Patterico's Pontifications

4/1/2010

Government Mandated Menus

Filed under: Government — DRJ @ 2:03 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

At Hot Air, Ed Morrissey explains the difficulties of the federal government’s new federal menu mandates:

Ed Morrissey: “In an economy that has already taken its toll on younger workers, do we need an anti-growth mandate that will kill jobs in the restaurant industry where they traditionally find them, and push small businesses into bankruptcy?”

— DRJ

22 Responses to “Government Mandated Menus”

  1. Yes, and let’s take the warning labels off cigarettes while we’re at it to help the economy!

    snips (6a0094)

  2. Yes, and let’s take the warning labels off cigarettes while we’re at it to help the economy!
    Comment by snips — 4/1/2010 @ 2:28 pm

    I’m sure President Obama doesn’t even read them anymore.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  3. I quit smoking when they dedicated all the funds to the dirty socialist perversion of children.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  4. I’m glad they have those labels on the cigarettes, otherwise I would never have known how bad they were.

    I’m sure these new food labeling requirements will also influence my menu choices. Experience has taught me that food low in fat or salt tastes bad, now I will have a lesser chance of being disappointed.

    Thomas (1c2383)

  5. Cigarettes have one printed warning….

    menus (and all food on the menu is not “bad” or “evil”) have way more detail, and 30-40 items.

    You are asking for 30-40 times more from restaurants than cigarette makers.

    This another of the greatest dumb hits of nanny statism… require a mountain of red tape for business but give the person who chooses to be fat anyway unlimited care for free.
    Zero personal responsibility

    Steve G (7d4c78)

  6. actually, i’m all in favor of this, since i will be able to more efficiently spend my money when purchasing food at a restaurant. since i am effectively trading money for calories, i will know at a glance which items will provide the most bang for my buck, instead of accidentally ordering something less economical (not to mention less filling %-).i doubt this was their intent, but it certainly is the result.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  7. “And all of this comes because political elites think that people are too stupid to know that a pizza is fattening”

    Is this really as far as he can conceptualize the purpose of this being? Because that’s a pretty ill-informed position. Can anyone else come up with some purposes or scenarios that would benefit from this?

    imdw (4fe3dc)

  8. Can anyone else come up with some purposes or scenarios that would benefit from this?

    well, since you’ve repeatedly proven that you are too stupid to think either clearly or for yourself, i will point out that the requirements will necessitate the enlargement of an existing federal bureaucracy or the creation of a new one to quantify “compliance” and to handle enforcement. i also can comfortably predict that various states will feel the need to duplicate the organizations and possibly even enlarge the requirements. (California, for one) it will also increase the number of lawyers and other experts organizations need to remain in compliance with these requirements and to defend against the inevitable charges that they are not. also, since by their very nature the regulations and requirements will constantly change and expand, experts and consultants will undoubtedly appear, pedaling their skills at dealing with said governmental agencies. the downside to all this is, of course, that NONE of these people will bring any benefit to society or generate any wealth or services. they will simply be more leeches on the economy and the tax payer. no wonder you, Congress and Ear Leader think it is a great idea.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  9. “i also can comfortably predict that various states will feel the need to duplicate the organizations and possibly even enlarge the requirements. ”

    One of the reasons that the restaurant industry supported this is that it forbids the states from enlarging the requirements. Something that localities were on their way to doing. But that’s not a Hot Air EXCLUSIVE.

    imdw (3bf1a8)

  10. imdw – on a bottle of water, who benefits from the requirement that it show the amount of carbs, fats, and protein, in the contents ?

    Alasdair (76b8db)

  11. “imdw – on a bottle of water, who benefits from the requirement that it show the amount of carbs, fats, and protein, in the contents ?”

    I think anyone consuming water would benefit from finding out that any of those things are in their water. But you know this law isn’t about labeling products, right?

    imdw (3bf1a8)

  12. imadickwad should stop breathing until the government posts a sign indicating the composition of the air that is available to him, and whether or not its’ intake would be beneficial to him.
    I certainly know that if he stops imbibing on air, it will be beneficial to the rest of us.

    AD - RtR/OS! (f793c7)

  13. Hey! He won!

    nk (db4a41)

  14. Comment by imdw — 4/1/2010 @ 5:38 pm

    cites for the industry supporting this requirement, and the specific text of the bill that restricts the states, otherwise we will deem that you are pulling these claims out off your a55 as usual.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  15. Ed Morrissey: “In an economy that has already taken its toll on younger workers, do we need an anti-growth mandate that will kill jobs in the restaurant industry where they traditionally find them, and push small businesses into bankruptcy?”

    Over and over I see Conservatives making statements like this. Don’t you get it? The answer to the above question is that this is EXACTLY what Obama is up to: destroying the economy, military, mission, hope, economy, future and will of America.
    Good God right wingers, stop acting surprised every time Obama passes another piece of legislation aimed to raise taxes, increase government control or remove individual rights.

    Metallica (bb58d8)

  16. True, Metallica. But I’m not talking to Obama when I point out things like Morrissey has. I’m trying to show voters that even if you like Obama, you shouldn’t like his policies.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  17. I really liked that sentiment Mr. Metallica. I just couldn’t agree more about the on-purposeness.

    happyfeet (71f6cb)

  18. “The answer to the above question is that this is EXACTLY what Obama is up to: destroying the economy, military, mission, hope, economy, future and will of America.”

    Nice example of the paranoid style.

    snips (6a0094)

  19. Why, snips, it is almost as strange as calling a ten percentage point drop “almost the same.”

    Eric Blair (ea0564)

  20. only on planet “Rocky” is stating the blindingly obvious considered “paranoid”….

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  21. “cites for the industry supporting this requirement, and the specific text of the bill that restricts the states, otherwise we will deem that you are pulling these claims out off your a55 as usual.”

    Do a search for what the National Restaurant Association thinks of menu labeling. Find a source that is credible to your taste. Then do a search for menu labeling and preemption, and do the same for that. If you want to read the actual law (shocking, i know) searching it for “menu” will get you to the section.

    “only on planet “Rocky” is stating the blindingly obvious considered “paranoid”….”

    It’s the paranoid style. Paranoid was the Hutaree militia. Of course it turned out they were right — the government WAS coming to get them and send them to concentration camps.

    imdw (3bf1a8)

  22. If people really wanted labeling on menus, they would ask restaurants to do so. If enough asked, the restaurants would comply. That’s how a free market works.

    Corwin (ea9428)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4729 secs.