A Modest Fauxposal

Constant Readers,

I know it has been a few days since my last posting. In my defense, I spent the weekend ostensibly helping my dear friend Beth Spotswood forget about her recent breakup. (I say "ostensibly" because I think she helped me more than I her.)

And so, without further ado, here is today's posting: My open letter to Supervisor Ammiano.

Dear Mister Supervisor Sir,

I write to express my support for your proposal to make all restaurants with more than 14 locations in California post nutritional information on SF menu boards. I believe that information about calories, saturated fat, carbohydrates and sodium should be on all written menus and menu boards. I mean, about 2/3 of meals are eaten at home, and the Federal Nutritional Labeling and Education Act law has mandated nutritional information on food sold in stores since 1990. And since that worked so well to drive down obesity rates, it is obvious that what we need is more labeling!

Though, at the February 7 Rules Committee hearing, I heard that only 278 of the more than 4000 restaurants in the City will be affected, I agree that we need to make sure to only target chain stores with deep pockets because, as McDonalds learned, a restaurant can be sued for allegations of mislabeling a menu item. And speaking of lawsuits, I suspect that the City might be facing one if your proposal passes because a State law may preempt the City ordinance. Section 113705 of the California Health and Safety Code says: "it is the intent of the Legislature to occupy the whole field of health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities" with the California Retail Food Code. But, hey, what would Dennis Herrera do if he wasn't running around cleaning up preemption issues you create?

And, speaking of State law, while State Senator Padilla's attempt to get a similar bill passed at the state level was met with a veto last year, I read that he is proposing it again. I know you have said that Padilla's law is exactly like the one you put before the SF Board of Supervisors, but you and I know the secret: the SF City ordinance is, in fact, somewhat different. The State law only requires calories to be listed on the menu boards (not saturated fat, carbs or sodium) and exempts menu items that are offered for less than 6 months of the year.

But I promise not to tell anyone about that, because my hope is that places where poor people eat will get fed up and leave the City. And if we have to have poor people, we should make sure they are not unsightly. Since you have acknowledged that the menu labeling is not a silver bullet, allow me to present some additional measures to ensure responsible living:
1) Label People. We could require that all persons within the geographic boundaries of the City and County of San Francisco display their weight, body mass index, and body fat percentage. Obviously, if people knew the true contents of their own (and everyone else's) big asses, we would be truly incentivized to make proper choices.
2) Fat Credits. Kind of like Carbon Credits - if you want to avoid a fine and potential Camp La Jolla sentence, you have to stay at a healthy BMI, or buy, say a 10 pound fat credit from someone who is willing to lose 10 pounds for money. This is a job even a meth addict could hold down.
3) Obesecycle. The City could collect healthy, WASPy leftover food from upscale restaurants (where patrons are smart enough not to need nutritional info) and distribute it at special soup kitchens for obese and economically disadvantaged people. I am sure once they understand how good a salad with figs and Chardonnay can be, they'll abandon fast food altogether.

Your Devoted Fan,
Melissa

[Note: if you watch the Rules Committee hearing from Feb. 7, there is a guy (name I don't know) who presented in favor of the proposal. In doing so, he put up a menu board from a fast food place (McDonald's, I think) and argued that the nutritional information could be listed "somewhere in the bun." I know its immature, but that made me laugh so hard!]

Comments

[VenerableBede]

Once again, you take on a issue with far more humour and wit than my own way-too-serious temperment would allow me. More labelling always reminds me of the Denis Leary routine about cigarette labelling- "what?? you mean these things are bad for me? You could have a brand name called 'Tumors' with a skull and crossbones on it and people would still buy them."

[sfwillie]

I'm wondering if my ass isn't fat enough. I check the labels on whipping cream cartons to make sure I'm getting the high-test.

I want my corpse to have a creamy fat ass.

btw Sometime please explain your techniques for not throwing heavy objects at the TV screen.

[Printable grocery coupons]

I’ m sort of tardy to this month’ s SPC challenge. Politics in general are tough for me- they’ re typically about opinions and often turn into a debate over who is right and who is wrong. I don’ t generally care much for debating and I don’ t really encounter alot of things that create great controversy in my life. When I do encounter something I object to, I tend to take a more passive approach to rejecting it (complain to Hubby or just ignore it). In her picks from last week, Rachel posed the question,“ ...

[Effommamupwat]

I'm new here, just wanted to say hello and introduce myself.