can see why as a society we're gaining weight and becoming gradually less healthy as time goes on. The great colonization of corn and HFCS into our diet is inherently problematic.

[njmac]

I have not had to put up with some kid telling me what he will or won't eat. The thing is, I don't remember getting away with that when I was a kid. Or, needing to. I don't actually remember having to learn to like eating different types of food.

My brothers and I, growing up, never had a problem with anything that my mom made for dinner when we were kids. We weren't getting away with anything because we liked everything. BUT, why my kids don't like some things I feed them, I will never understand! I cook a nice meal, put it at the table for all of us and they poke at it, and say they don't like it and they are full and they go to bed hungry. Really weird. BTW, I'm a chef, so its not like I don't know how to cook.

I think people would be surprised at what is in their restaurant meal. It is a rare restaurant that puts nutrition first. Most will put taste first and that means butter, cream, etc.

Hulugu - you should check out Michael Pollan's newest book: In Defense of Food (http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Food-Eaters-Manifesto/dp/1594201455/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202017091&sr=8-1). Pollan is a wise man :)

[biturbomunkie]

isn't that discrimination? it's also unconstitutional as it violates our right to pursuit happiness. they might as well send the obese folks to labor camps which could better our economy. while i don't like fast food or soft drinks, i'd be very pissed if i can't have my super-sized meal and extra large diet coke after growing a pair of man boobs! :mad:

http://www.lard.net/happylard.gif

edit:

But, I am shocked at how many young people do not know how to cook. And, I am not referring to high skill levels. I am talking about basic food preparation. For many, if you cannot cook it in a microwave, they are absolutely lost.

guilty. i got an "A" in a course called "creative cooking," but i had to google "eggs" and "microwave." :p BUT, my diet is quite healthy even though i touch the stove < 3x a year.

[Naimfan]

isn't that discrimination? it's also unconstitutional as it violates our right to pursuit happiness.

OK, I can't resist. Show me where it says there is a right to pursue happiness in the Constitution.

[biturbomunkie]

okay, it's either in the Bill of Rights or Declaration of Independence? :o

[Naimfan]

okay, it's either in the Bill of Rights or Declaration of Independence? :o

I was being facetious--the claim that all men are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence--which isn't part of the Constitution. So it's not a "Constitutional" right.

Is that you in your profile picture?

I know that's got to be from The Onion, but you forgot to include the punch line.

Take another look (http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2008/html/HB/0200-0299/HB0282IN.htm).

[Thomas Veil]

Take another look (http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2008/html/HB/0200-0299/HB0282IN.htm).Wow. That thing actually looks real.

Of course, The Onion exaggerates quite a bit. No one would be stupid enough to introduce a bill like this in real life. ;)

[Pani]

[EDIT: This is the first post of a merged-in thread on the same topic --mkrishnan]

Representative Mayhall of Mississippi has introduced a bill that would make it illegal to serve anyone with a BMI of 30 or greater from eating in a restaurant.

http://www.wikio.com/news/W.T.+Mayhall

My bet it that it is a publicity stunt by Pharma. Everytime they have a new pill down the pike, the scare tactics begin. Sad, though that the times are such that anyone could even think of introducing such a bill. It could also be an old tactic known by social psychologists. Introduce something outrageous, then introduce something more moderate. It can make it easier to accept the lesser evil.

Of course, it doesn't have a snowballs chance in you know where of passing. Tourism is one of the few ways Miss has of making money. On the other hand, I have read that vibrators are illegal in the neighboring state of Alabama!

[Tom B.]

A good idea IMO, however, BMI is not exactly an accurate test.

[Mac OS X Ocelot]

I don't think there's a person from Mississippi with a BMI of less than 30, so there goes a lot of jobs.

A good idea? You're insane. How can you constitutionally justify this law?

[Much Ado]

Ban food from being served to fat people? What a novel idea.

[Virgil-TB2]

Representative Mayhall of Mississippi has introduced a bill that would make it illegal to serve anyone with a BMI of 30 or greater from eating in a restaurant....Your post title is highly inaccurate though.

Someone with a BMI of 30 or above is "morbidly obese" (at best) by definition.

These people are not "plump," they are not "fat," they are not "large," they are not even "hugely overweight," they left each one of these stages behind long ago.

These are folks that are likely to drop dead at any moment and thus probably a liability for the restaurant that is serving them the cheeseburgers. These are the folks that need special chairs, and are in danger of breaking the toilet when they use it, crushing a small child if they fall, etc., etc.

[Mac OS X Ocelot]

A good idea IMO, however, BMI is not exactly an accurate test.

Your post title is highly inaccurate though.

Someone with a BMI of 30 or above is "morbidly obese" (at best) by definition.

These people are not "plump," they are not "fat," they are not "large," they are not even "hugely overweight," they left each one of these stages behind long ago.

These are folks that are likely to drop dead at any moment and thus probably a liability for the restaurant that is serving them the cheeseburgers. These are the folks that need special chairs, and are in danger of breaking the toilet when they use it, crushing a small child if they fall, etc., etc.

Right. Yet, strangely, science has proven that even these people need to eat. Weird, huh. They just need to eat less and excersize (for that size of a person, walking to the door is enough for one day to be effective). Should there be a law instating a limit to how much food these people can order in a restaurant as well as requiring them to walk at least twenty feet a day? Is this legal?

[sowillo14]

Your post title is highly inaccurate though.

Someone with a BMI of 30 or above is "morbidly obese" (at best) by definition.

These people are not "plump," they are not "fat," they are not "large," they are not even "hugely overweight," they left each one of these stages behind long ago.

These are folks that are likely to drop dead at any moment and thus probably a liability for the restaurant that is serving them the cheeseburgers. These are the folks that need special chairs, and are in danger of breaking the toilet when they use it, crushing a small child if they fall, etc., etc.

I lol'd at that.:D

[forafireescape]

Right. Yet, strangely, science has proven that even these people need to eat. Weird, huh. They just need to eat less and excersize (for that size of a person, walking to the door is enough for one day to be effective). Should there be a law instating a limit to how much food these people can order in a restaurant as well as requiring them to walk at least twenty feet a day? Is this legal?

Seriously.

How can this law even be for real? It makes absolutely no sense. Banning people from eating in restaurants will not make them thinner...it just means they will eat just as much at home.

[IJ Reilly]

Representative Mayhall of Mississippi has introduced a bill that would make it illegal to serve anyone with a BMI of 30 or greater from eating in a restaurant.

This is an obviously silly effort, but FWIW, there is no BMI threshold in the bill.

[shecky]

Your post title is highly inaccurate though.

Someone with a BMI of 30 or above is "morbidly obese" (at best) by definition.

These people are not "plump," they are not "fat," they are not "large," they are not even "hugely overweight," they left each one of these stages behind long ago.

These are folks that are likely to drop dead at any moment and thus probably a liability for the restaurant that is serving them the cheeseburgers. These are the folks that need special chairs, and are in danger of breaking the toilet when they use it, crushing a small child if they fall, etc., etc.

maybe you are joking and i am missing the sarcasm?

take a look at the images i have attached. every one of these people has a BMI of 29.5+ most well over 30. do they look like they will crush children? drop dead at any moment?

and by the way, BMI of 30+ is "obese", 40+ is "morbidly obese."

images from here: http://flickr.com/photos/77367764@N00/sets/72157602199008819/

[gonyr]

BMI is completely worthless for someone who is very muscular and in excellent shape. As an extreme example, consider Shaquille O'Neal. Listed at 7'1" and 375 pounds, this gives him a BMI of 36.5. Nobody in their right mind would call Shaq obese (especially to his face). Almost any NFL running back comes in around 30 for BMI.

[GSMiller]

So much for the land of the free :rolleyes:

[DakotaGuy]

Sounds like these legislators have way too much time on their hands and it is probably time for them to be voted out. Anyhow with that said, exactly how would you enforce a law like this? Would a person that has a BMI of 28 or 29 look any different then someone with a 30 or 31? Do you weigh in and measure people as they come into the restaurant? This is ridiculous and would never stand up in court. Obesity is a bad thing, but banning obese people from eating in a restaurant is not going to help. Maybe it would be better to pass a law that requires restaurants to have healthier food or to list nutritional facts right on the menu.

[GroundLoop]

Your post title is highly inaccurate though.

Someone with a BMI of 30 or above is "morbidly obese" (at best) by definition.

These people are not "plump," they are not "fat," they are not "large," they are not even "hugely overweight," they left each one of these stages behind long ago.

These are folks that are likely to drop dead at any moment and thus probably a liability for the restaurant that is serving them the cheeseburgers. These are the folks that need special chairs, and are in danger of breaking the toilet when they use it, crushing a small child if they fall, etc., etc.

Yeah....

Junior Seau is "Morbidly Obese" (6'3" 250lbs)

[Ugg]

BMI has gotten a very bad rap. It's only the starting point in determining whether a person is obese. There are other factors involved as well. The amount of body fat also needs to be taken into account as well as overall health.

A bodybuilder who takes steroids to bulk up is not healthy. Extreme athletes are also the exception to the rule. It's very likely that as they age if they don't keep up their exercise programs, the excess weight they carry will begin to cause joint problems.

Looking like the Incredible Hulk is not something to aspire to.

[LethalWolfe]

Extreme athletes are also the exception to the rule. It's very likely that as they age if they don't keep up their exercise programs, the excess weight they carry will begin to cause joint problems.

FWIW, their joints are most likely already hosed by the time they retire.


Lethal

[ham_man]

I was being facetious--the claim that all men are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence--which isn't part of the Constitution. So it's not a "Constitutional" right.
You're right. It is merely an "inalienable" right, which, if I recall my American History class, is a hell of a lot more fundamental than a "Constitutional" right.

On topic, I don't agree with this law in any sense, but I do think that it brings up an interesting point concerning universal or government run health care: should I or any other healthy tax payer be forced to subsidize someone else's poor eating/smoking/drinking/etc. habits?

[Naimfan]

You're right. It is merely an "inalienable" right, which, if I recall my American History class, is a hell of a lot more fundamental than a "Constitutional" right.


Wrong.

Try suing to enforce an "inalienable" right as opposed to a fundamental Constitutional right.

[LethalWolfe]

On topic, I don't agree with this law in any sense, but I do think that it brings up an interesting point concerning universal or government run health care: should I or any other healthy tax payer be forced to subsidize someone else's poor eating/smoking/drinking/etc. habits?

But if you are paying for insurance you already are.


Lethal

[MikeTheC]

This is not an area where I think forced compliance is a viable option.

Ultimately, you have to start when the "people" in question are still children, and try as best you can to impress upon them and their parents what constitutes healthy eating and what doesn't, and just as importantly why it is they should care in the first place.

However, given the apathetic nature of many parents any more in this society, I think it's little more than just whistling in the wind.

Natural selection will probably do more to "cure" this problem than either forced education or physique-based sanctions ever will. And even then it probably won't do all that much good, either.

Oh well...

[ham_man]

Wrong.

Try suing to enforce an "inalienable" right as opposed to a fundamental Constitutional right.
Sue? The writers of the Declaration advocate overthrowing the government when these rights are infringed...

[Naimfan]

Sue? The writers of the Declaration advocate overthrowing the government when these rights are infringed...

Good luck with that! :rolleyes:

But you might want to read Article III, § 3, cl. 1 of the Constitution before you do try it. Not to mention reading the entire Declaration.

[SMM]

But if you are paying for insurance you already are.


Lethal

You can opt out of plan that offers group rates, for one that is solely individual. Then you are not burdened by 'group payout'. But, guess which one is cheaper?

[ham_man]

Good luck with that! :rolleyes:

But you might want to read Article III, § 3, cl. 1 of the Constitution before you do try it. Not to mention reading the entire Declaration.
I never said that it wasn't treason. If you'll recall, all the founders knew that what they were doing in declaring independence was, in their opinion, morally right but legally wrong ("We all hang together", etc.)

And I did read the Declaration in its entirety, and it does advocate overthrowing the existing government when it "becomes destructive of these ends", where "these ends" are the securing of "certain unalienable Rights": "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Then this tidbit: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

I understand that this is all completely inapplicable to the topic at hand, but I think that you start going down a slippery slope when the hand of government reaches so far into the private lives of the citizens, thus violating the rights that it is supposed to be upholding.

[hulugu]

...I understand that this is all completely inapplicable to the topic at hand, but I think that you start going down a slippery slope when the hand of government reaches so far into the private lives of the citizens, thus violating the rights that it is supposed to be upholding.

The hand of government has been riffling through your emails, checking our your borrowing history at the local library, listening in on your phone calls, etc. So, maybe I'm just a little less than worried about a bill keeping someone from gorging on another Happy Meal.

The slippery slope is a water-park ride in this case.