MacDonalds and KFC (US only) caught out ... again.

That would change tomorrow if American would just say NO. I don't eat
anything from their menu which would contain transfats.

J. David Anderson wrote:
:: It seems that if you are an American, living in the US, McDonalds and
:: KFC don't really give a damn about you, but if you live in a country
:: with a government that is tough on nutrition, then they lift their
:: game.
::

That's why I don't eat at KFC, and at McD's I only get something like
two of their regular burgers and a diet, or one reg double
cheeseburger, and NO fries (I now almost never eat fries, just a big
bag of fat)

J. David Anderson' jdavidanderson_@hotmail said:

Maybe the Bush Government should focus less on imaginary weapons of
mass destruction and more on laws curtailing the "mass enlargement"
and ever diminishing health of its population.

Thank goodness we have a Constitution, which doesn't anywhere contain
the words, "The Executive branch shall decide what the people eat."

--
Aaron -- [email hidden] -- 285/240/200
http://www.myspace.com/aaronbaugher

Aaron Baugher said:

J. David Anderson' jdavidanderson_@hotmail said:

Maybe the Bush Government should focus less on imaginary weapons of
mass destruction and more on laws curtailing the "mass enlargement"
and ever diminishing health of its population.

Thank goodness we have a Constitution, which doesn't anywhere contain
the words, "The Executive branch shall decide what the people eat."

Who suggested that the government should make such decisions? I
certainly didn't.

But what about legislation that ensures that those who profit by
providing "what the people eat" must not, for the sake of profit alone,
sell food that will reduce both the length and quality of the people's
lives? Are you also thankful that legislation of this nature doesn't exist?

Regards

David

--

To email me, please include the letters DNF anywhere in the subject line.

All other mail is automatically deleted.

"J. David Anderson" <jdavidanderson_@hotmail> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Aaron Baugher said:

J. David Anderson' jdavidanderson_@hotmail said:

Maybe the Bush Government should focus less on imaginary weapons of
mass destruction and more on laws curtailing the "mass enlargement"
and ever diminishing health of its population.

Thank goodness we have a Constitution, which doesn't anywhere contain
the words, "The Executive branch shall decide what the people eat."

Who suggested that the government should make such decisions? I certainly
didn't.

But what about legislation that ensures that those who profit by providing
"what the people eat" must not, for the sake of profit alone, sell food
that will reduce both the length and quality of the people's lives? Are
you also thankful that legislation of this nature doesn't exist?

And if the Government decides that only low fat will not reduce both the
length and quality if people's lives?

J. David Anderson' jdavidanderson_@hotmail said:

Aaron Baugher said:

J. David Anderson' jdavidanderson_@hotmail said:

Maybe the Bush Government should focus less on imaginary weapons of
mass destruction and more on laws curtailing the "mass enlargement"
and ever diminishing health of its population.

Thank goodness we have a Constitution, which doesn't anywhere
contain the words, "The Executive branch shall decide what the
people eat."

Who suggested that the government should make such decisions? I
certainly didn't.

How do you expect the government to curtail "the 'mass enlargement'
and ever diminishing health' of the people without passing laws to
control what we eat?

Quoted message said:

But what about legislation that ensures that those who profit by
providing "what the people eat" must not, for the sake of profit
alone, sell food that will reduce both the length and quality of the
people's lives?

That's just an end-around to accomplish the same thing without being
honest about it. If you don't think people should eat XYZ, try to
pass a law banning the sale of XYZ. And *all* businesses are in
business "for the sake of profit alone," so I'm not sure what that
qualification even means. Why else would they produce and sell food,
for fun?

Quoted message said:

Are you also thankful that legislation of this nature doesn't exist?

Absolutely. There's already far too much nanny legislation in other
areas of our lives, from seat belts to smoking.

Besides, since this is a low-carb group, consider what the likely
result of laws to "encourage" the sale of healthy food would be, given
the current conventional wisdom about nutrition. Do you really want
an extra tax on red meat, and maybe a tax deduction for buying Special
K? That's what it'd mean today, you know.

--
Aaron -- [email hidden] -- 285/240/200
http://www.myspace.com/aaronbaugher

"If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not
zebras."

In article <[email hidden]>,

JC Der Koenig said:

"J. David Anderson" <jdavidanderson_@hotmail> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Aaron Baugher said:

"J. David Anderson" <jdavidanderson_@hotmail> writes:

>Maybe the Bush Government should focus less on imaginary weapons of
>mass destruction and more on laws curtailing the "mass enlargement"
>and ever diminishing health of its population.

Thank goodness we have a Constitution, which doesn't anywhere contain
the words, "The Executive branch shall decide what the people eat."

Who suggested that the government should make such decisions? I certainly
didn't.

But what about legislation that ensures that those who profit by providing
"what the people eat" must not, for the sake of profit alone, sell food
that will reduce both the length and quality of the people's lives? Are
you also thankful that legislation of this nature doesn't exist?

And if the Government decides that only low fat will not reduce both the
length and quality if people's lives?

I keep trying to make that sentence make sense.

Luna wrote:
:: In article <[email hidden]>,
:: "JC Der Koenig" <[email hidden]> wrote:
::
::: "J. David Anderson" <jdavidanderson_@hotmail> wrote in message
::: news:[email hidden]...
:::: Aaron Baugher wrote:
::::: "J. David Anderson" <jdavidanderson_@hotmail> writes:
:::::
:::::
:::::: Maybe the Bush Government should focus less on imaginary weapons
:::::: of mass destruction and more on laws curtailing the "mass
:::::: enlargement" and ever diminishing health of its population.
:::::
:::::
::::: Thank goodness we have a Constitution, which doesn't anywhere
::::: contain the words, "The Executive branch shall decide what the
::::: people eat."
::::
:::: Who suggested that the government should make such decisions? I
:::: certainly didn't.
::::
:::: But what about legislation that ensures that those who profit by
:::: providing "what the people eat" must not, for the sake of profit
:::: alone, sell food that will reduce both the length and quality of
:::: the people's lives? Are you also thankful that legislation of this
:::: nature doesn't exist?
::::
:::
::: And if the Government decides that only low fat will not reduce
::: both the length and quality if people's lives?
::
:: I keep trying to make that sentence make sense.

Simply replace the second 'if' with 'of'.

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Luna wrote:
:: In article <[email hidden]>,
:: "JC Der Koenig" <[email hidden]> wrote:
::
::: "J. David Anderson" <jdavidanderson_@hotmail> wrote in message
::: news:[email hidden]...
:::: Aaron Baugher wrote:
::::: "J. David Anderson" <jdavidanderson_@hotmail> writes:
:::::
:::::
:::::: Maybe the Bush Government should focus less on imaginary weapons
:::::: of mass destruction and more on laws curtailing the "mass
:::::: enlargement" and ever diminishing health of its population.
:::::
:::::
::::: Thank goodness we have a Constitution, which doesn't anywhere
::::: contain the words, "The Executive branch shall decide what the
::::: people eat."
::::
:::: Who suggested that the government should make such decisions? I
:::: certainly didn't.
::::
:::: But what about legislation that ensures that those who profit by
:::: providing "what the people eat" must not, for the sake of profit
:::: alone, sell food that will reduce both the length and quality of
:::: the people's lives? Are you also thankful that legislation of this
:::: nature doesn't exist?
::::
:::
::: And if the Government decides that only low fat will not reduce
::: both the length and quality if people's lives?
::
:: I keep trying to make that sentence make sense.

Simply replace the second 'if' with 'of'.

Yeah.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 00:04:46 GMT, Luna
<[email hidden]> wrote:

|In article <[email hidden]>,
| "JC Der Koenig" <[email hidden]> wrote:
|
|> "J. David Anderson" <jdavidanderson_@hotmail> wrote in message
|> news:[email hidden]...
|> > Aaron Baugher wrote:
|> >> "J. David Anderson" <jdavidanderson_@hotmail> writes:
|> >>
|> >>
|> >>>Maybe the Bush Government should focus less on imaginary weapons of
|> >>>mass destruction and more on laws curtailing the "mass enlargement"
|> >>>and ever diminishing health of its population.
|> >>
|> >>
|> >> Thank goodness we have a Constitution, which doesn't anywhere contain
|> >> the words, "The Executive branch shall decide what the people eat."
|> >
|> > Who suggested that the government should make such decisions? I certainly
|> > didn't.
|> >
|> > But what about legislation that ensures that those who profit by providing
|> > "what the people eat" must not, for the sake of profit alone, sell food
|> > that will reduce both the length and quality of the people's lives? Are
|> > you also thankful that legislation of this nature doesn't exist?
|> >
|>
|> And if the Government decides that only low fat will not reduce both the
|> length and quality if people's lives?
|
|I keep trying to make that sentence make sense.

I believe that it's an elliptical clause combined with an
unfortunately placed adjective and a typo. Read:

"And (what) if the Government decides that low fat (only) will not
reduce both the length and quality (of) people's lives?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

Marengo said:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 00:04:46 GMT, Luna
<[email hidden]> wrote:

|In article <[email hidden]>,
| "JC Der Koenig" <[email hidden]> wrote:
|
|> "J. David Anderson" <jdavidanderson_@hotmail> wrote in message
|> news:[email hidden]...
|> > Aaron Baugher wrote:
|> >> "J. David Anderson" <jdavidanderson_@hotmail> writes:
|> >>
|> >>
|> >>>Maybe the Bush Government should focus less on imaginary weapons of
|> >>>mass destruction and more on laws curtailing the "mass enlargement"
|> >>>and ever diminishing health of its population.
|> >>
|> >>
|> >> Thank goodness we have a Constitution, which doesn't anywhere contain
|> >> the words, "The Executive branch shall decide what the people eat."
|> >
|> > Who suggested that the government should make such decisions? I
|> > certainly
|> > didn't.
|> >
|> > But what about legislation that ensures that those who profit by
|> > providing
|> > "what the people eat" must not, for the sake of profit alone, sell food
|> > that will reduce both the length and quality of the people's lives? Are
|> > you also thankful that legislation of this nature doesn't exist?
|> >
|>
|> And if the Government decides that only low fat will not reduce both the
|> length and quality if people's lives?
|
|I keep trying to make that sentence make sense.

I believe that it's an elliptical clause combined with an
unfortunately placed adjective and a typo. Read:

"And (what) if the Government decides that low fat (only) will not
reduce both the length and quality (of) people's lives?"

Ok, got it now, thanks. Even replacing the "if" with "of" still leaves
kind of an awkward sentence, but I see that he was trying to repeat the
phrasing of the previous poster.

Anyway, grammar aside, it's a good point. Depending on which health
experts you talk to, almost any food can be considered beneficial to the
length and quality of human lives. It's not the individual foods, but
the overall diet that matters.

The only two exceptions I can think of are foods with high fructose corn
syrup and partially hydrogenated oils.

"JC Der Koenig" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"J. David Anderson" <jdavidanderson_@hotmail> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Aaron Baugher said:

"J. David Anderson" <jdavidanderson_@hotmail> writes:

>Maybe the Bush Government should focus less on imaginary weapons of
>mass destruction and more on laws curtailing the "mass enlargement"
>and ever diminishing health of its population.

Thank goodness we have a Constitution, which doesn't anywhere contain
the words, "The Executive branch shall decide what the people eat."

Who suggested that the government should make such decisions? I

certainly

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

didn't.

But what about legislation that ensures that those who profit by

providing

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"what the people eat" must not, for the sake of profit alone, sell food
that will reduce both the length and quality of the people's lives? Are
you also thankful that legislation of this nature doesn't exist?

And if the Government decides that only low fat will not reduce both the
length and quality if people's lives?

Right. Not that long ago the government was considering a "fat tax" on
foods. I suppose that many junk foods would have been included and that
would be ok, but would they have also included the tax on meat, cheese, and
eggs? The new and improved food pyramids clearly have most of the calories
coming from carbs. By that reasoning, a bowl of Honeynut Cheerios made from
whole grains would be deemed healthier than steak, and taxed accordingly by
the government's standard of healthy foods.

Quoted message said: