The Center for Science in the Public Interest

Calm down, man, eat a cheeseburger.

 

You know, if you just read this thread you might well think that this group is like a food nanny nagging people for being naughty.

But when you look at the items they list, I think the Center is right.

Rufino, it's not a question of pointing out that ice cream is bad for you - although I think if you work out and aren't excessive every day, having an ice cream isn't a disaster. The point is that these things are ridiculous - over 1,500 calories for one item. That is shameful and the restaurants should be ashamed and shamed.

This is just gluttony, and a light should be pointed at it and these companies which do this should be called to account. Nobody is saying that everything has to be healthy, but these dishes are ridiculous.

 

This is more about controlling others' decisions than it is a public service.

 

I'm more amused by people's reactions to these reports, that some people act genuinely surprised when they hear these things are loaded with fat and calories. Then they say "What, is nothing good for us?"
Well, you don't see the Center for Science in the Public Interest doing these reports on fruits and vegetables, now, do you?

 

Of course they're ridiculous. Most of those items would never be eaten by one person anyway - who fires down an full order of "pizza skins" by themself? How about a three quarter pound piece of cheesecake after a regular meal? Despite the outrage, though, this kind of food's not the leading cause of obesity in this country. That has much more to do with a lack of exercise and incessant consumption of sodas, caramel frappucinos and other sugary drinks like Snapple that people think are "healthier" because they aren't soda. Non-fat Oreos are 50 calories as opposed to regular Oreos which are 53. Because some people think the non-fat ones are healthier, though, they wind up eating a lot more of them than they would of the regulars. I'd like to see attention paid to some of those less obvious areas if the CSPI's going to put out this kind of release.

When the CSPI folks clued people into just how bad movie popcorn was for you, I could see how people might have been surprised by the details. Anyone who needs help figuring out any of the dishes shown in this report are bad for you is hopeless. Sometimes people want to make an indulgent choice, whether it be getting hammered or splitting the big dessert. They've got that right, and they don't need to be lectured to about it.

 

So. if you point out to people that their behaviour is dangerous to their health and their children's health, that's self-righteous.

If no one bought and ate crap like this, there'd be no reason for this group to exist, would there?

Same as smoking. Lots of people do it despite evidence to the contrary.

So governments say, "Well, we'll make it easier for you to quite by banning smoking in all public places".

Is that being patronizing and self-righteous.?

 

Ragu,

I think it's called "education".

 

Patronizing, self righteous, educational, etc., ad nauseum. Whatever.

I'm not overweight, although not in as good shape as I'd like to be, but I'm disappointed that quesadillas made that list. I recently whipped up a batch of them using a strip of skirt steak and two different kinds of cheeses. If I'm contributing to a greater social problem, that's one thing.

But damn, they were good freaking quesadillas.

 

What were the two kinds of cheese?

 

A Mexican cheese mix and quesadilla cheese.

 

If you're feeling patronized by this, some growing-up is in order, I believe.
I heard this crap all through the time when there was "doubt" about the dangers of tobacco. People are giving you information. You don't want to follow it, fine. But don't make them out to be insulting for telling you the truth.