Tag Archives: fast food

State Mandates Food Cops in Every Restaurant

"I'll be your food protection manager tonight. What can't I serve you?"

"I'll be your food protection manager tonight. What can't I serve you?"

Starting Feb. 1, every restaurant in Mass. will be forced to employ at least one “certified food protection manager.” Among the many duties to be assumed by the state-mandated food cops will be teaching fellow staff about “washing hands with soap and water and not hand sanitizer, and wiping food preparation areas, table tops and highchairs with commercial-strength cleaners.”

The most important task ahead, say proponents of the mandatory food safety initiative, is preventing patrons with food allergies from being poisoned or killed by their meals. The newly enlisted food protection managers will be responsible for personally serving every ‘special needs’ patron while teaching fellow servers and kitchen staff how to avoid contaminating plates with allergens.

“Restaurants are also encouraged to make simpler dishes by avoiding ingredients that hide allergens, like some mollusks and shellfish, barley and rye,” reports Boston’s WCVB-TV. “Currently, federal law does not require ‘minor’ allergens to be clearly listed on food labels.”

Got that? Thanks to the new law, chefs will be “encouraged” to alter their signature recipes that they’ve crafted for the vast majority of patrons who do not have food allergies.

Simply posting warnings on menus about potential food allergens contained in dishes would make too much sense and force those with food allergies to actually pay attention to what they choose to consume. This way, they can not be held responsible for getting sick — it’s the restaurants and chefs who will be blamed and sued for poisoning them. Talk about a ‘Happy Meal’ for trial lawyers!

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

CAPTIONFEST: Who’s Your Nanny?

It looks like motorists in Tacoma, Wash., have a tough dilemma on their hands. Do they respect the parking laws of the city or the wishes of Subway?

“I’m wondering if Subway is sending these out and trying to override municipal parking regulations all across the nation,” asks ‘Justin,’ who submitted the image of dueling parking signs to Consumerist.com.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Obesity Alarmist Doesn’t Tweet What She Preaches

Thou Tweet with forketh tongue, Linda.

Thou Tweet with forketh tongue, Linda.

The Orlando Sentinel’s in-house anti-obesity crusader, Linda Shrieves, went to bat yesterday for a radical animal ‘rights’ group that is attempting to replace the USDA’s food pyramid with a vegan substitute that eliminates all meat and dairy products.

When the obesity-obsessed Shrieves isn’t taking the journalistic liberty of transforming press releases from the likes of the agenda-driven Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine in to public health warnings, she can’t seem to resist Tweeting about the latest deals to be found at fast food restaurants:

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

2010’s Most Notorious Nanny State Ninnies

Michelle Malkin just released her “Big Nannies of the Year” list and Reason.tv recently held its annual red carpet ‘awards gala.’ Find out who made the cut and let us know if a notorious nanny state nincompoop has been overlooked.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

REST OF THE STORY: Anti-Happy Meal ‘Mom’ Is Also a Big Gov’t Bureaucrat

Money Parham is a proud foot soldier in the lunatic fringe's crusade to prohibit parents from determining what's best for their kids to eat. Send her an email: monet.parham-lee@cdph.ca.gov

Monet Parham is a proud foot soldier in big government's crusade to prohibit parents from determining what's best for their kids to eat. Send her an email: monet.parham-lee@cdph.ca.gov

While countless media outlets continue to herald a ‘mother of two children’ who jointly filed a class-action lawsuit against McDonald’s intended to force a nationwide ban on Happy Meal toys, one big fact is ominously missing from most, if not all, news stories: Monet Parham is also an overzealous food cop employed by the California Department of Public Health.

Overlawyered.com’s Walter Olsen writes in the NY Daily News that Parham is anything buy a “random (if oddly well-informed) California mom,” as reporters interviewing her insist. He and fellow blogger Ira Stoll reveal that Parham “works on a federally funded program that campaigns to exhort people to eat their vegetables and that sort of thing.”

Stoll notes that in wake of her participation in the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s lawsuit against McDonald’s, Parham’s name “has been scrubbed from the website of Champions for Change, the Network for a Healthy California.” Despite attempts to preserve her identity as just ‘some ordinary mom,’ Parham’s participation in so-called ‘health eating’ conferences is still in plain sight (be quick before that disappears, too).

“She presents herself as an ordinary mother. She is not,” Olsen says. “She is an advocate, and an employee of a California agency tasked with advocating the eating of vegetables. To the extent that Monet Parham-Lee has EVER taken her daughter to a McDonald’s, she should have known better.”

Here’s a look at how the major media outlets are describing Parham. Some reporters have clearly and cleverly been duped by Parham while other ‘journalists’ are complicit in portraying her as an innocent mom whose two young children have been victimized by a greedy corporate food giant and its mind-controlling two-cent trinkets:

  • California mom Monet Parham” — San Francisco Chronicle
  • A California mother” — Washington Post
  • [P]arent Monet Parham” — CNN
  • Monet Parham, a 41-year-old mother of two” — TIME
  • Co-plaintiff Monet Parham, a Sacramento, Calif., mother of two” — Chicago Tribune [via Salt Lake Tribune]
  • A California mother of two” — NPR
  • [A] Sacramento mother of two” — Los Angeles Times
  • A Sacramento mother” — Wall Street Journal
  • Monet Parham, a mother of two” — UPI
  • [S]ome poor patsy of a mother” — NY Post (Nice try, but you still got duped!)
  • Got some words of advice for Monet Parham? Send her an email: monet.parham-lee@cdph.ca.gov

    Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

    VICTORY: Wisconsin City Rejects Ban on Happy Meal Toys

    Ronald McDonald and his Happy Meal toys are free as a bird in Superior, Wis.

    Ronald McDonald and his Happy Meal toys are free as a bird in Superior, Wis.

    Last week, the Nanny State Liberation Front led the national media pack in reporting that a big government bureaucrat in Superior, Wis., was threatening to ban Happy Meal toys. Today, we’re pleased to announce that City Councilor Greg Mertzig’s proposal was handily defeated by a 7-to-1 vote on Tuesday night.

    Mertzig’s toy-grabbing proposal was so lacking in support among local citizens that he had to bring in food activists from neighboring Duluth to make his case to an unimpressed city council, reports the Superior Telegram.

    Councilor Tom Bridge noted that his office received plenty of calls from citizens supporting the toy ban, however, none of them lived in Superior. Aside from Mertzig and his friends in Duluth, he said, “No one from Superior was in support of it.”

    Hats off to all who contacted Councilor Greg Mertzig and his colleagues, telling them to back-off and butt-out of decisions best left to parents.

    Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

    Happy Meal ‘Ban’ Wagon Arrives in Wisconsin City

    Read the tagline. It's not just a city; it's how nanny state bureaucrats like Greg Mertzig think of themselves.

    Read the tagline. It's not just a catchy slogan; it's how bureaucrats like Greg Mertzig think of themselves.

    A nanny state bureaucrat in Superior, Wisc. is equating the lure of Happy Meal toys to candy cigarettes, claiming both types of novelty items encourage “lethal habits” that need to be controlled “at a very young age.”

    “It was a marketing tactic by the tobacco industry to get kids to think it was cool to smoke at a very young age, develop these lethal habits at a very young age,” says City Councilor Greg Mertzig. “To a lesser extent, these toys in their Happy Meals kind of do the same thing. They reward kids and get them to think that it’s the okay thing to do at a very young age.”

    Mertzig, an Iraq and Afghanistan war vet, told Wisconsin Public Radio (WPR) that he’s firing at will upon fast food restaurants that, he says, are making America’s future soldiers too fat to fight. And, he claims his constituents support his efforts to determine how and what parents feed their own children:

    “They don’t meet the physical requirements to join the military so there was an argument that it was actually a national security issue. And so through the dialogue with my constituents we decided and I decided that day that we needed to do something.”

    Mertzig’s proposed ordinance would “ban free toys in meals with more than 600 calories, 10% fat and can’t have any trans fat. It could also require fruits or vegetables and whole grain foods,” reports WPR’s Mike Simonson.

    The Happy Meal toy ban will be offered to the city council on Dec. 7. If Mertzig musters enough support, it will be voted on by the the council members at a later date.

    Superior City Attorney Frog Prell told the local FOX News affiliate that Mertzig’s efforts to mimic San Francisco and Santa Clara County, Calif. will pose “an enforcement problem if this ordinance gets any momentum, for sure.”

    Contact Councilman Greg Mertzig and tell him to back down in his war against parents and their right to determine what’s best for their own children to consume:

    Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1065835578
    (Click “Send Gregory a Message” below his cute profile picture)

    Email: mertzigg@ci.superior.wi.us

    Tel: (715) 392-1148

    Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

    Vermont AG Proposes Soda Tax; Turns Blind Eye to Maple Syrup

    Vermont Public Radio reports the state’s Attorney General Bill Sorrell wants the Legislature to enact a “one cent per ounce excise tax on sugar sweetened beverages.” He blames soda for the state’s rising obesity rates, despite Vermont maple syrup having nearly the same calorie count as sugar and high fructose corn syrup.

    Mom always said, "Everything in moderation." Mr. Sorrell, nobody's asking you to be their mother.

    Mom always said, "Everything in moderation." Mr. Sorrell, nobody's asking you to be their mother.

    How about taxing “the official flavor of Vermont,” Mr. Sorrell? Whether he wants to admit it or not, the sugar found in pure maple syrup is no healthier than white sugar, according to the Cornell Sugar Maple Research & Extension Program:

    The sugar in maple syrup is sucrose and invert sugar. White sugar is sucrose, whereas invert sugar is a breakdown product of sucrose. There is no evidence that maple syrup is healthier than white sugar.

    In fact, white table sugar contains 49 calories per tablespoon and pure maple syrup contains 52 calories per tablespoon, one calorie less than high fructose corn syrup that is found in most of the sugar sweetened beverages Mr. Sorrell proposes taxing.

    Here’s how we see it, Mr. Sorrell: Your state consistently leads the U.S. in the production of maple syrup with 890,000 gallons produced in 2010 alone. That makes Vermont a contributor to the so-called obesity epidemic when millions of consumers nationwide smother steaming hot plates of pancakes with with your state’s pure maple syrup.

    In the spirit of fairness, what are your thoughts about asking state legislators nationwide to enact sin taxes on Vermont maple syrup, Mr. Sorrell? All is fair in love and anti-obesity crusades, isn’t that right?

    Contact Attorney General Bill Sorrell and ask him why he’s such a huge hypocrite:

    Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1647753286 (Click “Send Bill a Message” below his profile picture.)
    Email: atginfo@atg.state.vt.us
    Tel: (802) 828-5507

    Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

    Taxpayers Choking on Big Govt’s “Whoppers with Sleaze”

    Overlawyered.com’s Walter Olsen hits another one out of the ballpark today with his commentary in The Washington Times spotlighting the “growing aggressiveness of ‘public health’ officialdom in pushing scare campaigns about everyday consumption risks:”

    The Puritans held that reminders of mortality had an edifying effect on the living, which is why they sometimes would illustrate even literature for young children with drawings of death’s-heads and skeletons. Something of the same spirit seems to animate our ever-advancing movement for mandatory public health. The Food and Drug Administration has just floated the idea of requiring cigarette packs to carry rotating pictures that would include corpses – yes, actual corpses – as well as close-ups of grotesque medical disorders that can afflict smokers.

    New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s superactivist Health Department has begun public ad campaigns about the health risks of everyday foods, including a controversial YouTube video portraying soda drinkers as pouring globs of shimmery yellow fat into their open mouths and – just out – an ad showing an innocent-looking can of chicken-with-rice soup as bursting with dangerous salt. Whether or not you live in New York, you’re likely to be seeing more of this sort of thing because the mayor’s crew tends to set the pace for activist public-health efforts nationwide; the Obama administration, for example, picked Bloomberg lieutenant Thomas R. Frieden to head the influential Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    Why should government use our own tax dollars to propagandize and hector us about the risks of salted snacks, chocolate milk or the other temptations of today’s supermarket aisle? The Bloomberg-Obama camp seems to feel that government dietary advice is superior to other sources of information we might draw on because (1) it’s more objective, independent and pure of motive and (2) it can draw on better science …

    Read the rest of Olsen’s commentary and share your comments on his blog.

    Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

    San Francisco Mayor Vows to Veto Happy Meal Toy Ban

    Big Nanny Newsom must enjoy Happy Meals when he gets the munchies.

    Big Nanny Newsom must enjoy Happy Meals when he gets the munchies.

    While the State-Run Media continues to applaud San Francisco’s self-proclaimed promoters of “food justice,” Mayor Gavin Newsom announced Tuesday that he’s not lovin’ the Happy Meal toy ban and will veto it:

    “From encouraging salad bars and exercise in our schools to allowing use of food stamps in farmers markets, no city in America has done more to educate our children and encourage families to make healthier eating choices. We must continue to take steps to combat childhood obesity, a genuine health crisis in America, but this bill takes the wrong approach. Parents, not politicians, should decide what their children eat, especially when it comes to spending their own money. Despite its good intentions, I will veto this unwise and unprecedented governmental intrusion into parental responsibilities and private choices.

    After all of the national media coverage the Happy Meal toy ban has enjoyed in recent weeks, it’s rather interesting that as of 11 p.m. EST on Thursday, only 2 media outlets have reported Newsom’s intention to veto the Happy Meal toy ban.

    Now, for the bad news: Despite Newsom’s pledge to veto the Happy Meal toy ban, the Board of Supervisors currently has enough votes to override it when it comes up for a final vote within the next two weeks. At that time, the same fascists that voted 8-3 in favor of the ban will vote to sustain or overturn Newsom’s veto.

    Contact the Board of Supervisors and take your best shot at knocking some common sense in to them before the Happy Meal toy ban is set in stone.

    Express your support to Mayor Newsom for his efforts to veto the ban.

    Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine