|
Grex > Agora41 > #295: Oversized cargo costs extra...but what about oversized people? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 13 new of 62 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 50 of 62:
| 
Jun 25 19:47 UTC 2002 |
Re #48: Well, I can't speak for others, but...I'm on salary, not hourly;
I don't get to take off early if I work during my lunch hour. And if I
don't leave the office for lunch, it's a given *someone* will come up to
me during my lunch hour with a problem they need solved. So I almost
never eat lunch in the office.
|
russ
|
|
response 51 of 62:
|
Jun 26 02:45 UTC 2002 |
Re #43: Not quite, Joe. Fast-food buyers are often price-sensitive.
If the people designing the menus could knock the price down by
reducing the salt and fat content, increasing the fiber and vitamin
levels and bringing the glycemic index down, they'd do it just to
be more competitive. Processes can be changed: microwaving or
steaming instead of deep-fat frying. There's a lot that could be
done if the inertia could be overcome.
Maybe every restaurant offering could be required to list the fat,
salt and calorie counts. No taxes, just reporting: call it the
"informed burger-eater act".
|
michaela
|
|
response 52 of 62:
|
Jun 26 02:51 UTC 2002 |
Restaurants are already required to provide nutritional guides. Sometimes,
you have to ask where they're located, but they have them.
Looking at one of those is truly frightening, though. I haven't eaten
cheesestix at Papa John's since I glanced at the nutritional info on the side
of the garlic butter container. Oh. My. God.
|
aruba
|
|
response 53 of 62:
|
Jun 26 03:07 UTC 2002 |
Right, most if not all fast food restaraunts seem to have the nutrition
information posted on the wall someplace, and I think you can request a
printed copy at the counter.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 54 of 62:
|
Jun 26 04:16 UTC 2002 |
I don't have a problem with them posting it prominently.
|
lk
|
|
response 55 of 62:
|
Jun 26 13:28 UTC 2002 |
David, I understand your dilemma and desire to leave the office for lunch.
That's a result of the "system" of which I voiced criticism.
|
slynne
|
|
response 56 of 62:
|
Jun 26 16:33 UTC 2002 |
I dont think posting it prominently will make a difference. I dont know
of anyone who doesnt already know that fast food is generally bad for
them.
|
brighn
|
|
response 57 of 62:
|
Jun 26 17:05 UTC 2002 |
WHAT!?!? FAST FOOD is *BAD* for me?
Dammit, why didn't someone tell me earlier?
that's it, I'm going back to my previous diet of broken glass, thumbtacks,
and nuclear waste.
|
michaela
|
|
response 58 of 62:
|
Jun 26 22:29 UTC 2002 |
<smirk>
|
russ
|
|
response 59 of 62:
|
Jun 27 01:46 UTC 2002 |
Re #52: They may be required to provide them, but you cannot get one
before ordering at a drive-through. (Maybe color-coding on a "health"
scale would be a decent at-a-glance substitute, but someone would be
bound to mistake this for terrorism risk.)
Brighn, don't forget to take your strontium-90.
|
michaela
|
|
response 60 of 62:
|
Jun 27 04:25 UTC 2002 |
If I'm at the drive-thru at a fast food restaurant, nutrition isn't a likely
concern. ;-)
|
gull
|
|
response 61 of 62:
|
Jun 27 10:49 UTC 2002 |
If someone isn't interested enough to spend the two minutes it'd take to go
into the restaurant and get the guide, they aren't going to take the fifteen
minutes it'd take them to read it.
|
aruba
|
|
response 62 of 62:
|
Jun 27 13:55 UTC 2002 |
Plus you can do that once and then keep the guide in the car, so you can
consult it at the drive-thru in the future.
|