Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill to dish up details on menus advances
Sacramento Bee ^ | 6/1/7 | Aurelio Rojas

Posted on 06/01/2007 7:49:55 AM PDT by SmithL

Over howls of "nanny government," the California Senate on Thursday approved legislation that would require chain restaurants with 10 or more locations to post calorie counts and other dietary facts about menu items.

If approved by the Assembly and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, SB 120 would require table-serving restaurants to disclose the number of calories, grams of saturated and trans fat, sodium and carbohydrates for standard items.

Because of space limitations, fast-food restaurants would be required to list only calories. Violators that do not comply with the requirements by Jan. 1, 2009, would be cited with an infraction, punishable by a fine not less than $50 and more than $500.

The proposed legislation is modeled after a New York City law that takes effect July 1.

Previous menu-labeling bills in California failed to advance as far as SB 120. Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the measure, but supporters are heartened that promoting healthy eating habits is a hallmark of his health care overhaul plan.

"With this bill, we empower folks to be healthier and less of a burden on the health care system," said Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Pacoima, who co-wrote the measure with Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco.

But Sen. Dave Cox, R-Fair Oaks, said the legislation smacks of "nanny government" and will impose added cost on restaurants that will be passed on to customers.

"The fact of the matter is that we eat too much and fail to exercise enough," Cox said. "(But) somehow we have gotten in it our minds that government can fix this problem and tell us how to live."

The bill was approved by a 22-14 vote, largely along party lines, with Democrats supporting the measure and Republicans opposing it.

(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: nannystate

1 posted on 06/01/2007 7:49:57 AM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

TO TEEN FF CLERK: Will these fries make me fat?..........


2 posted on 06/01/2007 7:52:05 AM PDT by Red Badger (Bite your tongue. It tastes a lot better than crow................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Here’s a dumb question for the assembled masses - how do we know that the data that the restuarants post is accurate? Does some agency (FDA?) verify, monitor, audit, etc?


3 posted on 06/01/2007 7:55:10 AM PDT by Hegemony Cricket (Don't mistake timid driving for defensive driving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

This is what they are spending our money on. Enough already. Our schools are a mess; we have an immigration problem, our taxes are breaking us and this is what they are promoting. It seems to me these idiots have way to much time and too much of our money. It’s time to get back to basics and what the American people want. Plus they are moving us to a dictatorship. No more.


4 posted on 06/01/2007 7:57:33 AM PDT by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL; Gabz
"With this bill, we empower folks to be healthier and less of a burden on the health care system," said Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Pacoima, who co-wrote the measure with Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco.

How long before those "burdens" on the health care system must submit to weekly weigh-ins and be issued fast-food permits similar to WWII ration cards?

The inevitable consequence of socialized medicine.

The nanny state: our biggest obesity problem.

5 posted on 06/01/2007 7:57:38 AM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

I am going to elect one of my dogs and that dog will do a much better job than those yoyos we have. This dog will listen and do the will of the people. Now, if my dog can do it why can’t they?


6 posted on 06/01/2007 7:59:16 AM PDT by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

Don’t put too much faith in the will of the people to get things right either. It is a mathematical certainty that democracy tends to collectivist and redistributive social policies.


7 posted on 06/01/2007 8:05:34 AM PDT by M203M4 (Vote Fruity Giuliani or the terrists will win! Abortion & gun control = price for freedumb!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Quite frankly I don’t want to see how many calories I am eatting. It would most likely be pretty frightening. lol. Can you imagine some of those deserts. I can see them saying 1823 calories. That is probably a realistic assessment on some of those deserts.


8 posted on 06/01/2007 8:07:29 AM PDT by napscoordinator (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Well, obviously this will increase costs for all restaurants and fast food joints. They will need to spend the time to comply, they will need more room on the menus, and they may need to take out more insurance to protect themselves. Plus everyone will have to pay more taxes to pay for the calory inspectors.

Trust Bloomberg to actually beat California to the punch on this. He’s the guy who formed a special squad of smoking police to enforce the no-smoking laws in bars and restaurants in NYC.


9 posted on 06/01/2007 8:08:30 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Over howls of "nanny government," the California Senate on Thursday approved legislation that would require chain restaurants with 10 or more locations to post calorie counts and other dietary facts about menu items.

[...] "With this bill, we empower folks to be healthier and less of a burden on the health care system," said Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Pacoima, who co-wrote the measure with Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco.

HA HA HA HA HA HA! I don't believe that was your goal. Otherwise, why exempt restaurants with less than ten locations? Are they somehow healthier?

10 posted on 06/01/2007 9:20:00 AM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative (Global Warming Heretic -- http://agw-heretic.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M203M4

I know, however, there is one thing I believe and that these yoyos are tooting new things like climate change and spending our money on it; while ignoring the real problems we have. The only word that I can think of is graft and that’s why we never see anything done. They are literally stealing us blind under whatever banner they choose. Global warming is a crock the way they put it; but it sure makes a nice name for graft.

I am to the point where I truly believe every taxpayer in the US or that pays taxes in the US withhold them. That is the only way I can think of to stop their graft. No money;no graft.


11 posted on 06/01/2007 11:49:40 AM PDT by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge
Something is not right here. This is clearly discrimination against the chain restaurants in favor of the small restaurants. This does not sound legal to me.
12 posted on 06/01/2007 12:34:21 PM PDT by Uncle Hal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Hal
Violators that do not comply with the requirements by Jan. 1, 2009, would be cited with an infraction, punishable by a fine not less than $50 and more than $500

Why go after all the little guys when you can shake down "Big Chain Restaurant" in one fell swoop?"

The Nannies already know from experience that "Big Chain Restaurant" caved to the smoking bans because they had the resources to hold out until the mom and pop businesses were ruined by them.

Competition gone, courtesy of the Nanny State.

The Nannies are going with the proven plan.

Maybe they'll pick up some money from "Big Chain Restaurant" in the meantime until full Big Brother compliance is realized.

13 posted on 06/01/2007 12:47:05 PM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson