So, with all the complaining and threats of lawsuits against McDonalds and other fastfood places, BK has decided tweak their menu with an all new item:
Basically they looked at a Triple Whopper and said, "What's with the tomato and lettuce?" Thus the BK Stacker has only meat, cheese and bacon. It's like declaring war on the hearts of America, literally.
I guess that lettuce, tomato and onion stuff, the only healthy pieces of the sandwich, was just getting in the way. This is what REAL men eat!
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
Have you seen the advertisment for this? It has people building the sandwiches as if the sandwiches are huge, like building sized. The people, are also migits which was just beyond weird when I saw this ad.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Creepy midgets too. I wasn't a fan of the commercial. Then again, I've hated the last 2 years of BK commercials, it's part of why I never go there.
I remember one where they had the human Whopper, made up of people wearing ingredient costumes. They've had some of the stupidest commercials I've ever seen. I refuse to contribute to that.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:But let me run down the numbers for the Quad Stacker, which has a half a pound of meat in between all that cheese and bacon.
It has 1,000 calories, 68 grams of fat and 30 grams of saturated fat. That is more fat than most adults should have in an entire day.
Again, damn.
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
I know we all choose our own poison, but this is ridiculous. How can something like this sell? I thought the country as a whole was trying to be more health-conscious. Isn't that why all of these fast food places have added salads to their menus? What happened to that?
I liked this part:
quote:Why did Burger King decide to launch the Stacker line? Spokeswoman Hayes tells me it all comes down to choice.
"We're just offering people an alternative," she says. "So when you feel like indulging there's something for you." And she adds, with a straight face, "of course everything in moderation."
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The Whopper line has more calories, it appears. A double whopper with cheese is almost 1000 calories, while a double stacker is 660.
Differences all across the board, but it ends up being less meat, smaller bun, and either less sauce or a sauce that has less fat than the mayo on the whopper line up.
Another thing to remember is that many people on Atkins go to these places and deconstruct the burger to toss out carbs. It's a lot easier to do if the thing isn't loaded up with other stuff. Their spokesperson doesn't mention that, but I know lots of people who can't bring themselves to order fast food burgers without the bun, but would be happy to have one that comes apart more easily.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
According to Advertising Age, this is just another in the trend to get men's business. Wendy's has a similar "man" burger, and so does Hardee's. The article was talking about how men associate appetite with manliness, and like to see themselves as hardy enough to eat like that since they're young and strong.
But I only read a few paragraphs as I was checking the journal into our library. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Then I guess the Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger, no fries or drink, that I get from Wendy's isn't exactly 'manly', then.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yeah, and where does the "Whimpie burger" fall on this scale?
"I would gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Meh. This is child's play. At Rutgers University they have the Grease Trucks, and their signature "Fat" sandwiches. In fact, the "Fat Darrell" won Maxim's 'best sandwich in the country' accolades.
My favorite Fat sandwich is the Fat Beach, which is comprised of: cheese steak, chicken fingers, mozzarella sticks, bacon, lettuce, tomato, mayo, ketchup, and french fries.. all stuffed into a sub roll for $5.00.
It's awesome.
I also heard on the radio about this monstrosity, which is a bacon cheeseburger served, not on a bun, but on a glazed krispy kreme donut.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
When I was on the Appalachian Trail, in one day I ate 7500+ calories. Those Little Debbie iced honeybuns ... 530 calories. Oh yeah. Mmmm ... I now keep one stocked in my car at all times, so when I get a craving I can chow down.
Just thought I'd share that before I say that I plan on having a BK Stacker for lunch today. I'm curious, what can I say?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
>_>
It sounds pretty good to me at the moment, too. But I brought lunch today.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Yeah, how bad is it that I can't stop thinking about how good all of that meat and cheese sounds? I would have to add mayo though. Golly I'm a glutton.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I am thinking that Burger King is smarter than McDonalds. McDonalds tries to pretend that they are healthy by offering an "Asian Salad" and putting pictures of atheletes on their soft drink cups, but I doubt anyone is fooled. Burger King at least realizes what they are, and why people go there... and offers them what they have come looking for.
Then again, the Stacker doesn't sound like it would taste good. I'd rather have the lettuce and tomato. If I'm at Burger King, I'll be getting the Whopper still. And if I'm trying to be extra healthy... well... I won't be at Burger King in the first place.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Funny little side note about the commercial, the main dwarf actor (I always forget his name) went to my college and spoke to my theatre class my freshman year.
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
Dr Strangelove - didn't you mention you gained 17 pounds on the Appalachian trail? Just asking... Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Well, of all the national fast food chains, Burger King has the best-tasting patties. Could be worse.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote: I plan on having a BK Stacker for lunch today. I'm curious, what can I say?
This is why it's a problem, right here. How many people would never have thought they needed 3 or 4 burgers, but now that it's out there, they have to try it? It's MANLY. I guess many people will look at it and say it's ridiculous, but there are some who will just get it because they saw it and it looks good ... but they'd never eat that much if it wasn't suggested to them. Thank you SO much for the suggestion, BK.
Of course, I love me a Whopper with cheese. So I really shouldn't talk. Although in the past year or so I've switched to a Whopper Jr. Trying to be a little bit healthier.
And the healthy menus thing - Even though the Whopper tastes better, we go to Wendy's now because you can replace your fries with a salad or baked potato or yogurt. So the restaurants who are offering healthier choices really are getting business from it ... at least mine.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I had a major craving for McDonalds after watching "Supersize Me." Anyone else want to admit they did, too?
And the last I knew, no guns are pointed at people's heads saying they have to choose the huge calorie stuff, although those drive through order screens would be a good place to put one.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I tried the smallest of the Stackers, and it was pretty good, but it was pretty much all in the sauce. From now on I'll just order the other sandwiches, but with the stacker sauce instead of the normal ketchup/mayonnaise/what have you. The whopper jr. is economical and much tastier with the stacker sauce.
I don't order burger king a huge amount, but its the only real choice for quick, really cheap, filling food that isn't a cookie in our student union (we have lots of decent food if you're willing to spend $3 to $4, but try to spend under $2 on a meal and its burger king).
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:It's MANLY.
That's a tad offensive. I would be interested in trying the sammich because it has beef, bacon and cheese on it and I like beef, bacon and cheese. It has nothing to do with the tools between my legs and/or a need to prove anything about them.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Be offended at the fast food establishments, then, because that's exactly their tactic... Manly men have big appetites, and prove it by chowing down on our sandwich.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:
quote: It's MANLY.
That's a tad offensive....
Alright, sorry. What I meant was that to some people, it seems like a challenge. "Look at this huge sandwich! Are you hungry enough to eat it?"
And I have no problem with the ingredients, really; they're not any less healthy than other BK sandwiches; I'm just annoyed with the amount on those huge ones. SO unnecessary, and it only serves to put ideas in peoples' heads who wouldn't have tried to eat that much otherwise. Yes, of course people are responsible for their own choices. BK is entirely within their rights to offer it. But it isn't helping, and I'm disgusted by it.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
What's really offensive is their ad campaign.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elizabeth: I had a major craving for McDonalds after watching "Supersize Me." Anyone else want to admit they did, too?
After watching that and listening to an NPR show about the impact of fast food on the environment I was repulsed. I haven't even been to the McDonald's near my house even though I've been here fo 4 years... Burger King on the other hand, I've snagged a few Jr. Whoppers there, but their stupid commercials make me never want to go there again. I don't want to encourage them.
quote:What's really offensive is their ad campaign.
Indeed. Especially that stupid "I am Man." commercial. Everytime I see it I have to turn down the volume and get annoyed.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:This is why it's a problem, right here. How many people would never have thought they needed 3 or 4 burgers, but now that it's out there, they have to try it? It's MANLY.
I wanna try it because I only like my burgers to be meat, cheese, and ketchup. And it's really annoying when fast food places dump all that crap on top of them. Fast food lettuce is nasty.
-pH
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
"Especially that stupid "I am Man." commercial. Everytime I see it I have to turn down the volume and get annoyed."
I instictively sing along to it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I had a major craving for McDonalds after watching "Supersize Me." Anyone else want to admit they did, too?
ABSOLUTELY. I don't like McDonald's, but after watching that movie, I almost went straight out to eat there.
This entire thread is making me want to eat meat and cheese.
Meat and cheese.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: So, with all the complaining and threats of lawsuits against McDonalds and other fastfood places, BK has decided tweak their menu with an all new item
To what degree do you all think that fast food companies should be liable for this? Should surgeon generals warnings about trans fats be posted? Should publishing nutritional info fulfil their liability (something McDonald's and Burger King are very good at, but others like Quizno's won't do)?
Everytime I think about fast food companies, the comparison to cigarette companies a few decades ago comes to mind. Do you think this is a fair comparison?
Edit: Sorry, I forgot to include my opinion. I think fast food companies should not be liable if they make nutrition information available onsite at the time of ordering. I think there should be a fast food 'sin' tax. I think all restaraunts should be required to provide nutritional information, much the same way it is required to be on foods sold in the market.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I am angry. Burger King won't let me access their website. What's the smallest size of stacker and nutrition info?
-pH
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I think that when our obesity epidemic gets to a certain point, we will pass legislation to put calorie labels on all advertising and menus. Your reciept should tell you the total of all calories you purchased.
So you'd pull up to the drive through, and next to those pictures of the food will be "1200 calories", "900 calories" and so on. Then say you order a whopper, fries, and an extra large drink. Your reciept would then say "2300 calories" at the bottom.
There would be a surgeon general's warning on all food establishment menus stating something to the effect of "To maintain a normal weight, most people require between 1700 and 2200 calories per day. Meals served at this establishment contain that many calories in one sitting. Without either large quantities of exercise, or moderation in food choice, you will gain weight by regularly eating here."
And you know what? I think I would be in favor of such legislation. It would still allow people to eat whatever the hell they want, but it would at least make sure you know what you are doing.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
quote: And you know what? I think I would be in favor of such legislation. It would still allow people to eat whatever the hell they want, but it would at least make sure you know what you are doing.
I'm not in favor of such legislation. It strikes me as government intervention for little reason.
But either way, I don't think it'll make the slightest difference. People just don't care.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phanto:
quote: And you know what? I think I would be in favor of such legislation. It would still allow people to eat whatever the hell they want, but it would at least make sure you know what you are doing.
I'm not in favor of such legislation. It strikes me as government intervention for little reason.
But either way, I don't think it'll make the slightest difference. People just don't care.
As long as I can have low health insurance and care costs, it doesn't concern me either-as long as people are at least informed. However, if I'm footing the bill for people's poor health through other legislation, then I darn well want it to be subsidized by those engaging in the self-destructive behavior.
Edit: It's kind of the same way I saw things in the motorcycle helmet thread awhile back. If I have to pay a portion of the $4 million for some idiot that got himself killed by not wearing a helmet, then I either want them to be forced to wear a helmet or not have my taxes pay for it.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
There also used to be a place in Oregon City that served "monster burgers" that were roughly the size of a dinner plate. Most people would share them, but apparently the rule was that if you could eat the whole thing yourself, you got it for free. (that's manly, fer sher)
As I understand it, no one had ever gotten one for free.
I'm also in favor of a law requiring nutritional labeling.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I would think the burger would be easier to eat than a 72 oz steak, and I know people have finished that.
I don't know how they've finished that, mind you, but they have.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: I also heard on the radio about this monstrosity, which is a bacon cheeseburger served, not on a bun, but on a glazed krispy kreme donut.
That is just...horrifying and wrong.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Must eat meat...
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I had a double stacker for lunch. I just don't have the appetite to eat something like the quad stacker anymore. I remember having a triple whopper when those came out and being unable to eat any fries or drink much soda. I felt like crap.
Hell, I always feel like crap after I indulge in the joys of fatty meat.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
Way to destroy a perfectly good donut and a perfectly good cheeseburger.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
That sounds pretty good. I've never been a big fan of lettuce, tomatoes, etc. on hamburgers, and I like bacon cheeseburgers. This would just be more of the same. But I might not eat this to keep it from becoming a habit.
I think some chain should come out with "bacon nuggets": bacon strips tied up into balls and then breaded and cooked like chicken nuggets.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
The stuff sounds really really good, but I know its gonna come back and bite me in the butt someday.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: That sounds pretty good. I've never been a big fan of lettuce, tomatoes, etc. on hamburgers, and I like bacon cheeseburgers. This would just be more of the same. But I might not eat this to keep it from becoming a habit.
I think some chain should come out with "bacon nuggets": bacon strips tied up into balls and then breaded and cooked like chicken nuggets.
McGreasenuggets!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Those who think this sounds good: do you like the Ultimate Bacon Cheeseburger at Yack in the Crack?
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I've never been there but I know the best place in Virginia to get burgers is Five Guys. They're expensive but really good.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Every time I go to a fair, I hope that they have deep fried twinkies. So far, no luck.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: So, with all the complaining and threats of lawsuits against McDonalds and other fastfood places, BK has decided tweak their menu with an all new item
To what degree do you all think that fast food companies should be liable for this? Should surgeon generals warnings about trans fats be posted? Should publishing nutritional info fulfil their liability (something McDonald's and Burger King are very good at, but others like Quizno's won't do)?
Everytime I think about fast food companies, the comparison to cigarette companies a few decades ago comes to mind. Do you think this is a fair comparison?
Edit: Sorry, I forgot to include my opinion. I think fast food companies should not be liable if they make nutrition information available onsite at the time of ordering. I think there should be a fast food 'sin' tax. I think all restaraunts should be required to provide nutritional information, much the same way it is required to be on foods sold in the market.
I don't think they should be liable to be sued at all. People KNOW that fast food is bad for them, which is why Supersize Me is so odd. Who would eat THAT much fastfood and not expect consequences?
But even so, most of the places have nutritional information right on the packaging, especially Mcdonalds, who has individualized wrappers with info on them for every item. It's no longer their responsibility afterwards.
However. I've long been in favor of a sin tax on fast food. Cigarettes have incredible taxes on them in many (most?) states. It deters some, but not all. Part of the problem with fast food is just that, it's fast, but it's also cheap mostly. I lived off the 99 cent menu at McDonalds for a year before I finally told myself that it was just too unhealthy (well I didn't LIVE off it, but I ate way, way too much). It's cheap and it hits the spot. Make it more expensive, and maybe people will consider healthier alternatives. I do think it is great that some of the fast food places are trying to offer healthy alternatives like salads and such.
I think all the money collected from the tax should go directly into healthcare of some sort. I think in the same way that health insurance companies ask if you smoke when they check you out, they should also ask about your eating habits. Someone who doesn't smoke, drink, or eat fast food should not have to pay the same as someone who does all three. The smoker, drinker, FF eater's life is inherently LESS healthy and will CERTAINLY cost more of the insurance company in the long run, they should have to pay for that lifestyle choice.
I don't think government intervention beyond taxing is required at all. You can rename the food items to their caloric content, "Yeah, I'll have a double 900, and a 1,200 please. And give me the 600 cal Coke," and people still won't stop eating there.
I think if you want to force people to make better health decisions, and force them to own up to their decisions, you have to hit them where you always try to hit Americans for such things, in their wallets. If someone is going to be willfully ignorant about the damage they are doing to their own health, just wait and see how long it takes them to be just as ignorant when they have to start pinching pennies.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Cigarettes have incredible taxes on them in many (most?) states. It deters some, but not all.
My understanding is that it deters almost no one.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: So, with all the complaining and threats of lawsuits against McDonalds and other fastfood places, BK has decided tweak their menu with an all new item:
Basically they looked at a Triple Whopper and said, "What's with the tomato and lettuce?" Thus the BK Stacker has only meat, cheese and bacon. It's like declaring war on the hearts of America, literally.
I guess that lettuce, tomato and onion stuff, the only healthy pieces of the sandwich, was just getting in the way. This is what REAL men eat!
You didnt see this trend about a year ago when they introduced the "Monster Omelette?" They (food critics) were referring to it as "Food Porn" it was so fattening.
[ July 19, 2006, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I don't think fast food should be made more expensive.
I mean, seriously. Without the Big Bell Value Menu, how are college students supposed to eat at 4am?! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
In all honesty though, I think just making the calorie content available on the package/menu is enough. I think that's about where the responsibility ends. No need to beat people over the head about it. They can go home and eat a gallon of butter if they want; that's their right.
-pH
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
or people could go to Subway.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Cigarettes have incredible taxes on them in many (most?) states. It deters some, but not all.
Huh. My mistake.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
m_p_h, come to Minnesota at the end of August/beginning of September! We have deep fried twinkies on a stick at the state fair!
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: So, with all the complaining and threats of lawsuits against McDonalds and other fastfood places, BK has decided tweak their menu with an all new item
To what degree do you all think that fast food companies should be liable for this? Should surgeon generals warnings about trans fats be posted? Should publishing nutritional info fulfil their liability (something McDonald's and Burger King are very good at, but others like Quizno's won't do)?
Everytime I think about fast food companies, the comparison to cigarette companies a few decades ago comes to mind. Do you think this is a fair comparison?
Edit: Sorry, I forgot to include my opinion. I think fast food companies should not be liable if they make nutrition information available onsite at the time of ordering. I think there should be a fast food 'sin' tax. I think all restaraunts should be required to provide nutritional information, much the same way it is required to be on foods sold in the market.
I don't think they should be liable to be sued at all. People KNOW that fast food is bad for them, which is why Supersize Me is so odd. Who would eat THAT much fastfood and not expect consequences?
But even so, most of the places have nutritional information right on the packaging, especially Mcdonalds, who has individualized wrappers with info on them for every item. It's no longer their responsibility afterwards.
However. I've long been in favor of a sin tax on fast food. Cigarettes have incredible taxes on them in many (most?) states. It deters some, but not all. Part of the problem with fast food is just that, it's fast, but it's also cheap mostly. I lived off the 99 cent menu at McDonalds for a year before I finally told myself that it was just too unhealthy (well I didn't LIVE off it, but I ate way, way too much). It's cheap and it hits the spot. Make it more expensive, and maybe people will consider healthier alternatives. I do think it is great that some of the fast food places are trying to offer healthy alternatives like salads and such.
I think all the money collected from the tax should go directly into healthcare of some sort. I think in the same way that health insurance companies ask if you smoke when they check you out, they should also ask about your eating habits. Someone who doesn't smoke, drink, or eat fast food should not have to pay the same as someone who does all three. The smoker, drinker, FF eater's life is inherently LESS healthy and will CERTAINLY cost more of the insurance company in the long run, they should have to pay for that lifestyle choice.
I don't think government intervention beyond taxing is required at all. You can rename the food items to their caloric content, "Yeah, I'll have a double 900, and a 1,200 please. And give me the 600 cal Coke," and people still won't stop eating there.
I think if you want to force people to make better health decisions, and force them to own up to their decisions, you have to hit them where you always try to hit Americans for such things, in their wallets. If someone is going to be willfully ignorant about the damage they are doing to their own health, just wait and see how long it takes them to be just as ignorant when they have to start pinching pennies.
I would fight a "sin" tax on fast food to the death, although I agree it would make sense for insurance companies to ask that sort of information. It might be mildly redundant, though, since that sort of thing is generally apparent after an extensive physical.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I can already see the health code violations
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Deep-friend Oreos at the Texas State fair are the heavenly road treats in the handbasket to hell.
Calories eaten at fairs don't count.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Well, I put my money where my mouth was and rode my bike to Burger King for lunch to order the double BK stacker and a water. I eat 6 times a day, at about 600 calories a meal. The double stacker has 610 calories, which was just right-however fat content is way above what I would normally eat and complex carbs way down. With the exception of subway, I've hardly had any fast food in the last several months, so I was interested to see how I would react.
Honestly after eating it, I wasn't full. I could have easily eaten another, or eaten the quad instead. That's funny, because usually it's really hard for me to eat all my food in the meals I prepare. Probably the most interesting thing is that now, a full 45 minutes after eating it, I'm finally getting a full feeling from my stomach. Yet I still want to eat more food, especially something sugary....crazy.
As I was savoring the sauce, I happened to glance at the wrapper. It had 'double,' 'triple,' and 'quad' in brackets with the rather pointed question, "How do you stack up?" Needless to say, I felt somewhat ashamed at the size of my burger and diminished manhood. Whoever was saying that it was kind of the thrust of BK's advertising strategy may have hit the nail on the head.
Lyr-I wasn't advocating excessive government regulation. I think once cigarette companies started posting surgeon generals warnings on their packs, the company responsibility ended and personal responsibility began.
mph-I don't necessarily advocate the tax for reasons of deterance. My main motivation is I would want it to be used to offset the associated health care costs.
Edited to clarify
[ July 19, 2006, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: BaoQingTian ]
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Bao, was it good?
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Deep-friend Oreos at the Texas State fair are the heavenly road treats in the handbasket to hell.
Calories eaten at fairs don't count.
Some of our products include batter kits and deep fryers for cookies & candy bars. We actually sell a machine specifically designed to fry 16 snickers bars in batter simultaneously.
A year ago, I might have found that appealing if I saw it at the fair. Now, I'm just really grossed out by anything deep fried, to the point of needing to pretend things like french fries are made through some other magical process.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I would fight a "sin" tax on fast food to the death
Please tell me you don't really mean this. Are you really willing to die for this cause?
quote:m_p_h, come to Minnesota at the end of August/beginning of September! We have deep fried twinkies on a stick at the state fair!
While I'm sure I'd enjoy that, I don't see it happening.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I really like fried mozzarella sticks.
They need to be made more available to the public.
In Florida, the Muvico theatres offer cheese sticks with curly fries. Oh, so tasty. So, so tasty.
-pH
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I wonder if SpongeBob Squarepants has had a negative or positive effect on the fast food industry. I mean millions of kids watch it and Spongebob is a fry cook...
edit is to if
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity: I would fight a "sin" tax on fast food to the death, although I agree it would make sense for insurance companies to ask that sort of information. It might be mildly redundant, though, since that sort of thing is generally apparent after an extensive physical.
It's not just private health care that takes a hit though:
quote:According to a study of national costs attributed to both overweight (BMI 25–29.9) and obesity (BMI greater than 30), medical expenses accounted for 9.1 percent of total U.S. medical expenditures in 1998 and may have reached as high as $78.5 billion ($92.6 billion in 2002 dollars) (Finkelstein, Fiebelkorn, and Wang, 2003). Approximately half of these costs were paid by Medicaid and Medicare.
Also remember, that data is 8 years old. With the skyrocketing costs of healthcare and further increase in the obesity epidemic since then, the real numbers are probably staggeringly high.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity: I would fight a "sin" tax on fast food to the death, although I agree it would make sense for insurance companies to ask that sort of information. It might be mildly redundant, though, since that sort of thing is generally apparent after an extensive physical.
It's not just private health care that takes a hit though:
quote:According to a study of national costs attributed to both overweight (BMI 25–29.9) and obesity (BMI greater than 30), medical expenses accounted for 9.1 percent of total U.S. medical expenditures in 1998 and may have reached as high as $78.5 billion ($92.6 billion in 2002 dollars) (Finkelstein, Fiebelkorn, and Wang, 2003). Approximately half of these costs were paid by Medicaid and Medicare.
Also remember, that data is 8 years old. With the skyrocketing costs of healthcare and further increase in the obesity epidemic since then, the real numbers are probably staggeringly high.
I was trying to avoid pointing this out, since inevitably it will start a massive firefight between me and, well, everyone else, but I am also vehemently opposed to gov't-funded free public health care.
Edit to add: "gov't-funded"
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Oh, it was so tasty...I felt almost dirty eating it Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I gotta have one sometime Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I would fight a "sin" tax on fast food to the death, although I agree it would make sense for insurance companies to ask that sort of information. It might be mildly redundant, though, since that sort of thing is generally apparent after an extensive physical.
Are their health risks from eating that sort of stuff that wouldn't show up on a physical? Also, many health insurance places don't even make you take a physical, they just send you a form to fill out and bang, you're covered. I don't know as much about the health care industry as I feel I should, but I think they should be a bit more strict on their information gathering and billing.
But I still support the sin tax. You might think it counts as government interference, but I think it'd be the act of a responsible government looking out for its citizens. People smoke, knowing it causes cancer, they drink excessively, knowing it ruins their liver, and they eat horrible food to excess, knowing it does a half dozen bad things to their body. Double the price of a cheeseburger and make health alternatives more realistically purchaseable, and I wouldn't call it unnecessary government intervention, I'd call it responsible government.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I want to know exactly how you would define what is "fast food", requiring the sin tax, and what is not.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Play it. it will blow ur mind.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I would fight a "sin" tax on fast food to the death
Please tell me you don't really mean this. Are you really willing to die for this cause?
No, I am not really willing to die for that cause, except insofar as I would be willing to die if it meant the United States (and, heck, the world) adopting my political agenda as its own.
Even that's a pretty safe statement, since there's just about zero chance of that ever happening!
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I like Xavier's idea. My diet plan is just calorie counting (works remarkable well since some days I NEED a cookie and counting I can do that and still be ok). Eating out is a total pain cause I have no clue what I am eating. Some places are very good about calories and some are impossible to find and with special sauces and such, guessing is difficult. I would like to believe that if people actually understood what they were eating, they would stop. How many people really go into DQ and order desert knowing it represents a large meals worth of calories? I might have too much faith in my fellow man. I do still eat at DQ very occassionally- before I was pregnant, only when I saved up calories to justify it or worked out many, many hours. Being pregnant, I give myself a bit more leeway.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
mph-
That's a good question, one that did bug me at the time of posting my suggestion. Any system, to be fair, would probably have to be a question of ratios of fats and sugars to total caloric content.
That way salads wouldn't be taxed, but many of the dressings would be. So rather than restaraunts being singled out by classification, menu items would determine sin tax status.
While it's a simple idea in theory, I'll be the first to acknowledge that there would be a lot of implementation and practical issues to work through.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
What might happen is that the restuarants could simply order less dressing while selling the same amount of dressing to the customers. The dressing would just be all watery.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: What might happen is that the restuarants could simply order less dressing while selling the same amount of dressing to the customers. The dressing would just be all watery.
You lost me.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
say a resturant orders 5 gallons of dressing a month. in order to decrease the amount of money they would have to pay cuz of taxes, they just order 4 gallons, and use water to make up for the dressing. That way they would actually be paying less taxes, since taxes are based on calories.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Well, they have to serve less dressing then- which would be advantageous, would it not?
If a salad used to have 5 tbs of dressing on it, they go to 4 tbs and make up the 1 tbs with water. Water has 0 calories. So the customer is actually getting less fatty, sugary, dressing, although volume would appear to be the same.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If you only get taxed more for the dressing but not the salad, maybe they'll start selling raw french fries, which are healthy, and then fry them as a free service to customers.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Well, they have to serve less dressing then- which would be advantageous, would it not?
If a salad used to have 5 tbs of dressing on it, they go to 4 tbs and make up the 1 tbs with water. Water has 0 calories. So the customer is actually getting less fatty, sugary, dressing, although volume would appear to be the same.
thats the point. They're paying less taxes while serving basically the same amount of dressing. Its just that they took out some dressing and added water intead.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:thats the point. They're paying less taxes while serving basically the same amount of dressing. Its just that they took out some dressing and added water intead.
Then it's not the same amount of dressing. Less dressing is better for the health, and the law would be working.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
And also people stop eating the dressing because it tastes watered down...so either way, the pro-health people win.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
not if the watered down dressing forces people to get more dressing to make up for it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Watered down doesn't mean less, it'll just effect the taste.
I mean, if something tasted bad and there wasn't enough of it, would you order MORE to make up for it?
Quite frankly, I think everyone here would stop eating ranch dressing if they had to make a batch of it. ::shudders:: I didn't eat ranch for a month after I had to make it at work once.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Most restaurants don't charge extra for extra dressing. The restaurants could just provide, by default, a teeny amount of dressing, and get charged a teeny amount of sin tax. Then they can give the customer more dressing when they ask for it.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Most restaurants don't charge extra for extra dressing. The restaurants could just provide, by default, a teeny amount of dressing, and get charged a teeny amount of sin tax. Then they can give the customer more dressing when they ask for it.
I think that was sorta what I was trying to say but I got confused.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
This all reminds me of how whenever I order sweet and sour sauce for my fries at Mcdonalds about 90% of the time I get it for free about 10% of the time I get told it will cost me 15 cents. Are all Mcdonalds aware of this policy and some simply find it too obnoxious to deal with customers who complain about the inconcistancy? (like me <grin>) Or is it done on a franchise by franchise basis?
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I think theres a limit as to how much you can get before they start charging.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I had the Quad for lunch and I’m hungry now! Man… this stinks.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
I think they're sposed to charge, but it's rather silly and embarassing to say things like that so most people don't. That's just my impression, though.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I seriously want to have one, they seem really good.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: If you only get taxed more for the dressing but not the salad, maybe they'll start selling raw french fries, which are healthy, and then fry them as a free service to customers.
I have confidence in government lawyers to address this and similar issues when drafting a law, and local public health departments for enforcing it.
I see your point about the dressing scenario, but that would be fundamentally dishonest to do- kind of like only including 1 fry in an order of fries, but giving them up to a scoop if asked.
It's possible to cheat about any law out there.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I have confidence in government lawyers to address this and similar issues when drafting a law, and local public health departments for enforcing it.
I don't.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
So what's your main objection to this mph? Is it the idea of an additional tax on unhealthy fast food, or is a practical objection to the ideas I've thrown around on how to implement it?
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Maybe we should just tax cows...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I have more faith in the local health department enforcing it than I do in the government to legislate it. The Health Department here is like the Gourmand Gestapo.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:So what's your main objection to this mph? Is it the idea of an additional tax on unhealthy fast food, or is a practical objection to the ideas I've thrown around on how to implement it?
I havne't said that I have any objections to it.
I have concerns that any such law would add a lot of beurecracy and red tape without really accomplishing its goals.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I see, thanks. One of the big things to be careful with would be to administer it in such a way that the overhead is minimized and most of the revenue goes straight to health care & where it's supposed to.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't really think it'd be that much of an added burden. We alreay have the system in place to deal with this issue, between health inspectors and the health care industry in general.
I think the simpler the better for this kind of venture. More complicated and it's likely to fall apart entirely.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: I see, thanks. One of the big things to be careful with would be to administer it in such a way that the overhead is minimized and most of the revenue goes straight to health care & where it's supposed to.
Wait -- which do you want to do with this law: raise money for health care costs or dissuade people from eating unhealthy foods? Those two are mutually exclusive goals.
If you want to raise money, you'll add low enough taxes so that it won't stop too many people from eating unhealthy food, because if they stop eating it, they'll stop paying the taxes.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: Maybe we should just tax cows...
Or the grass/hay upon which they feed.
Tax the cows food in order to indirectly tax the burgers we eat.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
If they stop eating fast food you won't need the extra money from the taxes.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Cows eat a lot of corn, which currently have a negative tax on them due to government subsidation.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: If they stop eating fast food you won't need the extra money from the taxes.
Possibly, but you still need to figure out what your goal is -- decrease the amount of fast food eaten, or raise money?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: If they stop eating fast food you won't need the extra money from the taxes.
Tax beef and donate the money to jobless, hippy, pot smoking vegans. Nothing would discourage me from eating fast food more.
No offence intended to the jobless, Pot Smokers, Hippies, or Vegans, just combinations of all 4.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
If its both then we have the solution don't we?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If its both then we have the solution don't we?
No you don't. You've got nothing. You can't really accomplish both with the same sin tax.
quote:Tax beef and donate the money to jobless, hippy, pot smoking vegans.
Gimme a porkburger!
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: I see, thanks. One of the big things to be careful with would be to administer it in such a way that the overhead is minimized and most of the revenue goes straight to health care & where it's supposed to.
Wait -- which do you want to do with this law: raise money for health care costs or dissuade people from eating unhealthy foods? Those two are mutually exclusive goals.
If you want to raise money, you'll add low enough taxes so that it won't stop too many people from eating unhealthy food, because if they stop eating it, they'll stop paying the taxes.
The goal would be to basically use a tax on fast food (and perhaps junk food in the supermarket as well) to offset the additional burden that obesity places on America's healthcare system.
You're right, as less people eat unhealthy, the tax collected would be less. However, there would be less money needed to offset obesity related health costs. So this is ok.
If people eat more unhealthy foods, then more tax will be collected to offset the additional health problems inherent with that.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:You're right, as less people eat unhealthy, the tax collected would be less. However, there would be less money needed to offset obesity related health costs. So this is ok.
If people eat more unhealthy foods, then more tax will be collected to offset the additional health problems inherent with that.
So which is your goal?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by pH: I wanna try it because I only like my burgers to be meat, cheese, and ketchup. And it's really annoying when fast food places dump all that crap on top of them. Fast food lettuce is nasty.
Oh man, I hear you about the lettuce. Probably the most appetizing thing ever is when I order a chicken sammich and, due to some horrible reaction of heat and mayo, I can see straight through the lettuce.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
I'm confused as to why Burger King would be catching any particular flak over this considering if nothing else this: Wendys has had the double quarter pounder as a mainstream item for years, has had the triple on the menu and has an easy option to make it a quadruple by "doubling the meat" (really just adding another patty)
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
mph- I don't think I'm understanding what you're getting at. I understand that they may seem to be contradictory, but they're really not. I would consider the program a success if the costs of obesity to our healthcare system are completely recouped by the tax. That's my goal.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:mph- I don't think I'm understanding what you're getting at. I understand that they may seem to be contradictory, but they're really not. I would consider the program a success if the costs of obesity to our healthcare system are completely recouped by the tax. That's my goal.
But how do you want to mainly accomplish that -- by raising enough money for health costs or by decreasing obesity?
They might be interchangable to you, as each one is merely an intermediate goal, but they are very different goals, with different justifications.
To some, one might be an acceptable goal but the other not.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I would say that they are different means to the same end.
Thinking about it, I guess my intermediate goal is to raise the money to offset obesity related health costs-not to decrease obesity. However, that being said, I believe a reduction in obesity is a likely side effect of this main goal due to the negative individual economic consequences.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
mph, the thing is (as long as you balance things right): as obesity is decreased so is the cost of obesity to the health care system and so is the tax raised.
So the short term is that obesity funds itself, but the long term is that as people are driven away from obesity they cease to fund it and it ceases to need funds.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I would say that they are different means to the same end.
I know. That's what I just said.
It is important which means you use.
quote:Thinking about it, I guess my intermediate goal is to raise the money to offset obesity related health costs-not to decrease obesity. However, that being said, I believe a reduction in obesity is a likely side effect of this main goal due to the negative individual economic consequences.
Are you planning on changing the amount of the sin tax over time?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Ah..I didn't see your last line when I started my last post. I think I see what you are getting at. No my goal is not to make people not fat. If that were the case then my idea would be an outright ban of unhealthy foods, not simply an extra tax.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:So the short term is that obesity funds itself, but the long term is that as people are driven away from obesity they cease to fund it and it ceases to need funds.
I don't think you can succeed at this unless you start the tax out relatively low, and then increase it over time.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Meh. This is child's play. At Rutgers University they have the Grease Trucks, and their signature "Fat" sandwiches. In fact, the "Fat Darrell" won Maxim's 'best sandwich in the country' accolades.
Those are good... almost worth going to New Brunswick for. Almost.
The Fat Derrell has chicken fingers, marinara and french fries, right?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Every time I go to a fair, I hope that they have deep fried twinkies. So far, no luck.
Come to Louisiana in the last week of April. My friends and I work the food booth for the parish fair for my grade school. We get bored and batter and deep fry everything around. Twinkies, snickers bars, slices of pizza, burritos, etc.
Be warned that the center of the twinky turns to molten lava.
Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
I didn't even know deep fried twinkies existed. Now I really really want one.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Deep fried Mars bars are better. Mmmm.... crunchy on the outside, gooey on the inside. Just the thing after a night in Scotland drinking scotch and pints.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Deep fried Mars bars are better. Mmmm.... crunchy on the outside, gooey on the inside. Just the thing after a night in Scotland drinking scotch and pints.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I would just like to let you all know that the whopper I had today after dinner is entirely YOUR fault. I couldn't stand reading this thread and not eating one. I'm in a tricky spot here when it comes to fast food. I've been trying extremely hard to gain weight for the past few years of my life. I'm 5'10, 16 years old, and weigh 135. And I'm very athletic so alot of that is muscle (at least it used to be). So I'm very skinny. And I hate it. I've been eating a decent amount of fast food for the past year or so, most of which came from Taco Bell. But I do not gain weight. No matter what. Drives me crazy. All I want is 10 pounds. My metabolism is way too fast and I have ADD so I also move around way too much during the day, so that doesn't help.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Why can't I have YOUR metabolism? I'm trying to LOSE weight. If I even eat a cookie it's stuck on my stomach and other places. It's why i can never eat fast food again.
Except for take out chinese food.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I'm reminded of a comedian I once saw perform:
"I'm on the Atkins diet now. Eat nothing but meat and cheese. I'm sure to lose weight... If I can ever take a %#@&!..."
I just don't eat hamburgers that much anymore, let alone monstrosities like BK's latest offering. My digestive system rebels.
I'll admit to a mean (possibly nostalgic) jones for Taco Bell now and again, though.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Again, I don't think it's the government's responsiblity to make sure people don't eat fast food.
Again, they can eat just as horribly at home. Are we going to start having the Food Police? "Put down the cupcake and back away slowly!"
-pH
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Thankfully, I don't think anyone in this thread has said that is their stated goal.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Again, I don't think it's the government's responsiblity to make sure people don't eat fast food.
Again, they can eat just as horribly at home. Are we going to start having the Food Police? "Put down the cupcake and back away slowly!"
-pH
And thus a new reality TV show is born. We should probably tax television as well. Doing so fights obesity and weans people off the idiot box at the same time.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Hmm. My indulgence in the Angus burger isn't healthy. 560 Calories (200 from fat), 22g of fat (8 Saturated fat, 1.5 transfat), and 13g of sugar.
Tastes good, though.
( I only eat out once or twice a week, and more frequently, I eat a sub sandwich, which usually proves more nutritious than the Angus burger from Burger King.)
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Thankfully, I don't think anyone in this thread has said that is their stated goal.
"Discourage people from eating fast food" is pretty close.
-pH
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Avatar300: And thus a new reality TV show is born. We should probably tax television as well. Doing so fights obesity and weans people off the idiot box at the same time.
In that case, let's tax the Internets. And books. Books keep people from exercising sometimes, too!
-pH
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Then we should subsidize Playboys, as those encourage exercise.
...er, I've heard.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
How, exactly, would we define the difference between healthy food and fast food, in order to tax one and not the other? I'm not sure there is any agreement on what is classified as "healthy" and it almost certainly varies from person to person. A tax high enough to seriously deter people from eating unhealthy foods would seriously harm ice cream parlors, bakeries, local diners, etc., in addition to big fast food chains. And it would almost certainly tax the poor far more heavily than the rich.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Thankfully, I don't think anyone in this thread has said that is their stated goal.
"Discourage people from eating fast food" is pretty close.
-pH
Again, this isn't the goal of the tax. The goal would be to offset the costs to Medicare, Medicaid, health care infrastructure, etc caused by obesity. MPH was quite patient in helping to define this as the goal of the plan.
They could eat themselves in to quadruple bypass territory for all I care...as long as they're not a burden to the healthcare system in doing so.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
So the purpose of this tax is to extract money from people who eat food that is bad for them.
I'm not terribly trilled about taking a group of people with serous problems (people who eat a lot of junk food and who are more likely to have health problems like diabetes, obesity, heart conditions, etc.) and giving them one more problem by increasing their taxes.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I'd think one of the goals of a tax like this would be to decrease the occurences or severity of some of those other problems you mentioned.
So called 'sin taxes' pretty much always add that problem (increased taxes) to the list.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Yet we already do it with alcoholics and tobacco addict mph. Why not that?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'd think one of the goals of a tax like this would be to decrease the occurences or severity of some of those other problems you mentioned.
Bao specifically said that this wasn't a goal.
As I said before, you can either design the tax to raise money, to decrease usage, or to do neither well.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I'd think one of the goals of a tax like this would be to decrease the occurences or severity of some of those other problems you mentioned.
So called 'sin taxes' pretty much always add that problem (increased taxes) to the list.
I think that will be a positive side effect El JT de Spang...but I'd be uncomfortable making it the purpose of the plan.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Just because decreasing usage isn't the sole, or even primary, goal doesn't mean it won't be a side-effect.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: As I said before, you can either design the tax to raise money, to decrease usage, or to do neither well.
I'm curious why you say this...
Even if reducing the occurance of obesity is not the goal of this, but only to raise money to cause obesity to be less of a drain on the health-care system, there still is the potential of more or less equal monetary value between someone paying the tax and someone ceasing to be obese.
For example: say that on average if someone eats X amount on fast food (or whatever else you want to tax) they make health care go up $5. So, you set up the tax such that eating X amount of fast food costs you $5 more (or say $6 to account for bureaucratic costs). The net impact is in principle $0 to the health care costs.
Now say instead that the person doesn't want to pay that $6 and instead decides to eat healthier and as a result does not end up obese, and does not impact the health-care system. the net impact is still $0.
Now of course this assumes that cutting all fast food out of said person's diet is enough to remove their obesity-related health problems, but the basic concept seems fairly sound to me.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Wait -- which do you want to do with this law: raise money for health care costs or dissuade people from eating unhealthy foods? Those two are mutually exclusive goals.
If you want to raise money, you'll add low enough taxes so that it won't stop too many people from eating unhealthy food, because if they stop eating it, they'll stop paying the taxes. [/QB]
You've got the goal mixed up. The goal of such a tax would be to reduce the amount "healthy eaters" pay to cover the health care costs associated with unhealthy foods. So it doesn't matter whether the tax raises alot of money for health care or dissuades people from eating unhealthy foods. Either end acheives the real objective.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Again, I don't think it's the government's responsiblity to make sure people don't eat fast food.
Again, they can eat just as horribly at home. Are we going to start having the Food Police? "Put down the cupcake and back away slowly!"
-pH
I'm not sure that's entirely true, regarding people's ability to eat worse at home.
No doubt, people can slather everything with Velveeta and fry it up in bacon grease if they really try.
But fast-food often seems to take processing to ridiculous extremes. Fast food is often designed by what amounts to chemists. It generally needs to be storable indefinitely prior to being cooked and served to a customer. It needs to be possible to process into an edible form without error by a high-school drop-out with minimal training. And following the process, it needs to taste good enough that customers will willingly come back and consume more.
My sister read a section of a book to me a while back that noted among the myraid ingredients of a Chicken Mcnugget is a carcinogenic anti-foaming agent. And unless they've finally changed it, McDonalds french fries are still cooked in tallow.
I don't even know where I'd *get* tallow, if I wanted to do that to myself...
If I make a hamburger at home, it will undoubtedly be more of an indulgent than a healthful experience, complete with a big slice of Tilamook cheddar on top. But it probably won't contain the levels of salt, flavoring, and miscelaneous chemicals that its fast-food brethren would.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: I don't even know where I'd *get* tallow, if I wanted to do that to myself...
You could cut it off a piece of steak and melt it. Tallow is rendered beef fat.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:McDonalds french fries are still cooked in tallow.
They changed that over two decades ago.
Posted by c.t.t.n. (Member # 9509) on :
no, m_p_h. Try about 13 years.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Either way, can we agree that it's been a while since McD's fried their fries in tallow?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Most people when they cook burgers at home either use a grill, where the grease and fat cooks off, or something like a Foreman grill, where it collects in a tray.
How many of you have deep fryers at home?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by c.t.t.n.: [QB] no, m_p_h. Try about 13 years.
Do you have a reference for that?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:How many of you have deep fryers at home?
*raises hand*
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Really? Shameful!
As for the tallow thing, I'm fairly sure that McDonalds stopped using primarily tallow based stuff in 1990, but they still used it until 2002 to flavor their products, when they were sued by Hindus and vegetarians, who won, and McDonalds stopped using it entirely.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:You could cut it off a piece of steak and melt it. Tallow is rendered beef fat.
Yes, I know. I'm not getting enough pure rendered fat to make french fries off of a steak, however, or even an economy pack of steaks. Nor am I going to a grocery store and buying a coffee-can sized bucket-o-tallow. My point was that fast food restaurants endure in food processing methods that are worse for the health of their consumers than if they created similar foods at home.
Though, as has been pointed out, it's been some time since McDonalds has actually used tallow for frying (albeit, not necessarily the case for flavoring.) Still, the amount of processing that goes into making many fast foods easy to prepare and flavorful is somewhat horrifying.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Quite frankly, I think everyone here would stop eating ranch dressing if they had to make a batch of it. ::shudders:: I didn't eat ranch for a month after I had to make it at work once.
Ah, but home-made ranch is far superior to any other kind. I actually eat far more ranch if I've made it myself than if it had been bought.
--Mel
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, while I guess it's technically home-made, in the sense that it's all made from scratch, when you make it in the prep kitchen of a restaurant, it's nothing but gross.
It might encourage more people to make a healthier home made version, and thus end the appeal of restaurant served ranch.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)