The F$$d P$lice are C$ming

[PhilsFan]

You posted an article that directly refutes your premise. Why don't we start there?

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

You posted an article that directly refutes your premise. Why don't we start there?

So, where's your quote from the article?

[PhilsFan]

I'm going to ask you, since you posted it: where is the government interference in that article?

[BoMac]

Why are we still engaging him? It's not like he's going to change, or we're going to change his mind or, more importantly, he's going to change our minds.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

I'd kinda like to live in that bunker .

Mine would be filled with Hershey Kisses and Oreo cookies.

I remember the good old days when I could eat all of those that I wanted to and not gain weight

[Irvine511]

reading is fun.

Feds: Fresh milk 150 times more dangerous than pasteurized dairy - Washington Times

[deep]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

I'm going to ask you, since you posted it: where is the government interference in that article?

first, I will say I would not care if the government required all food products to list the calories in large print on the front of packaging.

restricting the size, that's more problematic

I never have super-sized anything, and when I ate french fries, I mostly always bought the regular (small) size.

This move is part of an agreement Mars signed with Michelle Obama's Partnership for a Healthier America. Mars is part of the Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation, a group of 16 manufacturers who have pledged to reduce 1.5 trillion calories by the end of 2015 through lower-calorie options and reducing portion sizes.

an agreement signed with the First Lady's Partnership for a Healthier America? I would think that qualifies as government involvement in the free market, what do you think?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by deep

an agreement signed with the First Lady's Partnership for a Healthier America? I would think that qualifies as government involvement in the free market, what do you think?

It's voluntary, not enforceable and she's not an elected or appointed member of government.

[deep]

this can easily turn into one of those endless back and forths in here that I try and stay out of

I expected and accept that one side will make the voluntary argument

and I would hope that reasonable people can see how others can see an agreement signed with Michel Obama organization and listed on her whitehouse.gov page

First Lady Michelle Obama | The White House

has government connections.

[BVS]

'Police', which is what this thread is about, enforce laws. This has absolutely nothing to do with enforcement or law, I would hope most reasonable people would understand that.

[yolland]

The Atlantic, Mar. 30

Last week, a US district court judge ordered the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to move forward on ending the use of several antibiotics in food animals except to treat disease. In doing so, the court sent a clear message to the agency: do your job. Although hundreds of peer-reviewed papers from decades of scientific research have linked the misuse of antibiotics on farms to the rise of antibiotic resistance that now threatens the public health, the FDA has pursued a strategy of "voluntary reform," politely asking drug companies to change their ways but not requiring them to do so. Last Thursday, the judge rebuked the FDA for its passive approach and demanded that the agency follow through on banning uses of drugs by industrial food animal producers that even its own experts no longer consider safe.

The vast majority of antibiotics in this country--about 80%--are sold for use in food animal production, not to treat humans. The vast majority of animals that receive these drugs are not sick, and the doses they receive would be too low to successfully treat bacterial infections if they were. Rather, low doses of antibiotics are fed to healthy animals throughout their lives to speed their growth and to reduce infections in the overcrowded and unsanitary conditions commonly found at the industrial operations that produce these animals. The use of antibiotics for disease prevention is only necessary because companies have chosen to raise animals using methods that make them especially susceptible to infectious diseases.Using antibiotics this way continuously exposes bacteria to low doses of these drugs, providing an ideal environment for the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that can infect humans on farms, in the environment, and in the food we eat. For this reason, physicians and scientists have long sought restrictions on the agricultural use of antibiotics. Likewise, the World Health Organization (WHO) has highlighted the misuse of antibiotics in food animal production when warning of a "post-antibiotic era" in which drugs are no longer effective and currently manageable infections, left untreated, turn deadly.

In 1977, the FDA determined that using penicillins and tetracyclines to make animals grow faster was no longer "shown to be safe," as research had linked such uses to the development of antibiotic resistance. The agency began the process of withdrawing their approvals, publishing what it calls "notices of opportunity for a hearing." Such notices, the first step in any withdrawal process, set out the rationale for the withdrawal and allow companies that manufacture the drugs to request an administrative hearing to contest the FDA's decision. At these hearings, companies bear the burden of proof and must show that the uses in question are safe. If they cannot, the agency withdraws its approval. The FDA never held a hearing in 1977, however. Under pressure from Congress, the agency backed down, leaving the approvals in place. Although the FDA did not rescind the notices, in theory leaving the matter open for future consideration, the agency took no further action to restrict either drug class for the next 34 years. Frustrated by the FDA's lethargy, consumer advocacy groups petitioned the agency in 1999 and again in 2005 to complete the process it had begun three decades earlier. The FDA ignored both petitions until the groups sued for action last year. The agency denied both petitions in response. The FDA then withdrew the notices on penicillins and tetracyclines, claiming it would pursue "other regulatory strategies" to address antibiotic resistance instead.

These "regulatory strategies" have been entirely voluntary. In 2010, the agency released a draft guidance document that described how antibiotics should--and should not--be used on farms to minimize selection for antibiotic resistance. Notably, the FDA wrote that using antibiotics for growth promotion "is not in the interest of protecting and promoting the public health." The agency nevertheless described using antibiotics to prevent infections as "necessary and judicious." That is, the FDA endorsed feeding low doses of antibiotics to food animals throughout their lives to prevent infections, if not to promote growth. This practice has time and again been shown to select for antibiotic resistance. When it withdrew the notices on penicillins and tetracyclines, the FDA insisted that drug companies would voluntarily implement the principles outlined in the guidance document, making unnecessary the very regulations the agency once sought. The Animal Health Institute, an industry lobby group, has said the same. Because the guidance document endorses continued long-term use of low doses of antibiotics, ostensibly to prevent infections, the industry's cooperation is not surprising.

The voluntary approach did not fly with the court. Under the law, it said, the FDA cannot find that an approved use of a drug is no longer safe and then refuse to withdraw its approval. Because the agency made such a determination in 1977, the court said, it must withdraw its approval now, unless drug companies can prove at an administrative hearing that the drugs are actually safe. The FDA will now need to re-issue the notices of opportunity for a hearing and begin the withdrawal process anew, assuming the agency does not appeal the ruling and drag out the litigation for many more months. If the decision survives on appeal, pharmaceutical companies appear poised to drag out the process for years, contesting the withdrawal of each approval of each drug at a separate hearing. These hearings typically involve thousands of pages of written evidence and many hours of expert testimony. With untold quantities of money--and armies of lawyers and paid scientists--the drug industry could keep misusing antibiotics while fighting the withdrawals. The advocacy groups that sued the agency have asked the judge to set a timeline that ensures prompt action.

The full impact of the decision remains to be seen. An important question is, Has the agency found that any other approved uses of antibiotics are no longer "shown to be safe," or might it do so if confronted with the scientific evidence that they are not? If the answer is yes, groups advocating sound regulations on antibiotic use will have an opening to force the withdrawal of other antibiotics as well. We can expect a wave of lawsuits and legal petitions in the coming years that make a case for such findings and demand action by the FDA. Because the agency has already said that using antibiotics for growth promotion "is not in the interest of protecting or promoting the public health," one hopes that the FDA will accept the scientific consensus that these uses are unsafe and withdraw all current approvals of antibiotic growth promoters.

The media's coverage of the decision has focused on the use of antibiotics for growth promotion. While ending these uses would be an important step, it would not be sufficient to end the misuse of antibiotics in industrial food animal production. As long as low doses of antibiotics may be continuously fed to food animals to prevent disease, the industrial operations that produce the majority of food animals in this country will continue to serve as giant incubators for antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

...If we improved the diets and living conditions of the animals, we could prevent disease without compromising the effectiveness of antibiotics and putting the health of the public at risk. This is how Denmark ended the misuse of antibiotics in 2000--over strenuous objections from the Danish swine industry--and remained the world's top exporter of pork.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Texas Tribune

A Victoria hospital already embroiled in a discrimination lawsuit filed by doctors of Indian descent has instituted a highly unusual hiring policy: It bans job applicants from employment for being too overweight.

The Citizens Medical Center policy, instituted a little more than a year ago, requires potential employees to have a body mass index of less than 35 — which is 210 pounds for someone who is 5-foot-5, and 245 pounds for someone who is 5-foot-10. It states that an employee’s physique “should fit with a representational image or specific mental projection of the job of a healthcare professional,” including an appearance “free from distraction” for hospital patients.

“The majority of our patients are over 65, and they have expectations that cannot be ignored in terms of personal appearance,” hospital chief executive David Brown said in an interview. “We have the ability as an employer to characterize our process and to have a policy that says what’s best for our business and for our patients.”

Employment lawyers say Citizens Medical Center’s hiring policy isn’t against the law. Only the state of Michigan and six U.S. cities — including San Francisco and Washington, D.C. — ban discrimination against the overweight in hiring.

“In Texas, employers cannot discriminate against employees because of their race, age or religion,” said DeDe Church, an Austin-based employment lawyer. “Weight is not one of those protected categories.”

But such a hiring policy is virtually unheard of in medical circles. And it seems an unusual risk for a hospital already battling allegations of discrimination over — among other things — a memo Brown wrote in 2007.

In the memo, one of several records used by three physicians of Indian descent to lodge a racial discrimination suit against Citizens, Brown wrote that he felt “a sense of disgust” that more “Middle-Eastern-born” physicians were demanding leadership roles at the hospital. “It will change the entire complexion of the hospital and create a level of fear among our employees,” he wrote.

Brown said he's prohibited from speaking about the lawsuit. But defense attorneys have said that the racial discrimination claims are bogus and that the lawsuit stems from an escalating disagreement between doctors and administrators over how to run the hospital.

Both the Texas Hospital Association and the American Hospital Association said that although they’ve seen more hospitals restricting employment for job candidates who smoke — Baylor Health Care System, for example, no longer hires employees who use tobacco — they hadn’t heard of any hospitals with weight or body mass limits.

Lance Lunsford, spokesman for the Texas Hospital Association, said such a policy could open a hospital up to litigation. People with disabilities are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and in some court rulings, obesity has been interpreted as a disability. “There is an indication that not hiring someone due to obesity might be successfully challenged in court,” he said.

Citizens Medical Center’s written policy doesn’t indicate that paying for the health insurance of obese workers is too expensive — the reason some companies have been able to ban workers who use tobacco — or suggest that obese employees are unable to do their jobs. Mostly, it references physical appearance, and puts overweight applicants in the same category as those with visible tattoos or facial piercings.

“This is discrimination plain and simple,” said Peggy Howell, public relations director for the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance. She said a hospital should know that lots of medical conditions lead to obesity or weight gain. “So the field of medicine is no longer an option for people of larger body size? What a waste of talent.”

But Brown, the hospital CEO, said there’s more to the story than what’s written in the policy. He said that excessive weight has “all kinds of encumbrances” for the hospital and its health plan, and that there’s evidence that extremely obese employees are absent from work more often.

At Citizens, a physician screens prospective employees to assess their fitness for work, including their body mass index. Some job candidates have been turned away for being too overweight, Brown said, but current workers who become obese over the course of their employment are not terminated. Brown said the hospital also offers to help heavy job candidates get their body mass index down.

“We have some people who are applicants and they know the requirements, and we try and help them get there but they’re not interested,” he said. “So that’s fine, they can go work somewhere else.”

A doctor at Citizens who declined to be named acknowledged that employees — and patients — who are overweight cost the health care system more. But he said body mass index as a primary measure of obesity is not a good indicator: A professional football player might have a body mass index of 32, which is technically obese, but only have 7 percent body fat.

And unless obese job applicants have other precipitating health factors, he said, their weight wouldn’t get in the way of being a successful hospital employee. “If more people knew about it,” the doctor said of the employment policy, “they would be justifiably pissed.”

[MrsSpringsteen]

By IBTimes Staff Reporter | Apr 11, 2012 09:23 AM EDT

Burger King unveiled a host of new items to jazz up their outdated menu last week, but one Nashville location is privy to a delicious treat that's not available anywhere else: the Burger King Bacon Sundae.

According to the Burger King Bacon Sundae ad, vanilla ice cream is drizzled with fudge sauce and topped with chunks of bacon. A slice of bacon is stuck in the sundae like a milkshake. The dessert costs $2.49.

Burger King released a statement about the development that was surprisingly subdued.

"As part of Burger King Corp.'s normal course of business, the company is currently testing menu items in a small sampling of U.S. restaurants located in the Nashville area. The brand does not have plans to expand the test to additional markets at this time," read the statement sent to the Nashville Business Journal.

The news comes in the wake of smaller chains debuting bacon inspired desserts. Jack in the Box released a bacon shake in February. It is made with vanilla ice cream and bacon flavored syrup. A 16 oz. cup comes in at a whopping 773 calories. It is only available for a limited time.

Denny's introduced a Maple Bacon Sundae in March 2011 for their 'Baconalia' festival. The sundae was similar to Burger King's. It was made with vanilla ice cream with a sprinkle of diced hickory-smoked bacon on the top. Maple flavored syrup was also mixed in.

[corianderstem]

Surely this will mark the end of the BACON IN EVERYTHING trend.

[Moonlit_Angel]

"You got your bacon in my sundae!"
"You got your sundae in my bacon!"

Yeah. No. Who...exactly...thinks this is something that would taste even remotely good?

[Pearl]

Bacon in desserts and snacks seem to be a new trend. A friend of mine orders snacks from a bakery called The Baconery which puts bacon into cookies, cakes, brownies, etc. I've even seen the local news report on such food.

[KhanadaRhodes]

i tried a maple bacon cupcake once. the bacon wasn't ridiculously overwhelming so it wasn't bad, it was more maple - it was supposed to be pancakes and bacon in cupcake form. it was something to try once, and now that i have i don't have to again.

i hated this bacon chocolate bar i tried once, but that's because it was tiny pieces of bacon. maybe if it was a strip of crispy bacon covered in chocolate i'd like it better, but the last thing i (or anyone else) need is more ways to eat bacon.

[Dfit00]

The restaurant below serves bacon strips instead of peanuts as the traditional freebie. What a great way to do some product differentiation.

Prime One Twelve - Miami Beach, FL

[Axver]

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

"You got your bacon in my sundae!"
"You got your sundae in my bacon!"

Yeah. No. Who...exactly...thinks this is something that would taste even remotely good?

I'd readily give it a go. It's not that I think it'd taste good; it's that I'm morbidly curious on the food experiment front.

Plus, well, bacon.

[the iron horse]

High Fructose Corn Syrup is one ingredient in foods
I wish the Food Police would ban, but I doubt they will.
Too much $$$ being made.

Another alarm on HFCS:
US Autism Spike Linked To High-Fructose Corn Syrup � The Talk Radio News Service