Maybe the ACA should have had a clearly visible warning label on the cover so all those that had to vote for it prior to reading it at least would have a chance to see a little about what was in it.
The Chief in "The Outlaw Josie Wales" to the snake oil salesman: "What's in it?"
To paraphrase Dan Ackroyd, "Michelle, you ignorant slut... Michelle, like a screeching, squeeling, rapacious swamp sow, is after the American people's last 3 trillion dollars ..." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttqgwlCsX...
The quotes do not mention mom. Maybe it was in some part of the talk they did not quote or maybe the author just doesn't imagine dads dealing with this issue.
She's onto a real issue. We thought that fats were bad 25 years ago, and now we've learned it's not that simple.
There's this whole thing about "processed" foods, which I think has something to it, but articles and books on it often venture into the naturalistic fallacy.
We buy mostly organic, but something being organic involves a hodgepodge of standards, some related to health and some related to the environment. It seems like we need multiple standards that indicate environmental impact, GMOs (which I don't think are necessarily bad), and whatever other aspects of food matter.
I've thought about this a lot because I have two kids, and it would be better if they didn't get all my bad eating habits.
I know that most of the foods that you buy from the produce dept and cook are more healthful than the so-called "processed" foods in the center of the store. But I love the junk food, and I'd like more data on relative health risks of what critics call "processed food-like substances."
I don't know if better labeling the answer. It seems like ensuring food safety is something that gov't should be involved in.
I agree confused and bewildered is poor choice of words. I've been in the aisle thinking I'd like someone to spoon-feed me what the latest research has to say about these numbers, which I guess you could call confused and bewildered.
While I think there it's a legitimate argument to be made about food labels being misleading and deceptive, I don't think it's a problem which can be solved through government legislation.
The Chief in "The Outlaw Josie Wales" to the snake oil salesman: "What's in it?"
Salesman: "I don't know."
Chief: "Then you drink it."
"Michelle, you ignorant slut...
Michelle, like a screeching, squeeling, rapacious swamp sow, is after the American people's last 3 trillion dollars ..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttqgwlCsX...
She's onto a real issue. We thought that fats were bad 25 years ago, and now we've learned it's not that simple.
There's this whole thing about "processed" foods, which I think has something to it, but articles and books on it often venture into the naturalistic fallacy.
We buy mostly organic, but something being organic involves a hodgepodge of standards, some related to health and some related to the environment. It seems like we need multiple standards that indicate environmental impact, GMOs (which I don't think are necessarily bad), and whatever other aspects of food matter.
I've thought about this a lot because I have two kids, and it would be better if they didn't get all my bad eating habits.
I know that most of the foods that you buy from the produce dept and cook are more healthful than the so-called "processed" foods in the center of the store. But I love the junk food, and I'd like more data on relative health risks of what critics call "processed food-like substances."
I don't know if better labeling the answer. It seems like ensuring food safety is something that gov't should be involved in.
I agree confused and bewildered is poor choice of words. I've been in the aisle thinking I'd like someone to spoon-feed me what the latest research has to say about these numbers, which I guess you could call confused and bewildered.