Well, let me see here
Can I piss off Feminuts, Mike Bloomberg, overly Social Conservatives, and gun control zealots in one post?11 May
Warner Todd Huston has the story from, where else, Marxifornia
The State of California has one of the worst proposals of any legislature in the country this year with a new bill that would force every restaurant and food service business in the state to commission an expensive “risk assessment” test for every menu item
Such a test could cost thousands of dollars for every food item sold. This outrageous and cost prohibitive testing would certainly cause all but the biggest chain restaurants to go out of business almost instantly.
In another exercise in nanny-statism, California’s State Senate Democrats want this “risk assessment” conducted to determine whether food being sold “contributes significantly to a significant public health epidemic.”
The introduction of the bill clearly says that the law would require the food service companies to pay the state for the testing in order to fill state coffers. It notes that without the assessment, the state would have the right to shut an offending restaurant down.
This bill, known as the Public Health Epidemic Protection Act of 2013, would require the department, for every product intended for consumer consumption for which it has credible evidence that the product significantly contributes to a significant public epidemic, to conduct a risk assessment evaluation to determine whether the product contributes significantly to a significant public health epidemic, as defined, and whether the adverse public health risk would have a fiscal impact on the state of $50,000,000 or more. The bill would authorize the department to charge the manufacturer of the product for the reasonable costs of producing the risk assessment and would create the Public Health Fund, to be used by the department, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to fund the program. If the department determines that the criteria are met, the bill would require the manufacturer to create, for approval of the department, a public health impact report (PHIR) containing specified information, including a list of adverse public health impacts and a mitigation plan for those impacts. The bill would authorize the department to enforce the PHIR and would authorize the department to restrict or suspend sales of the product in the state if the PHIR is insufficient or if the manufacturer is not complying with the terms of the PHIR.
The Nanny State rolls on, destroying jobs, dreams, and liberty wherever it is implemented
As schools across the country tighten security in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre, one Maryland school district is taking it to the extreme, banning everything from hugs to birthday cake.
St. Mary’s County adopted the new security measures in its 17 public schools in the aftermath of the shooting in Newtown, Conn. that left 20 school children dead as well as six adults.
The new policy is meant to protect against a number of potential threats to children’s safety, including food allergies, inappropriate contact between adults and minors, and even hurt feelings.
‘We think it’s the right balance between safety and parental involvement,’ Kelly Hall, the district’s executive director of elementary schools, told Southern Maryland Newspapers.
Specifically, the rules ban hugs between children and adults who aren’t their parents, limit sibling visits during the school day, and prohibit kids from sharing baked goods or giving out birthday invitations at school.
Impromptu teacher-parent conferences are also banned in the new policy.
Referring to the rule regarding party invitations, Hall said, ‘If there are 20 individuals in the class and someone brings in seven birthday invitations, it was creating an academic disruption. People were getting their feelings hurt.’
School board member Cathy Allen said she thinks the new rules are ‘horrible’ and will have the unwanted effect of discouraging parents from volunteering at the school.
‘The idea that you can’t go into a school and be hugged by a child, or go in [to] have lunch or be out on the playground and that you can only push the swing for your child and no one else’ is unacceptable, she told NBC News.
But in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre, ‘everybody’s anxiety is high’ and the rules help to assuage parent’s worst fears when they send their kids off to school every morning, said school board member Mary Washington.
‘We are entrusted to protect all our students,’ Washington said.
The school board was considering the new guidelines prior to the Sandy Hook tragedy, and then decided to implement them in its aftermath. School officials say they are not final – even though they are already in place – and that they are looking for feedback from parents.
Another case of ludicrous cultural sensitivity for the sake of ensuring that everybody – no matter their religion or cultural background – is served food prepared under the most unreliable concept of supervision (via Jihad Watch):
A dinner lady has been sacked for accidentally serving non-halal meat to Muslim students at a multi-faith school.
The incident outraged parents at the ‘halal-only’ Moseley School in Birmingham, and they have forced the headmaster to apologise for ‘insulting’ their faith.
The member of staff has been dismissed after the ‘unintentional error’ on December 12 last year recently came to light.
All 1,400 students at Moseley school are served halal meat, regardless of their religion.
It has not been specified what type of meat was served, but the person responsible for serving the food was dismissed following a disciplinary hearing last Monday.
Well God forbid a Muslim be offended! I suppose mistakes are unforgivable, especially if you offend the Religion of Peace
For those of you not sure what halal means here it is
In Arabic, the word halal means permitted or lawful. Halal foods are foods that are allowed under Islamic dietary guidelines. According to these guidelines gathered from the Qu’ran, Muslim followers cannot consume the following:
pork or pork by products
animals that were dead prior to slaughtering
animals not slaughtered properly or not slaughtered in the name of Allah
blood and blood by products
birds of prey
land animals without external ears
People can eat what they want, but to force your dietary habits onto a culture that you are a minority in is wrong. If it that big a deal, pack your own lunch. In other words grow up and stop expecting the world to change to protect your feelings! Maybe Islam needs a new rule, like STOP WHINING!
Louisiana state regulators recently cracked down on a supermarket chain’s weekly promotional deal because it was selling milk too cheaply – which violates state law.
The upscale Fresh Market was selling gallons of milk for $2.99 as part of a weekly promotional deal. Louisiana requires that retailer price markups be at least six percent above the invoice and shipping costs of the product.
“Because milk is a commodity product with regulated costs that are subject to change, at the current cost, due to Louisiana state law, we are unable to honor the $2.99 Tuesday deal for (Fresh Market) milk,” according to a statement from Drewry Sackett of BRAVE Public Relations, who represents the Fresh Market. “Because the cost of milk fluctuates, it is possible that we will be able to offer the $2.99 deal on milk again in the future.”
“They can sell it six percent over cost all day long. It’s when they sell it below cost that it becomes a problem,” State Agriculture and Forestry Commissioner Mike Strain told The Advocate.
After getting a complaint about Fresh Market’s promotional deal, Strain’s office sent an auditor to a French Market store.
At least one Fresh Market shopper was outraged when he found that the state government had intervened to control the store’s milk prices.
“Should we do the same thing with bread? Should we do the same thing with soft drinks?” asked Lafayette stockbroker Kenneth Daigle. “If retailers want to take a loss, so be it.”
With America’s “fiscal cliff” approaching, pundits wring their hands over the supposed catastrophe that government spending cuts will bring. A scare newsletter called “Food Poisoning Bulletin” warns that if government reduces food inspections, “food will be less safe… (because) marginal companies… (will) cut corners.”
We’re going to die!
Most people believe that without government meat inspection, food would be filthy. We read “The Jungle,” Upton Sinclair’s depiction of the meatpacking business, and assume that the FDA and the Food Safety and Inspection Service are all that stand between us and E. coli. Meatpacking conditions were disgusting. Government intervened. Now, we’re safe! A happy ending to a story of callous greed.
The scheming lawyers behind the “Food Poisoning Bulletin” argue that without regulation companies will “cut corners.” After all, they say, sanitation costs money, so lack of regulation “creates a competitive disadvantage for companies that want to produce quality products.”
But that’s bunk. It’s not government that keeps E. coli to a minimum. It’s competition. Tyson Foods, Perdue and McDonald’s have brands to maintain – and customers to lose. Ask Jack in the Box. It lost millions after a food-poisoning scandal.
Fear of getting a bad reputation makes food producers even more careful than government requires. Since the Eisenhower administration, our stodgy government has paid an army of union inspectors to eyeball chickens in every single processing plant. But bacteria are invisible!
Fortunately, food producers run much more sophisticated tests on their own. One employs 2,000 more safety inspectors than government requires: “To kill pathogens, beef carcasses are treated with rinses and a 185-degree steam vacuum,” an executive told me. She also asked that I not reveal the name of her company – it fears retaliation from regulators.
“Production facilities are checked for sanitation with microbiological testing. If anything is detected… we re-clean the equipment… Equipment is routinely taken completely apart to be swab-tested.”
None of that is required by government. Government regulation may help a little, but we are safe mostly because of competitive markets.
Competition protects us better than politicians.
But people don’t trust companies. So it is easy to scare people about food. And the news media know that finding “problems” makes reporters look like crusading journalists. Earlier this year, my old employer, ABC News, “alerted” the public to a new threat, ground beef made with “pink slime.”
It sounds awful! ABC’s reporting frightened most school systems so much that they stopped using that form of meat. The food company lost 80 percent of its business.
But the scare is bunk. What ABC calls “pink slime” is just as appetizing as other food.
“Bunk is the polite word,” Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center says. “ABC went on a crusade. Three nights in a row back in March, they pounded on this.”
Well, why shouldn’t they, if there’s something called “pink slime” in beef?
“Because it’s not pink slime. It’s ground beef.”
Then how did this all get started?
“A couple activists who used to work for the FDA didn’t like this really cool scientific process that separates the beef trimming so you get the remaining ground beef. So they coined this term deliberately to try to hurt this company.”
The company, Beef Products Inc., does something unique. It takes the last bit of trim meat off the bone by heating it slightly. That saves money and arguably helps the environment – not using that meat would waste 5,000 cows a day. In 20 years, there is no record of anybody being hurt by what ABC and its activists call “pink slime” – what the industry just calls “lean beef trimmings” or “finely textured beef.”
“Everybody constantly says, ‘You should eat leaner beef.’ So when we try to eat the leaner beef, then they take that away from us, too,” Gainor said. “The company… has received awards for how good a job they do for consumer safety. It was just one constant hit job.”
An effective one. After ABC’s reports, Beef Products Inc. closed three out of its four plants. Seven hundred workers lost jobs.
Scientifically illiterate, business-hating media will always do scare stories. Don’t believe them.
Most of them, anyway.
New Obamacare regulations targeting the fast food and grocery store market that require signs detailing calorie and nutritional information on every product will force pizza makers like Domino’s to post up to 34 million different signs in every store: One for every possible pizza order.
“It’s not like a Big Mac. Pizza is customizable, there are options to factor in,” said Jenny Fouracre-Petko, legislative director for Domino’s and a member of the trade group American Pizza Community. “There are 34 million pizza combinations. We’ve done the math.”
Ditto for the grocery stores, which are shifting to providing more fresh made and baked goods, said Erik Lieberman, counsel for the Food Marketing Institute. “Consider just one fresh-baked blueberry muffin. If one is sold, you need a nutrition sign or sticker. If a half dozen are sold, a different one is required. Same if you sell a dozen.”
Lieberman predicted that the new regulations being finalized by the Food and Drug Administration for chains with 20 stores or more will cost the grocery industry $1 billion. He said stores average 1,500 fresh made items each.
Fouracre-Petko said that just posting generic nutrition signs in Domino’s will cost $4,700 per location, senseless, she said, because virtually all Domino’s customers order by phone and get their food delivered, so most will never seen them. She said that 10 percent of pizza customers enter a Domino’s store. “Coughing up almost $5,000 for something like this will hurt,” she said.
Lieberman said that consumers will get stuck with the bill. “It’s one more cost consumers are going to have to pay for,” he said.
Legislation has been introduced to trim the reach of the Obamacare rules which are aimed at advancing consumer health. Congress could pass the “Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act of 2012″ this year, said Lieberman and Fouracre-Petko.
Meatless Mondays? Good Freaking grief! The things that small minds come up with. Maggies Notebook is as amazed at the stupidity as I am
Yes ladies and gentlemen all you have to do is “Pledge” to give up eating meat on Mondays. Right now it is voluntary but give these assholes enough time and it will be mandatory with stiff fines.
From the City Council that declared war on trans-fats and fast-food restaurants comes the latest way to make residents feel, well, guilty about what they eat.
The Los Angeles council, in a 14-0 vote on Friday, adopted a resolution urging residents to adopt a personal pledge to have a “meatless Monday.”
While it does not have the force of law and police will not be checking what you brought to work for lunch, city officials said they hope it will start a trend, make residents healthier and reduce the impact on the environment.
“This follows the `good food’ agenda we recently adopted supporting local, sustainable food choices,” said Councilwoman Jan Perry, who has called for a ban on new fast-food restaurants in South Los Angeles to fight obesity.
“We can reduce saturated fats and reduce the risk of heart disease by 19 percent,” Perry said. “While this is a symbolic gesture, it is asking people to think about the food choices they make. Eating less meat can reverse some of our nation’s most common illnesses.”
Councilman Ed Reyes, who joined with Perry in proposing the resolution, said one of his sons has been diagnosed with diabetes.
“The issue is how does a local municipality engage in this and how do we create change,” Reyes said. “If we do it one plate at time, one meal, one day, we are ratcheting down the impact on our environment. We start with one day a week and then, who knows, maybe we can change our habits for a lifetime.”
The proposal was developed by the Food Policy Council, which has a goal of “creating more and better food jobs” and encouraging food companies and small food enterprises as part of a bigger agenda to encourage healthy foods in the city.
There are many, and one of them is this. Once the Nanny State starts banning or restricting certain foods or beverages, they NEVER STOP! Bob Mack knows this truth and discusses it here
You didn’t have to be a Nostradamus to predict this. Once New York City’s nutrition Nazis had assured themselves that no pitchfork wielding mob of angry, soda slurping malcontents was likely to materialize before City Hall demanding the sugar-free head of Chancellor Bloomberg for proposing the mandatory downsizing of their beverages, it was time to declare open season on the compulsive poppers of popcorn and the depraved drinkers of milk. After all, we’re talking National Security here. Michelle Obama said so.
The New York City Board of Health showed support for limiting sizes of sugary drinks at a Tuesday meeting in Queens. They agreed to start the process to formalize the large-drink ban by agreeing to start a six-week public comment period.
At the meeting, some of the members of board said they should be considering other limits on high-calorie foods.
One member, Bruce Vladeck, thinks limiting the sizes for movie theater popcornshould be considered…
Another board member thinks milk drinks should fall under the size limits.
“There are certainly milkshakes and milk-coffee beverages that have monstrous amounts of calories,” said board member Dr. Joel Forman.
If you think that these nutty bastards do not wish to control everything you, and your kids eat, watch and learn
Every single menu in New York City could soon be getting a major overhaul if Mayor Michael Bloomberg has his way.
The man behind calorie counts is set to announce a new public health initiative to battle obesity, taking aim at super-sized sugary drinks.
In other words, it may soon be time to say goodbye to those Big Gulps, those Slurpees or even Venti at Starbucks, CBS 2’s Derricke Dennis reported.
“That’s okay,” one person said.
No it’s not, according to Mayor Bloomberg, who is set to propose a ban on sugary drinks over 16 ounces everywhere, all across the city.
“I disagree with it, because it’s the right to choose. If you want to drink a Slurpee, you should be allowed to drink a Slurpee,” said Jamie Sawyer, a tourist from Oklahoma.
Can we just trade New York, Bloomberg and the sheeple who keep electing him to Canada for some maple syrup? Good grief!
Next on the Nanny State’s list? Your hamburger cooking method! Via Matt
I swear these people stay up nights divining problems that government must solve by creating another law. This low flying news also comes to us thanks to Bruce McQuain at Questions and Observations. The Nanny in question is a Kathy Webb, a state Representative from Arkansas. She thinks frying hamburgers is dangerous to the environment.
Webb has submitted Interim Study Proposal 2011-201, an act “to declare an emergency” over the alleged crisis. Frying hamburgers is now The People’s Business of the Highest Order.
Webb’s bill claims food grease presents an emergency risk of sewer overflows that threatens the environment. “It is in the public interest to establish a Fat, Oil, and Grease Advisory Committee to study the recommended measures to better ensure that the collection, transportation, disposal, and recycling of fat, oil, and grease are done in a manner that is protective of the environment,” reads the bill.
And, there is more
According to the bill, the state will appoint a 14 (!) member committee “with adequate staff and facilities” to study the frying-pan-grease emergency and recommend legislation, enforcement, and other emergency government action to fight food grease. Even after such action, the committee and its “adequate staff and facilities” will perpetually exist, convene, and soak up taxpayer resources.
This is what I call Stuck on Stoopit!
Yep! Here they come, better hide your steak! Western Hero warns of the newest “research” meant to terrify us
“Small quantities of processed meat such as bacon, sausages or salami can increase the likelihood of dying by a fifth, researchers from Harvard School of Medicine found. Eating steak increases the risk of dying by 12%.
The study found that cutting the amount of red meat in peoples’ diets to 1.5 ounces (42 grams) a day, equivalent to one large steak a week, could prevent almost one in 10 early deaths in men and one in 13 in women.” (Pseudoscience Nannies condemn Red Meat)
1.5 Ounces a day??? Who the hell could live on that? The average working man eats that in one bite! And their idea of a “large steak” is ludicrous. 7 X 1.5 = 10.5 ounces, hardly “large” in the realm of Steakdom.
“Compared with red meat, other dietary components, such as fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy products, and whole grains, were associated with lower risk.
They want us to live on nuts and berries…
Here’s the unscientific part. Correlation does not mean causation:
Scientists added that people who eat a diet high in red meat were also likely to be generally unhealthier because they were more likely to smoke, be overweight and not exercise.
Aha, there you go. These studies always have their little “catches” don’t they? Make sure to read the whole piece.
So much for serving the homeless.
The Bloomberg administration is now taking the term “food police” to new depths, blocking food donations to all government-run facilities that serve the city’s homeless.
In conjunction with a mayoral task force and the Health Department, the Department of Homeless Services recently started enforcing new nutritional rules for food served at city shelters. Since DHS can’t assess the nutritional content of donated food, shelters have to turn away good Samaritans.
For over a decade, Glenn Richter and his wife, Lenore, have led a team of food-delivery volunteers from Ohab Zedek, the Upper West Side Orthodox congregation.
They’ve brought freshly cooked, nutrient-rich surplus foods from synagogue events to homeless facilities in the neighborhood. (Disclosure: I know the food is so tasty because I’ve eaten it – I’m an OZ member.) The practice of donating such surplus food to homeless shelters is common among houses of worship in the city.
DHS Commissioner Seth Diamond says the ban on food donations is consistent with Mayor Bloomberg’s emphasis on improving nutrition for all New Yorkers. A new interagency document controls what can be served at facilities – dictating serving sizes as well as salt, fat and calorie contents, plus fiber minimums and condiment recommendations.
The city also cites food-safety issues with donations, but it’s clear that the real driver behind the ban is the Bloomberg dietary diktats.
Then they came for evil sugar! And An ‘Old Broad is fighting mad!
Three California obesity researchers struck a nerve in Tennessee’s sweet tooth last month when they proposed regulating sugar in the same way government regulates tobacco and alcohol.
In the journal Nature , they pegged a litany of chronic illnesses to excess sugar consumption — diabetes, hypertension, fatty liver disease and others. Their article proposed taxing foods with added sugar, restricting purchases to ages 17 and over, and limiting convenience stores in poor neighborhoods.
There is no doubt in my mind….California really IS a granola state….fruits, nuts, and flakes! First off, ya don’t tax people even more, second, ya don’t tell people what they can and cannot eat or drink, and third….it’s called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY! The whole thing sounds like discrimination against the poor folks to me!
Days before the Nature article published, U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais made a proposal on the other side of the political spectrum: a bill that would bar federal dollars from being used to publicly criticize foods already approved by the Food and Drug Administration. He’d learned federal stimulus funds financed healthy living campaigns that, in part, discouraged drinking sugary soda.
This is, of course, simply the natural evolution of the Nanny State. We did not stop them at their power grab over tobacco, and this is our reward. And these Neo-Marxists will not stop at sugar either. So, what will be next? Or maybe it will be an activity deemed “too dangerous” by our would-be overlords? Or maybe our Facebook password?
At Telegraph UK, “12-year-old US girl suing school over Facebook comments row“:
A 12-year-old girl is suing her school in Minnesota after being forced to hand over her Facebook password and punished for posts she made on the social networking site.
The case has been brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and comes amid growing concern in the United States about individuals’ ability to keep their email and other online accounts secret from their school, employer and government authorities.
A number of prospective employees have complained that they were forced to hand over their passwords to Facebook and Twitter when applying for jobs.
In the Minnesota case, the 12-year-old girl, known only as RS, is said to have been punished by teachers at Minnewaska Area Middle School for things she wrote on Facebook while at home, and using her own computer.
The ACLU is arguing that her First and Fourth Amendment rights, which protect freedom of speech and freedom from illegal searches respectively, were violated.
She is said to have been punished with detention after using Facebook to criticise a school hall monitor, and again after a fellow student told teachers that she had discussed sex online.
The Nanny State is like a cancer, it will not stop until it rots away every last liberty we have