Fast Food and Americans' Weights

SummerChild · #1 06-27-2006, 06:44 PM

Ladies and Gents,
I was wondering what you think should be done, if anything, about fast food given that the reports are indicating that Americans' are largely heavier than citizens of other countries.

I only ask b/c yesterday I was waiting for my food in car at Lousiana Fried Chicken yesterday (a CA chain that sells fried chicken and fried fish) when I noticed a man struggling to get out of the door of his minivan. Now mind you, there was not a car parked next to him and he seemed to have the door open as far as it would go. He was standing with both feet on the ground but was trying to pull himself out of the doorway of the car. He somehow got onto the sidewalk (I didn't look) and had to upright himself by *pushing off on his car hood* once he got both feet on the sidewalk. He could barely walk. He was every bit of at least 400 lbs or maybe more. I looked and lo and behold, he was going into Lousiana Fried Chicken! I was so mad at the people for serving him (although I know that is wrong b/c it is unhealthy food so they probably shouldn't serve anyone). But I was so mad b/c it looked like this man needed to be admitted to a hospital and they were serving him Lousiana Fried Chicken for a few bucks!!!

I know that it's ridiculous but I almost felt like there should be some sort of fine for serving someone in that condition.

What do you think?

ETA: I was mad with the company b/c I felt like this must be someone who can't help himself if he is this heavy and having to do all this just to get some LA fried chicken - I felt like they shouldn't take advantage of that. Not that they could have truly refused to serve him.

SC

tld221 · #2 06-27-2006, 07:07 PM

please, go on and let ol boy NOT get served -- there's a discrimination suit waiting to happen.

there was a news story recently (it mightve been local) about this one congressman who suggested putting a heavy tax on fast food and restaurants like Applebees, TGIFridays and the like, sort of like cigarettes and liquor. he had suggested making big macs like $10 or something... this way you discourage the fatties and potential fatties from stuffing their faces with junk that isnt any good for them.

this is what it comes down to: po' folk can't afford to buy food that's better for them. in turn, food chains and supermarkets will continue to charge next to nothing for food that give you next to nothing nutritional value.

i know i know "its not just about diet, its about excersize." fine. but come on if youre scarfing down fried fish and mcdonalds on a regular, a decent excersize plan MAY regulate the weight, but what about high blood pressure, diabetes, cholesterol, etc.?

trideltrockstar · #3 06-27-2006, 07:10 PM

Unfortunately, in this country, eating healthy is far more expensive than eating food that is bad for you. With the McDonalds dollar menu and great deals on fattening pizzas/fried chicken/hamburgers, poorer people are going to be attracted to that kind of food. Salads always cost more than french fries & chicken fingers. Until something can be done to lower the cost of healthy food (or, conversely, raise the price of fattening food), this is going to continue.

PerfectVerse06 · #4 06-28-2006, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trideltrockstar

Unfortunately, in this country, eating healthy is far more expensive than eating food that is bad for you. With the McDonalds dollar menu and great deals on fattening pizzas/fried chicken/hamburgers, poorer people are going to be attracted to that kind of food. Salads always cost more than french fries & chicken fingers. Until something can be done to lower the cost of healthy food (or, conversely, raise the price of fattening food), this is going to continue.

That is so true.

People are discouraged and end up going with the cheaper choice, the Value Menu items because they feel as though their money goes a longer way. $4.00 will get you a burger, fries, a drink, and dessert if you want it, but $4.00 will barely cover the cost of a salad. In Americans' eyes, the unhealthy food is more affordable and you get more for your $$$.

AKA_Monet · #5 06-28-2006, 08:23 PM

Soror SummerChild,

I think tld221 was referring to homie suing the company for refusal to serve him due to the fact he was fat as discriminatory... Although, lower courts have stated that all restaurants have the right to refuse service for whatever reason--I think it goes back to the "lunch counter civil right's era"...

You'd know more than me.

AKA_Monet · #6 06-28-2006, 08:44 PM

Our food is highly processed because we feed the masses 24/7. In other countries, they close various food retailers at certain times (developed countries) and there are rules many countries enforce for proper serving of food--namely places like France were most of the food is unprocessed, although I hear that is changing.

In undeveloped countries or poorly developed countries, their problems are with "infection rates". Namely dysentery and other communicable diseases, such as malaria and other diseases the lead to chronic malnutrition. Moreover, there are wars in these countries mainly due to poor land management and resources. I would not say these people are "healthy" by any means.

But in places like Europe and Canada where food is rather abundant--or nutrition is abundant, most of the items available to consume are less processed as required by law in the United States. There are many reasons for that, probably because food-borne infections that occur only in the US opposed to other countries.

In places like Japan and China, they are beginning to see increased rates of chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes and obesity. Apparently, their younger generations (after WWII), like the relative ease of fast food too... And their women work outside the home at careers and are unable to cook for their families preparing traditional meals that mainly consisted of fish products, vegetables and rice. Most Pacific Rim diets have gone way up in their salt/sugar consumption rates to preserve foods longer in a refrigerators/freezers, which may be inherently reducing food quality and increase the need for raw food processing...

Moreover, Japan has over fished it seas and goes to numerous other countries or International waters to obtain various fish species. That does not reduce the rate of Chinese need to have an abundant fish diet. But Northern Chinese are showing relatively high rates of chronic disease, like heart disease due to their poor nutrition, but they also have poorer healthcare in those provinces compared to coastal cities, like Beijing and Shanghai.

It is a balance that one has to take... Organic foods are more costly along with co-op farms and hallal meat processors. But overall increased food consumption and lack of proper exercise might not be the only problem to weight reduction and increased childhood obesity rates... There may be some genetic shift going on that is unrecognized.

SummerChild · #7 06-27-2006, 08:05 PM

Discrimination based on what? Well it wouldn't be race b/c they serve plenty (probably mostly) AA and this was this man's race. There wasn't a constitutional right to eat fast food last time I checked. Any of my fellow JDs got ideas on the merit of such a discrimination suit. Guess it might be weak equal protection claim based on weight classification. Are there any substantive due process rights that this sort of discrimination might bring up?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tld221

please, go on and let ol boy NOT get served -- there's a discrimination suit waiting to happen.

tld221 · #8 06-27-2006, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SummerChild

Discrimination based on what? Well it wouldn't be race b/c they serve plenty (probably mostly) AA and this was this man's race. There wasn't a constitutional right to eat fast food last time I checked. Any of my fellow JDs got ideas on the merit of such a discrimination suit. Guess it might be weak equal protection claim based on weight classification. Are there any substantive due process rights that this sort of discrimination might bring up?

im not up on my legal jargon... but i just meant that they couldn't not serve because "thats not the kinda food a man of his size should be eating."

it would be like a salesperson not selling a tube top to a woman who visibly shouldn't be wearing one. you cant say, "Well a woman your size shouldnt wear this..."

Or like denying someone with a super emphysema voice a pack of cigarerettes at a 7-11. (yes! i knew a better analogy would come up, thats the 4th one i typed)

f8nacn · #9 06-28-2006, 09:15 AM

I wouldn't say that only "poor" people eat at fast food restaurants, I'm sure many "wealthy" people or those who are not in the "poor" category go for fast food as well. Obesity isn't an issue for just "poor" people...obesity has no discrimination on one's economic status...and to say that because a person is over a certain weight should be denied a choice in meals, is definitely discrimination. Of course, we know that they should be on a healthier eating plan, but how do we know they aren't...and are rewarding themselves for ONE time...but then again, we are all assuming what their particular problem may be at the time...

not playing devil's advocate...just offering my view point...

raregem1913 · #10 06-28-2006, 10:49 AM

I don't eat fast food as much as I did when I was younger. I guess with age I realized that it really doesn't taste that good. I can make a turkey and cheese sandwich from my fridge and be just as satisfied.

Alot of people indulge because it's convenient. My co-workers eat out EVERY DAY! Me personally, I can't afford it so I'm either brown bagging it or eating on someone else's tab.

I think it starts with the kids. Fast food plays a huge part in obese kids because a lot of parents don't cook anymore. I worked at McDonalds for 2 years when I was a teenager. The thought of eating a Happy Meal several times a week disgusts me. I guess the fact that my Mom COOKED at least 6 times per week plays a huge part in how I view FF. I prefer eating at home.

Besides, some of the inspection scores I see....my GAWD!!! I've actually seen an 82 before!!! I'm like WTH!!

33girl · #11 07-03-2006, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tld221

it would be like a salesperson not selling a tube top to a woman who visibly shouldn't be wearing one. you cant say, "Well a woman your size shouldnt wear this..."

That would be so awesome if it could happen.

Or if you did sell it to them, it would have the equivalent of those things they put in cars that stop you from driving if you're drunk - like if you tried to walk out your door into public it would give you an electric shock or something.