# AP:Food Companies will Remove 1.5 Trillion Calories



## Ned Sonntag (May 17, 2010)

http://www.salon.com/wires/allwires/2010/05/17/D9FOP66O0_us_fewer_calories/index.html Aren't they in the business of PROVIDING calories????


----------



## disconnectedsmile (May 17, 2010)

you don't understand!
if the food companies don't control what kids eat, who will? parents!? MADNESS.


----------



## exile in thighville (May 17, 2010)

i'm ok with this because being fat should be a choice and most people do not choose to be fat, and are merely not aware what they are putting into themselves or lack the options when less healthy food is more convenient (and arguably less expensive).

but then luckily for my dick this will never actually happen.


----------



## Fat Brian (May 17, 2010)

Next the will be hiring agents to follow us around and slap cookies out of our hands.


----------



## truebebeblue (May 17, 2010)

I think this would be hilarious.





Fat Brian said:


> Next the will be hiring agents to follow us around and slap cookies out of our hands.


----------



## Lamia (May 21, 2010)

I don't have a problem with this at all. I think they're being proactive because they know if they don't they're going to be hit with fed regulations.


----------



## Your Plump Princess (May 21, 2010)

Fat Brian said:


> Next the will be hiring agents to follow us around and slap cookies out of our hands.


I Hope not.
I'd be sent to prison for abusing a Fed, cause boy nobody better touch my damn cookies!


On a serious note:

Great, so their idea is to lower the calories, probably making their stuff taste HORRIBLE, and hoping nobody buys it so it will 'save america' ?


----------



## spiritangel (May 21, 2010)

actually it may well mean reducing the amount of highly processed stuff and additives in food as many of them are calorie laden like High fructose corn syrup and the amount of salt used as "filler" in a lot of "junk" style foods is just insane, it would be great if they did that rather than remove the stuff that tastes good ect but only time will tell or it will mean even more processing of the food like they do for the "low fat" foods ever lookedat the list of chemicles in that stuff scary


----------



## Dromond (May 21, 2010)

If people would buy real food rather than processed crapola this wouldn't be necessary.

Silly me, I forgot. Accountability is un-American.


----------



## Tracyarts (May 21, 2010)

" If people would buy real food rather than processed crapola this wouldn't be necessary. "

No, it wouldn't. 

But, I have to say that enough people want better food that the market is starting to respond. I have watched it happen. Things that I used to have to go to Whole Foods or a health food store for a couple of years ago, I can get at any of many local supermarkets now. New farmers markets are starting up and drawing bigger and bigger crowds every month. Ranches and dairy farms that produce naturally fed and humanely raised meat, milk, eggs, and cheese are bringing their products to the consumers by selling through local stores, vending at local farmers markets, and arranging pick-up times for prepaid orders at locations around the city. More products are showing up on store shelves that are free of HFCS, hydrogenated oils, modified food starch, and other cheap corn and soy based filler ingredients. "Organic" and "natural" are becoming selling points. It's not just the wealthy or "crunchy" types who are shopping and eating this way, it's becoming more mainstream. 

There will always be a significant percentage of the population that will choose processed food for various reasons despite the fact that they will suffer for it in the long run. But there is a trend towards eating better and lots of people are making the changes on their own. 

Tracy


----------



## Jes (May 21, 2010)

Dromond said:


> If people would buy real food rather than processed crapola this wouldn't be necessary.
> 
> Silly me, I forgot. Accountability is un-American.



It's not always about accountability, Dromond. In many, many urban areas, there are no grocery stores. None. Some people have to take 2 buses in each direction to hit a store, and how much can one carry home that way? Someone old? Someone infirm? But what DOES exist, on every corner, is a bodega that sells those weirdo packaged muffins (baked when? During the Reagan administration?), Slim Jims, and Cheetos. Oh, and those kool-aid type drink bottles that look like hand grenades! 

And as someone else said, better food is truly more expensive food.

I don't know your financial status or living situation, but I would argue that you may not know what other people are faced with and the fact that some really DO try their best. American cities don't help them succeed at all.


----------



## Dromond (May 21, 2010)

Jes, I avoid cities as I hate them. I lived in a moderate sized city for several years and couldn't get out fast enough. I do know that proper grocery stores are lacking in urban areas, that's part of the reason I hated it so much. I could get a cheeseburger or an edible chemical experiment easier than I could buy groceries.

I'm not insensitive to financial and locational poverty. I've lived in an area like that. My financial situation is that I'm disabled and have Social Security as my sole means of support. $700 / month does not go far when you live on your own. You can imagine the area I lived in with an income like that. Even so, I stand by what I said. It is harder to get proper food in those circumstances, but it's not impossible. I know, I've lived it.


----------



## Webmaster (May 21, 2010)

These are truly weird times, when a good part of the world desperately struggles to find enough calories to survive while here in the US we're agonizing over how to take calories out of food, making it look like some noble (and doubtlessly very profitable, for the food industry) cause. Since, after all is said and done, calories represent energy, and it's energy that's needed to sustain life, perhaps we should export those 1.5 trillion calories (cool number, trillion, sounds like something alarming, like a budget deficit or so) and make them available where they are needed.


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (May 21, 2010)

Webmaster said:


> perhaps we should export those 1.5 trillion calories (cool number, trillion, sounds like something alarming, like a budget deficit or so) and make them available where they are needed.



This is a great idea, but it needs a snappy title to help it catch on. How about "Ding Dongs for Peace"? :eat2:


----------



## bigbuttlover39 (May 21, 2010)

Webmaster said:


> These are truly weird times, when a good part of the world desperately struggles to find enough calories to survive while here in the US we're agonizing over how to take calories out of food, making it look like some noble (and doubtlessly very profitable, for the food industry) cause. Since, after all is said and done, calories represent energy, and it's energy that's needed to sustain life, perhaps we should export those 1.5 trillion calories (cool number, trillion, sounds like something alarming, like a budget deficit or so) and make them available where they are needed.



brilliant post, annnnnd im all for the ding dongs for peace movement haha!


----------



## Fat Brian (May 21, 2010)

They can take out all the calories they want but they can't control how much people eat. The end user of the food product is still responsible for their choices.


----------



## Witch-King (May 21, 2010)

I say let the companies do what they please. Let them carry on there plan to remove 1.5 trillion calories because they will soon learn that without those extra calories, their food will not taste as good. This will lead to a dramatic decrease in food sales, which will in turn cause the companies to reinstate the 1.5 trillion calories. By reinstateing those calories, the companies may experience a huge consumer boom, thus bringing in bigger revenues. This will continue over and over and over and over again. (Hint: Most companies do this crap just to make some big bucks).


----------



## Tracyarts (May 22, 2010)

" It is harder to get proper food in those circumstances, but it's not impossible. I know, I've lived it. "

Me too. 

It took a little more effort and planning to do it, but the community resources to get me to and from the store were there and I chose to make use of them instead of just walking next door to the convenience store and buying whatever piece of processed crap in a colorful wrapper that caught my eye. And since fresh food in the long run is cheaper than processed food, I was able to feed my husband and I good healthy meals on the little bit of food stamp assistance we qualified for. 

There are people in worse situations who do not have functional kitchens to store and prepare food, and who do not have any kind of access to anything but convenience stores that only sell processed snack food. But they are a small percentage. This is not about them. This is about the vast majority of people who *do* have access to better nutruition yet choose to not strike a balance between real food and junk food. Especially when it comes to their children. 

Tracy


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (May 22, 2010)

Witch-King said:


> Let them carry on there plan to remove 1.5 trillion calories because they will soon learn that without those extra calories, their food will not taste as good.



Permit me to doubt this. My own -- admittedly limited -- experience indicates that the more highly processed the food, the _less_ flavorful it is. Ditto for the grease quotient, a potent source of calories. I remember being stunned when I was in France by the ready availability of fresh, unprocessed food at what seemed -- in comparison with the U.S. -- ridiculously low prices. The French, however, have a reputation for being food snobs who regard high quality food as their birthright*; if Americans are less fussy, it seems possible that many of them wouldn't notice if the food changes.


*Remember what happened to Marie Antoinette when she suggested that the commoners change their dietary practice.


----------



## olwen (May 22, 2010)

spiritangel said:


> actually it may well mean reducing the amount of highly processed stuff and additives in food as many of them are calorie laden like High fructose corn syrup and the amount of salt used as "filler" in a lot of "junk" style foods is just insane, it would be great if they did that rather than remove the stuff that tastes good ect but only time will tell or it will mean even more processing of the food like they do for the "low fat" foods ever lookedat the list of chemicles in that stuff scary



...I don't think salt is filler, but rather a preservative. Soy lecthin or soy protein isolate, I think would be filler and it's in just about anything that can be packaged. It would be good if all of that stuff would be removed, but then it wouldn't last for long on the shelf. The entire food chain from the farm to the table would have to be rearranged so that food spends less time in transit and on the shelf. We consumers would also have to get into the habit of eating food in season and food that is locally grown and to also spend more time in the kitchen, which could be difficult...we would all have to just change the way we do everything, from the way we work, to the way we raise our kids to the way we eat our meals. It's a daunting task. I think Michelle Obama has bitten off more than she can chew.


----------



## olwen (May 22, 2010)

Dr. Feelgood said:


> Permit me to doubt this. My own -- admittedly limited -- experience indicates that the more highly processed the food, the _less_ flavorful it is. Ditto for the grease quotient, a potent source of calories. I remember being stunned when I was in France by the ready availability of fresh, unprocessed food at what seemed -- in comparison with the U.S. -- ridiculously low prices. The French, however, have a reputation for being food snobs who regard high quality food as their birthright*; if Americans are less fussy, it seems possible that many of them wouldn't notice if the food changes.
> 
> 
> *Remember what happened to Marie Antoinette when she suggested that the commoners change their dietary practice.



I think to some extent some americans are so used to chemical crap real food would taste funny. Like when a kid is used to drinking/eating apple gunk and it's flavored green and you give them something with actual apples in it they won't want to eat it. 

Prime example: I made an amazing meal for mother's day. Spagetti with diced tomatoes, crushed tomatoes, ground pork and ground beef, fresh basil, parsley, mushrooms, onions, and two different types of peppers, and some other spices. All that to go on top of some brown rice pasta. An arugula salad with shaved pecorino reggiano, and sliced basil, and a lemon vinagarette that I also made. I roasted a garlic head to make it soft enough to spread onto a baguette with butter for garlic bread and my family who are def not foodees asked me why I couldn't have just used bottled tomato sauce, then they wanted to know where the rest of the salad was, and what was the strange yellow liquid, and if the garlic I spread on the bread was cheese. :doh: I nearly lost it. Why on earth would they want to eat crap out of a can when there was a perfectly yummy home cooked meal right there?!?!?!? They seem to like their prepackaged crap. It's kind of a shame that you have to be a foodee in this country to appreciate good food...


----------



## velia (May 22, 2010)

olwen said:


> I think to some extent some americans are so used to chemical crap real food would taste funny. Like when a kid is used to drinking/eating apple gunk and it's flavored green and you give them something with actual apples in it they won't want to eat it.
> 
> Prime example: I made an amazing meal for mother's day. Spagetti with diced tomatoes, crushed tomatoes, ground pork and ground beef, fresh basil, parsley, mushrooms, onions, and two different types of peppers, and some other spices. All that to go on top of some brown rice pasta. An arugula salad with shaved pecorino reggiano, and sliced basil, and a lemon vinagarette that I also made. I roasted a garlic head to make it soft enough to spread onto a baguette with butter for garlic bread and my family who are def not foodees asked me why I couldn't have just used bottled tomato sauce, then they wanted to know where the rest of the salad was, and what was the strange yellow liquid, and if the garlic I spread on the bread was cheese. :doh: I nearly lost it. Why on earth would they want to eat crap out of a can when there was a perfectly yummy home cooked meal right there?!?!?!? They seem to like their prepackaged crap. It's kind of a shame that you have to be a foodee in this country to appreciate good food...



Olwen, I totally know what you mean. Many members of my family act similarly about the food I cook. We certainly don't have money, but are blessed enough to live in a rural area where I can choose to purchase fresh produce most of the time. I love trying new fruits and veggies and I've been trying to eat seasonal produce the last couple of years. Its amazing to me-- more often than not, those same family members won't even try the things I make using the fruit or veggies they've not tried before. I just don't get it, but I guess it's their choice. These same family members flick me crap for not constantly feeding my baby processed junk... Meh.


----------



## Witch-King (May 22, 2010)

Dr. Feelgood said:


> *Remember what happened to Marie Antoinette when she suggested that the commoners change their dietary practice.



I am sorry I am venting this on you, but I hear that damned phrase so much.

That phrase had little to do the the actual French Revolution except state the attitude of the nobility at the time. The French Revolution was brought on by about 150 years of government blunders that forced French citizens to stir up a revolution due to the following factors: fix their piss-poor economy, remove the ineffective monarchy, citizens enlightened from philosophes (like Volataire, Diderot, Turgot, and Rousseau), a certain inspiring (to an extent) revolution that occured in the late eighteenth century involving colonist whining about taxes that were needed to pay the expenses of a great empire that helped the colonist out in the Seven Year's War ( which by the way the colonist basically started), and the concern of the food scarcity in the 1780s. That one overquoted/overrated remark that came from Louis the XVI's wife did not start the 10 year progessivley violent turmoil in France.



Sorry, I needed to get that out of my system. This of course was not to offend you whatsoever.


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (May 23, 2010)

Witch-King said:


> Sorry, I needed to get that out of my system. This of course was not to offend you whatsoever.



It didn't. I realize she didn't even SAY "Let them eat cake" in actuality. It's a pleasure to see someone with an appreciation of history. :bow:


----------



## msbard90 (May 23, 2010)

I don't see the problem with this at all. It's not like they're zapping calories out of a carrot. They're trying to make the unhealthy shit that we love to eat and can't get enough of a little bit better for us. 

I saw comments about how countries are struggling for calories and we're trying to get rid of them... well yeah! In those countries "struggling", they're not eating devil dogs and obnoxiously colored cereal. The extra calories we "have" is in the over-processed bullshit we eat that's hurtful to any body (Why would we offer our JUNK to anyone else?!?!?!?!?!?!!?). 

In my opinion, why can't the foods we love be made simpler and healthier? Its because its inconvenient and a lot of Americans these days can't even boil water. It would take too much time and money to recreate the processed foods we love. 

What always sticks in my head as a rule for what I eat is "if my great grandma wouldn't recognize that as food, then I probably shouldn't eat it" (I believe I heard that on Oprah, but truer words have never been said).


----------



## msbard90 (May 23, 2010)

And.... if you read the article, its only about 12.5 calories less a day per person. I doubt by taking 12.5 calories out of your diet a day, all your food is going to taste like poo. Highly doubt it. 12.5 calories is like a couple tic tacs if you want to put it that way.


----------



## Dromond (May 23, 2010)

If you want to keep your love of fast food intact, do not ever look at the "nutrition facts" the fast food companies publish on what is actually in their food.


----------



## Cat (May 23, 2010)

I heard they're planning brilliant maneuvers. They're going to save 20% of the calories by changing a 20 ounce bottle of soda into a 16 ounce...and they're going to charge the same amount. Brilliant! The government looks brilliant because they had industry willingly follow through on their ideas and the industries will make more money. Win-win for everyone...well, except for the consumer.


----------



## Fat Brian (May 23, 2010)

They've been slowly reducing the size of products and charging the amount for it for years now, I'm glad the Obamas have finally decided to make it government policy.


----------



## msbard90 (May 23, 2010)

Cat said:


> I heard they're planning brilliant maneuvers. They're going to save 20% of the calories by changing a 20 ounce bottle of soda into a 16 ounce...and they're going to charge the same amount. Brilliant! The government looks brilliant because they had industry willingly follow through on their ideas and the industries will make more money. Win-win for everyone...well, except for the consumer.



I think its a great idea. Charge 2 bucks for a 16 ounce bottle of soda- why not? It would encourage people to both think of healthier beverages to drink and recycle bottles (provided you use your own water bottle). Besides taste and a supposed stomach ache home remedy, what good is it anyways? I think it is a good idea for the government to *MILDLY* step in and encourage healthy eating choices, since many people and parents of children wont. Just because this is a fat positive site doesn't mean that we should ignore steps towards better health for everyone.


----------



## Fat Brian (May 23, 2010)

But this tax would affect poor people more harshly than wealthy people and its just plain stupid. Why raise taxes when we're all broke ?


----------



## Dromond (May 23, 2010)

msbard90 said:


> Besides taste and a supposed stomach ache home remedy, what good is it anyways?



Soda promotes osteoporosis due to the phosphorus in sodas leaching calcium out of the bones. Oh, wait. That's not good, is it?


----------



## LoveBHMS (May 23, 2010)

Fat Brian said:


> But this tax would affect poor people more harshly than wealthy people and its just plain stupid. Why raise taxes when we're all broke ?



It's not "raising" taxes like a property assesment or raising an income tax rate. A so called "sin tax" or a tax on something you don't need is a totally voluntary tax, probably the best kind of tax. Msbard90 is right in that there is no need to drink soda; it has no nutritional value and is bad for you.


----------



## Cat (May 23, 2010)

msbard90 said:


> I think its a great idea. Charge 2 bucks for a 16 ounce bottle of soda- why not? It would encourage people to both think of healthier beverages to drink and recycle bottles (provided you use your own water bottle). Besides taste and a supposed stomach ache home remedy, what good is it anyways? I think it is a good idea for the government to *MILDLY* step in and encourage healthy eating choices, since many people and parents of children wont. Just because this is a fat positive site doesn't mean that we should ignore steps towards better health for everyone.



The soda example was just that...an example. Replace it with "pasta" or "pineapple" or any other food item, nutritious or not. Don't be fooled by the false altruism of the entire idea. Industry will find a way to benefit from the idea and the consumer will pay the price.


----------



## Fat Brian (May 23, 2010)

But LoveBHMS, you still have a right to drink it just like cigarettes and beer. These taxes are regressive and target poor people. Any government construct that increases the cost of a thing is a tax, no matter what it is on. If government shouldn't have the power to control what happens in your bedroom then it shouldn't have the power to control what goes in your refrigerator either.


----------



## Fat Brian (May 23, 2010)

Cat said:


> The soda example was just that...an example. Replace it with "pasta" or "pineapple" or any other food item, nutritious or not. Don't be fooled by the false altruism of the entire idea. Industry will find a way to benefit from the idea and the consumer will pay the price.



That is so right, its not about just soda, anything "they" don't like can end up with a tax on it.


----------



## Witch-King (May 23, 2010)

Dr. Feelgood said:


> It didn't. I realize she didn't even SAY "Let them eat cake" in actuality. It's a pleasure to see someone with an appreciation of history. :bow:



Thank you.


----------



## Dromond (May 23, 2010)

Cat said:


> The soda example was just that...an example. Replace it with "pasta" or "pineapple" or any other food item, nutritious or not. Don't be fooled by the false altruism of the entire idea. Industry will find a way to benefit from the idea and the consumer will pay the price.



It's the law of unintended consequences. Any time the government has what seems to be a good idea and puts it into law, corporations will find ways to work it so they win and we lose. It doesn't matter which party is in control. The corporations always win in the end.


----------



## Witch-King (May 23, 2010)

Dromond said:


> The corporations always win in the end.



I want this as my signature.


----------



## Dromond (May 23, 2010)

I would be honored if you adopted that as your sig.


----------



## Witch-King (May 23, 2010)

Dromond said:


> I would be honored if you adopted that as your sig.



I Got it to work.


----------



## LoveBHMS (May 24, 2010)

Fat Brian said:


> But LoveBHMS, you still have a right to drink it just like cigarettes and beer. These taxes are regressive and target poor people. Any government construct that increases the cost of a thing is a tax, no matter what it is on. If government shouldn't have the power to control what happens in your bedroom then it shouldn't have the power to control what goes in your refrigerator either.



It's not about the government invading your sex life at all. There are plenty of public policy initiatives that are targeted towards helping citizens; seatbelts, mandatory helmets on motorcycles, smoking bans, even towns putting in sidewalks to you can walk places. Those things are about saving lives, not Big Brother. Even if they're considered intrusive, or overly so, they're still well intentioned.

msbard90 is right in that there is nothing wrong with nudging people towards making better health choices. If people stopped or cut down on smoking when prices went up, isn't that a positive thing?


----------



## joswitch (May 24, 2010)

olwen said:


> I think to some extent some americans are so used to chemical crap real food would taste funny. Like when a kid is used to drinking/eating apple gunk and it's flavored green and you give them something with actual apples in it they won't want to eat it.
> 
> Prime example: I made an amazing meal for mother's day. Spagetti with diced tomatoes, crushed tomatoes, ground pork and ground beef, fresh basil, parsley, mushrooms, onions, and two different types of peppers, and some other spices. All that to go on top of some brown rice pasta. An arugula salad with shaved pecorino reggiano, and sliced basil, and a lemon vinagarette that I also made. I roasted a garlic head to make it soft enough to spread onto a baguette with butter for garlic bread and my family who are def not foodees asked me why I couldn't have just used bottled tomato sauce, then they wanted to know where the rest of the salad was, and what was the strange yellow liquid, and if the garlic I spread on the bread was cheese. :doh: I nearly lost it. Why on earth would they want to eat crap out of a can when there was a perfectly yummy home cooked meal right there?!?!?!? They seem to like their prepackaged crap. It's kind of a shame that you have to be a foodee in this country to appreciate good food...



damn that's some gratitude fail there! :doh:
I think you're probably right overall - further proofs: compare and contrast American-cheese, with any decent real cheese and American chocolate with say Swiss...


----------



## Fat Brian (May 24, 2010)

LoveBHMS said:


> It's not about the government invading your sex life at all. There are plenty of public policy initiatives that are targeted towards helping citizens; seatbelts, mandatory helmets on motorcycles, smoking bans, even towns putting in sidewalks to you can walk places. Those things are about saving lives, not Big Brother. Even if they're considered intrusive, or overly so, they're still well intentioned.
> 
> msbard90 is right in that there is nothing wrong with nudging people towards making better health choices. If people stopped or cut down on smoking when prices went up, isn't that a positive thing?



Good intentions do not negate poor outcomes. The principal is the same whether is your bedroom or kitchen, its not their right to involve themselves. Everything you mentioned except for sidewalks is not a legitimate function of government. Freedom includes the freedom to make poor choices, to make self endangering choices. The government that can tax things you find appropriate today can turn on you tomorrow, better it not have the power in the first place.


----------



## LoveBHMS (May 24, 2010)

Yeah actually it is their right to collect taxes whether we like it or not. Goes all the way back to citizens being told to render unto Ceasar what was Ceasar's and all that. Governments can choose what to tax and honestly, taxing soda is hardly that burdensome.


----------



## Dromond (May 24, 2010)

You want the government to not be able to tax?

Edit: Cross posted. I agree with LoveBHMS. The ability to tax is one of the abilities the government has from the Constitution, and at the core of any functioning government.


----------



## Fat Brian (May 24, 2010)

But its not just about soda, its about the targeting of any product or activity and making it a revenue generation tool. If soda is that bad and its such a moral hazard ban it, don't try to get your little piece of the pie, take a stand.


----------



## Dromond (May 24, 2010)

Ban it? That sure worked with alcohol, didn't it? Making something contraband that everyone loves is a sure fire way to chaos. Taxing extra on things that are bad for you (sin taxes) is the only way to put any kind of control on the bad thing.


----------



## olwen (May 24, 2010)

joswitch said:


> damn that's some gratitude fail there! :doh:
> I think you're probably right overall - further proofs: compare and contrast American-cheese, with any decent real cheese and American chocolate with say Swiss...



....well, processed cheese is gross, but not all american cheese, say a good vermont cheddar (Cabot) is bad. Not all american chocolate is bad either. Good chocolate to me is dark and not too sweet. I actually like to bake with Ghirardelli chocolate, which is an american chocolate. It's way better than Nestle chocolate. Acutally, you could easily make chocolate from any good cocoa powder, but since americans are so used to prepackaged food, we don't think to do it, and lemmie tell ya I almost blew a gasket when I found out I could easily make a chocolate ganash from sugar and unsweetened cocoa powder as I could from a semi-sweet bar of chocolate. Heh, bourbon, isn't bad either. We just have to get away from convenience foods, but that probably won't happen any time soon.


----------



## Dromond (May 24, 2010)

"American" cheese is an actual type of cheese. It's kind of painful to call it cheese, though. From Wikipedia: "Today’s American cheese is generally no longer made from a blend of all-natural cheeses, but instead is manufactured from a set of ingredients such as milk, whey, milkfat, milk protein concentrate, whey protein concentrate, and salt." It's fake cheese, in other words. Bleck.


----------



## olwen (May 24, 2010)

Dromond said:


> "American" cheese is an actual type of cheese. It's kind of painful to call it cheese, though. From Wikipedia: "Todays American cheese is generally no longer made from a blend of all-natural cheeses, but instead is manufactured from a set of ingredients such as milk, whey, milkfat, milk protein concentrate, whey protein concentrate, and salt." It's fake cheese, in other words. Bleck.



Today's american cheese is still actual cheese. That other cheeselike food product is just that, a cheeselike food product and it has a weird gross texture. I've always hated that stuff....but wait, I love those white cheddar smart puffs and now I'm wondering where the cheese powder comes from...oh well there goes my foodee cred. LOL


----------



## Dromond (May 24, 2010)

White cheddar smart puffs are DIVINE. Anyone who questions your foodee credentials for loving them is on very shaky ground.


----------



## joswitch (May 25, 2010)

olwen said:


> ....well, *processed cheese* is gross, but not all american cheese, say a good vermont cheddar (Cabot) is bad. Not all american chocolate is bad either. Good chocolate to me is dark and not too sweet. I actually like to bake with Ghirardelli chocolate, which is an american chocolate. It's way better than Nestle chocolate. Acutally, you could easily make chocolate from any good cocoa powder, but since americans are so used to prepackaged food, we don't think to do it, and lemmie tell ya I almost blew a gasket when I found out I could easily make a chocolate ganash from sugar and unsweetened cocoa powder as I could from a semi-sweet bar of chocolate. Heh, bourbon, isn't bad either. We just have to get away from convenience foods, but that probably won't happen any time soon.



Yeah, I meant the processed cheese slices they call "American Cheese" in Subway....



Dromond said:


> "American" cheese is an actual type of cheese. It's kind of painful to call it cheese, though. From Wikipedia: "Today’s American cheese is generally no longer made from a blend of all-natural cheeses, but instead is manufactured from a set of ingredients such as milk, whey, milkfat, milk protein concentrate, whey protein concentrate, and salt." It's fake cheese, in other words. Bleck.



Zis scheese ee eez an imposteur! 

or should that be - "impasteur"???  

Sorry - can't resist a pun!


----------



## LoveBHMS (May 25, 2010)

Fat Brian said:


> But its not just about soda, its about the targeting of any product or activity *and making it a revenue generation tool*. If soda is that bad and its such a moral hazard ban it, don't try to get your little piece of the pie, take a stand.



I know, that's what taxing is. 

The fact that something is taxed doesn't mean the government is tossing some moral judgement on it. I just got the excise tax for my car and I'm pretty sure the government isn't against me having a car. Same with income tax, the government does not collect income taxes because they think it's a moral hazard to work.

Very frequently when you read arguement for legalizing prostitution or marijuana you will see the rationale that you can tax it. Nobody is against letting the government take its share. I mean they have to operate a country.


----------



## Fat Brian (May 25, 2010)

Government is passing a moral judgment when they call it a sin tax and seek out things that are considered morally deficient. I'm all for legalizing pot and prostitution but I don't think they should be taxed, legalization is just the correct thing to do.


----------



## msbard90 (May 25, 2010)

LoveBHMS said:


> I know, that's what taxing is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## olwen (May 25, 2010)

Dromond said:


> White cheddar smart puffs are DIVINE. Anyone who questions your foodee credentials for loving them is on very shaky ground.



LOL, I'll go with that assessment. 



joswitch said:


> Yeah, I meant the processed cheese slices they call "American Cheese" in Subway....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I do not like Subway. I can eat the bread, but the sandwiches are made by people who look like they don't want to be there. It makes me not want to eat it. Food truly tastes better when it's made by people who like to cook for others. 



Fat Brian said:


> Government is passing a moral judgment when they call it a sin tax and seek out things that are considered morally deficient. I'm all for legalizing pot and prostitution but I don't think they should be taxed, legalization is just the correct thing to do.



Both should be legalized and taxed. And since pot would be a good it would be a sales tax and prostitution would be counted as income tax or a service tax. Doesn't matter to me what it's called, but it would generate income that the gov't really needs.


----------



## curvy_kitty (May 26, 2010)

personally if people were to learn to cook, take more time to cook and what not, the whole 'business' problem of cutting calories wouldn't be such an issue at all.

Homemade is where is at when you want something right. No pre-pared foods, just good ol' wholesum foods. I can't count the times I went searching for a recipe only to find that the so called recipe called for 'one can such and such soup, 1 bag tator tots, 1 can fried onions' and what not instead of being about fresh unprossed ingrediends that anyone should be able to find and get.

*shrug* I know it's all about money in this world today but it really has lost the prospective on what is good and what isn't. If it's prepared, 9 out of 10 it's bad for you... in one form or another.

So with this topic, I think it's great that they are but if the companies didn't make the pre-processed foods they do, it wouldn't have ever had to happen in the first place.


----------

