Would you care to show me in the Constitution where it states that the federal government is supposed to "look out for our interests" regarding food?

I have a hard time believing anyone does not understand that theater popcorn is both high in calories, high, in fat, and high in carbs. Most people are trying to limit their intake of at least one of those.

Are you seriously trying to say that food is not one of our interests, even our most vital interest?

You didn't answer my question. Instead, you are deflecting it and trying to put words in my mouth instead.

I am on this forum because food is one of my interests. "Food interest" is something each individual person chooses to practice. If by "our" - you mean that the Federal government should practice "food interest," - no, I do not think that they should.

If people who go to movies and eat movie theater junk really want the theaters posting nutritional info, fine. Let those patrons request them to do it. But for a vegan agenda group like CSPI to demand that the government legislate them into doing it? I disagree.

I don't know a single person who goes to the movies and thinks that the "food" they buy at the snack stand is nutritious. The people who care about nutrition will avoid it, and the people who don't give a fig about what they eat - they'll eat it anyway, whether the nutrition info is posted or not - just like they still eat fast food long after the nutritional info was made available to them.

And what does it really matter if they post nutritional info anyway? Nutritional info is useless to people who don't understand what carbs and BAD fats do to them, and the difference between good fats and trans fats. High fat doesn't always mean bad fat, right? What if the CPSI decides they want the nutritional info on REAL butter, UNREFINED coconut oil and Ribeye steaks posted everywhere? Will a few people who actually read the info then avoid those "high fat" foods because they are "bad" for them?

No, I am drawing the only logical conclusion one can draw from your question. If I had answered the question directly, I felt I would have been insulting your intelligence, so I gave you the opportunity to clarify what you meant. You have apparently, spurned that opportunity. So the only conclusion I can now draw is that you believe, seriously, that food is not a vital interest. Which terminates my interest in pretty much anything else you have to say.

Agreed. Considering 1/3 of the population is pre diabetic and the costs for this are in the billions annually, the gov't has good reason to do something but odds are, whatever they do it will be wrong.

Pre Diabetes

I meant exactly what I previously asked: Show me where it says in the Constitution that the government is supposed to look out for our interests regarding food.

I believe food is of vital interest to me. I believe it is a vital interest to other people, probably an awful lot of people. I don't believe the government should take an interest in what is on my plate. I believe individuals should take responsibility for what they eat. I believe that is quite succinct.

And who will pay for what they decide to do?

How will it be implemented/enforced?

It's easy to say "The government should do something." But someone will have to pay $$ for it. Do you want to? I know I can't afford it. I don't think that the govt can either.

Okay children..Both of you are right...If this was an Ideal world and people elected to office actually had the interest of their constituents at heart,then having them provide meaningful legislation to inform and protect their constituents would be a good thing...But we will also need in this "ideal" world,scientists and researchers that aren't influenced by large companies seeking to protect and expand their interests,influencing the outcomes and means of studies and research...Unfortunately we do not live in the "Ideal" world and we have all seen too frequently what is the outcome of greedy politicians,greedy corporations and biased research...So the best thing is for us all to take personal responsibility for ourselves and study,research and become as informed as possible and then make our own decisions...And if you wish to become"Thy Brother's Keeper",perhaps you can teach those who are less inclined to make the effort to personal awareness..Which many of us seem to do everyday on this forum..

I agree. Politicians are heavily influenced by the food lobbyists as well. It's up to individuals to change things, one person at a time.

The govt gave us the Food Pyramid and the USDA guidelines. Do we really think they will someday take it all back and tell us, "Oops, we were wrong!" - and suddenly start promoting a low-carb diet to help people get healthy? It will never happen. If they got more involved, they'd just promote the same old stuff that made people sick in the first place. Just like they're promoting low-fat milk in public schools. LOW-fat milk for KIDS.

I was referring more to having labels for people to read, nutrition labels. They would enforce it just like they are in CA.

What's the cost? They pass a law, nutrition labels on food. Period.

Agreed

Ninth amendment. I LOVE constitution trivia!


You did it first, so he felt entitled.


They have. Theaters refuse. Check out the news story in the original post.


CSPI cannot demand that government do anything. They are effectively powerless. Movie theaters, however, have great power in government. I can see how you would want to take the side of greater power, but against your own admitted interests?


You will need to discuss your confusion with the theaters. Theaters obviously feel that providing nutrition information will make customers buy less of it.


Your expected slippery-slope argument and fear of public power makes it sound like the only way people will eat better is when government acknowledges the failure of right-wing food education, and abandons it.


Theaters.


With the rigor expected of a modern government. (Clue: When I start responding in single sentences, you can be pretty sure that we've discussed the topic many times, and other people who came before you asked the same questions. And we're pretty sure what you will ask next.)


Why is it that other countries can require this stuff and their companies, citizens and government can afford it just fine? What's wrong with America that we can't seem to do a fraction of the things that other countries do without strain?

Surely information is a good thing, no one is saying ban popcorn or other cinema treats, just put the nutritional info on the box.

But as has already been more eloquently said, without legislation, companies will always look to their own profits first and not consumer interests. The companies in question obviously fear that the stark reality of a calorie count on a box of popcorn will reduce sales. But people should have the right to know what's in their food. And legislation is required for this.

Personally, I think people are idiots for paying such high prices for cinema snacks, and if they're prepared to overlook the fact that they're being ripped off, they'll probably overlook the calorie content too!

Lee

Ninth amendment. I LOVE constitution trivia!

- Really? I hope that you take the time to explain in detail to the people on this forum (whom you seem to be convinced are less intelligent than you and you have to show them how smart you think you are) specifically how the 9th amendment empowers the Federal Government to be involved in the food that we eat. Give us a really really good example!


They have. Theaters refuse. Check out the news story in the original post.


- It's a free country. The people who didn't get their requests granted really don't need to patronize the theaters anymore. Or they don't have to buy food there. Maybe then the theaters will change if they lose revenue.

CSPI cannot demand that government do anything. They are effectively powerless. Movie theaters, however, have great power in government. I can see how you would want to take the side of greater power, but against your own admitted interests?

- I'm not taking anyone's "side." I could care less what happens in movie theaters, or to movie theaters. I don't go to them and have no interest in what they do or don't do. My "admitted" interest in this "conversation" is waning.

You will need to discuss your confusion with the theaters. Theaters obviously feel that providing nutrition information will make customers buy less of it.

- Really? I think they are wrong about that. And I'm not confused about anything. I stand by my opinion, whether you or anyone else disagrees.


Your expected slippery-slope argument and fear of public power makes it sound like the only way people will eat better is when government acknowledges the failure of right-wing food education, and abandons it.

- ??? Right-wing food education? Sen McGovern, who championed low-fat, no-cholesterol diets, and held up Ancel Keys study as gospel was was a liberal democrat. I don't fear public power, I want to keep government out of my plate, not out of fear, but because they don't belong there. And exactly how would the government go about endorsing a healthy low-carb diet if they didn't first negate their previous suggestions to eat according to the Food Pyramid?


In conclusion, we simply approach these types of discussions from two completely different points of view. However, I do not personally attack people because they have opposing points of view. The arrogance displayed here, as usual, is simply exhausting. I'm done.