Food snob?

Dan Abel said:

Quoted message said:

Iceberg lettuce has very little nutritional value, but the same is not
true for darker green lettuces or spinach or other leafy greens.

We hashed this out on another thread. Iceberg lettuce does in fact have
a lot of nutritional value. All other lettuces have more, sometimes
significantly more. Still, iceberg lettuce is not a nutritional
wasteland.

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

Not a wasteland, but there is not a lot of food value to it. First of all,
it is almost all water, almost 96%. A serving of it will provide 6% of the
recommended daily allowance of Vitamin A , 3% of the RDA for Vtamin C, 1%
of the RDA for calcium and iron. It contains some other vitamins and
minerals. There is very little energy in it, but it is a decent source of
fibre.

Dan Abel <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Rhonda Anderson said:

Iceberg lettuce has very little nutritional value, but the same is
not true for darker green lettuces or spinach or other leafy greens.

We hashed this out on another thread. Iceberg lettuce does in fact
have a lot of nutritional value. All other lettuces have more,
sometimes significantly more. Still, iceberg lettuce is not a
nutritional wasteland.

Perhaps I should have worded it differently - iceberg lettuce has very
little nutritional value compared to other leafy greens.

Quoted message said:

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

I looked at this and also did a little more research. Iceberg does have
more nutritional value than I (and many others) had believed, although I
don't know if I'd call it "a lot" compared to other vegies I eat. I do
enjoy iceberg for the crunch. However, in terms of nutritional bang for
my bite <g> I think I'd still choose other greens.

Certainly, though, if someone would eat no other greens then it would be
far better that they be eating iceberg lettuce than no greens at all.

--
Rhonda Anderson
Cranebrook, NSW, Australia

Nancy Young said:

"Peter A" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm arguing for a sense of balance. There are several posters that
are of
the opinion that their taxes will drop dramatically if only welfare
programs
were eliminated or if welfare waste was eliminated.

I haven't noticed anyone saying they thought their taxes would
go down, guess I missed that. I see people saying that the money
should go towards nutritional food, not Twinkies. I also see that
some people who really need the help are not able to get it despite
a long history of working hard, where other people seem to know
how to work the system.

Apparently if you're single, you are SOL if you need some help buying
food, for instance. Along those lines, I think that's where a lot of
the disgruntlement comes into play.

Only someone really optimistic would think that their taxes would go
down if welfare was eliminated, and I don't think anyone here said
one word that welfare should be.

nancy

I think the real point when taxes were mentioned was not that taxes would go
down. The point is food stamps are funded by our tax dollars. So yeah, why
should someone use them to buy twinkies and soda? The taxpayers should have
some say. And don't give me that whine about "then the kids couldn't have
any treats". Not so. There are plenty of necessary items (like toilet
paper) and unnecessary items (like beer) that aren't covered by food stamps.
If recipients can come up with money to by toilet paper, beer, etc. they can
surely buy a box of twinkies without using food stamps.

Jill

Janet Bostwick said:

"Peter A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

> This is a false dichotomy. It isn't an either/or proposition.
> You do not simply ignore waste in one area, because it occurs in
> another.
>
> Regards,
> Ranee
I'm arguing for a sense of balance. There are several posters that
are of
the opinion that their taxes will drop dramatically if only welfare
programs
were eliminated or if welfare waste was eliminated. If you are
going to scrutinize welfare waste and vote(you should) how you
think your welfare money should be spent, you should also
scrutinize other areas of government
waste and vote to correct that as well. [censored] about individual
examples
of welfare waste is an easy thing to do. Paying attention to what
is going
on in local, state and federal government and participating to make
changes
that work is harder.
Janet

I agree 100%. If you are against government waste then you should
rail against the worst waste, which is certainly not in welfare
programs. Some people are really against welfare, but because that
sounds mean they convince themselves that they are really against
"waste."

--
Peter Aitken

It's interesting to read the comments about how an individual doesn't
qualify for a particular welfare program that would help them to
survive or better themselves, yet the same individual wants to screw
down benefits to others -- never realizing that the more you restrict
the welfare programs the less is available to help people like them
in marginal circumstances. Janet

If the individual already doesn't qualify it won't hurt them one bit if the
regulations are tightened to prevent abuse of the system by others. The
individual still isn't going to qualify.

Jill

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dave Smith said:

Dan Abel said:

Quoted message said:

Iceberg lettuce has very little nutritional value, but the same is not
true for darker green lettuces or spinach or other leafy greens.

We hashed this out on another thread. Iceberg lettuce does in fact have
a lot of nutritional value. All other lettuces have more, sometimes
significantly more. Still, iceberg lettuce is not a nutritional
wasteland.

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

Not a wasteland, but there is not a lot of food value to it. First of all,
it is almost all water, almost 96%.

Unlike romaine, which has almost no water in it. Romaine has a little
tiny bit less than 95% water, which of course is far less than 96%.

:-(

Quoted message said:

A serving of it will provide 6% of the
recommended daily allowance of Vitamin A , 3% of the RDA for Vtamin C, 1%
of the RDA for calcium and iron. It contains some other vitamins and
minerals. There is very little energy in it, but it is a decent source of
fibre.

It doesn't do too well with the vitamins.

--
Dan Abel
[email hidden]
Petaluma, California, USA

In article <[email hidden]>,

Rhonda Anderson said:

Dan Abel <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Rhonda Anderson said:

Iceberg lettuce has very little nutritional value, but the same is
not true for darker green lettuces or spinach or other leafy greens.

We hashed this out on another thread. Iceberg lettuce does in fact
have a lot of nutritional value. All other lettuces have more,
sometimes significantly more. Still, iceberg lettuce is not a
nutritional wasteland.

Perhaps I should have worded it differently - iceberg lettuce has very
little nutritional value compared to other leafy greens.

Quoted message said:

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

I looked at this and also did a little more research. Iceberg does have
more nutritional value than I (and many others) had believed, although I
don't know if I'd call it "a lot" compared to other vegies I eat. I do
enjoy iceberg for the crunch. However, in terms of nutritional bang for
my bite <g> I think I'd still choose other greens.

Iceberg lettuce doesn't fare well when compared to other lettuces or
veggies, nutritionally. I just don't like seeing "very little nutrional
value", because that isn't true, especially when compared to junk food.

Once in a while I prefer the texture of iceberg for certain purposes.

--
Dan Abel
[email hidden]
Petaluma, California, USA

Meghan Noecker said:

Dave Smith said:

Meghan Noecker said:

Minimum wage is NOT going to fix the problem.

First of all, minimum wage is for starter jobs. Everybody has to
start somewhere. They are not meant to be lifetime jobs.

Most of the businesses complaining are those that hire starting
employees, hence the minimum wage. And the cost to the company is
higher than the wage. For example, the employer pays a fee for health
coverage (if they offer it). That fee is based on the wage, so that
also goes up when the minimum wage goes up.

Ahem. You don't know a damned thing about group health insurance. The
insurance premiums are *not* based on employee wages. It's called "spread
of risk". Premiums for group health are determined based on the number of
lives to be covered, not on what they earn. The premiums do not increase if
their wages go up. The premiums are also based on the level of risk of the
business.

Ask me how I know. I'm a licensed health insurance agent and worked for
years in the business in one form or another. If you have a company of 30
people, the spread of risk (to the insurance company) is lower than if you
insure a group of 5 people. Chances are 1 out of five are going to have a
major health problem. On the other hand, 1 out of thirty, better odds.

Jill

In article <[email hidden]>,

Janet Bostwick said:

I'm arguing for a sense of balance. There are several posters that are of
the opinion that their taxes will drop dramatically if only welfare programs
were eliminated or if welfare waste was eliminated. If you are going to
scrutinize welfare waste and vote(you should) how you think your welfare
money should be spent, you should also scrutinize other areas of government
waste and vote to correct that as well. [censored] about individual examples
of welfare waste is an easy thing to do. Paying attention to what is going
on in local, state and federal government and participating to make changes
that work is harder.

I don't think anyone suggested that taxes would be lower, nor that
welfare be eliminated, nor that other examples of waste should be
tolerated. It wasn't relevant to the discussion to bring in other
examples of government waste. Governments waste money. I just wish
that there were ways to at least eliminate abuse from being part of the
system.

Regards,
Ranee

Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/

In article <[email hidden]>,

Nancy Young said:

I haven't noticed anyone saying they thought their taxes would
go down, guess I missed that. I see people saying that the money
should go towards nutritional food, not Twinkies. I also see that
some people who really need the help are not able to get it despite
a long history of working hard, where other people seem to know
how to work the system.

Exactly.

Quoted message said:

Apparently if you're single, you are SOL if you need some help buying
food, for instance. Along those lines, I think that's where a lot of the
disgruntlement comes into play.

If you are single with kids, you can make a killing, especially since
it is so easy not to report income from a live in.

Quoted message said:

Only someone really optimistic would think that their taxes would go
down if welfare was eliminated, and I don't think anyone here said
one word that welfare should be.

I don't think anyone did, but I may have missed it.

Regards,
Ranee

Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/