The national “food police”

You knew it had to be in the Affordable Health Choices Act being pushed by Sen. Dodd (D. Ct.), and, you were right…a national food police.  Beginning at page 399, you can read about The National Labeling of Standard Menu Items at Chain Restaurants and from Vending Machines.  I hope you will pardon me if I simply refer to this section as the “food police” as that is far easier to type than its given name.  The good news, here, is that it would appear from reading this provision, vast numbers of this country’s unemployed will now have a job with the federal government and private industry trying to implement this nonsense.  And, depending upon your view point, the bad news is that there is so much to “like” about this provision of the proposed bill, it will probably take several posts to cover it all.  So, as they say, let’s begin.

Section 403(q)(5) of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act is amended by adding…(i)…in the case of a food that is a standard menu item that is offered for sale in a restaurant or similar food establishment that is part of a chain with 20 or more locations…the restaurant shall disclose…in a clear and conspicuous manner a nutrient content disclosure statement adjacent to the menu item …[reflecting] the number of calories in the standard menu item…and a succinct statement concerning caloric intake…designed to enable the public to understand, in the context of a total daily diet, the significance of the caloric information…

And, just in case other information becomes some how critical (in some one’s mind), the food police can mandate, by regulation, that this “newly discovered” important information be disclosed as well.

This gibberish…um, information must be disclosed adjacent to the menu item, and, much like the Miranda card carried by every police officer to make sure someone arrested understands his or her rights, must be available in written form on the restaurant premises should any customer request it.

Armed with all of this required information, you will realize that a burger, fries, and a shake is not a “food group” (even though you already knew that), you will pay more for whatever you order to cover the costs associated with the mandatory “disclosure statement”, and, you will still order what you want anyway.

Ain’t America great!

2 replies
  1. libertarian27
    libertarian27 says:

    This non-encompassing legislation will leave behind at least two sectors of citizens into the abyss of the ill-informed [that I can think of off the top of my head]

    First there is the high-middle to upper class public that tends not to frequent chain restaurants, except for the occasional stop into a Ruth's Chris Steakhouse [with over 100 restaurants nationwide].

    Without mandatory nutritional content disclosure, how will this segment of society be able to tell the nutritional difference between the duck a l'orange and Chateaubriand. Rich people can be fat….

    Second are the Vegetarians, many of the sub-sectors- lacto-ovo vegetarians and vegans- being at the highest risk of not receiving full mandatory nutritional disclosures as they very infrequently will step a Birkenstock near a chain restaurant.

    Without this crucial information some will be unaware that they are barely eating the correct food to stay alive, others will be perplexed that they can indeed get fat on tofu without the full calorie count to guide them.

    They are doing this in the UK, Dodd should spend less time at his Irish Cottage – on second thought, he should stay there.

    • Darlene
      Darlene says:

      Oh Lib … Obama has the rich covered. Remember? They will be taxed so much they will no long be able to afford Ruth's Chris anymore. Hmmmmm, does that mean a bailout for the High Society Restaurant business?

Comments are closed.