Do The Obese Have The “Right” To Become More Obese?
In an attempt to help those who cannot help themselves from becoming obese, the government has implemented new legislative fiats requiring restaurants to post the calorie count of each item on their menus. Unfortunately, the heavy hand of government dictate is producing counter productive results. Consider the following study showing that forcing restaurants to post calorie information has actually had no beneficial impact but instead, has perversely resulted in consumers consuming more empty calories, not less.
After Calorie Warnings, Diners Order More Calories
Before food czars get any more punch-happy on their own Kool-Aid, they need to be purged of the illusion that their laws are actually working. Last month, New York University and Yale medical professors published a ground-breaking study, which shows that New York City’s law requiring fast food chains to post calories on their menus doesn’t reduce their customers’ caloric intake.
Sixteen municipalities including California, Seattle, and Portland have passed laws similar to NYC’s, and the Menu Education and Labeling Act, which would impose labeling regulations nationwide, is pending in Congress.
But the researchers’ most striking finding was that customers actually ordered more caloric items after the law went into effect than before, despite the fact that nine out of ten customers who reported using the information said they made healthier choices as a result of the law.
But the problem may also be more complex. It’s possible that people who are less educated may actually think they are eating more healthily than they are notwithstanding the calorie numbers staring them in the face.information and that 15% said they used it. But these figures demonstrate the law’s failure—not success. Despite the fact that people were readily presented with
The Department is boasting that 56% of customers saw the caloric the nutritional information, 85% of them ignored it.
The lawmakers who enacted the calorie posting regulations succumbed to the fallacy that everyone thinks like them. They probably reasoned that because they would make healthier choices if presented with nutritional information, everyone else would as well. But maybe what consumers actually want is a delicious meal at a low price.
So what’s the next step for an imperial government gone mad with regulations and micro control over the lives of their disconnected citizens?? You can see the next step coming. For those of us unable to think properly, based on bureaucratic notions of proper eating habits, the only option left is to impose more draconian rules. If fat people can’t stop themselves from gorging on food, the next logical legislative fiat would necessarily involve requiring restaurants to forcible eject or refuse to serve those individuals that the government “deems to be obese”.
I wonder how that will work out?
A European Union ban on the manufacture and import of 100 watt and frosted incandescent light bulbs, in use since the 19th Century, has come into force.
The EU wants the bulbs to be replaced mainly by longer-lasting compact fluorescent lamps.
The Energy Saving Trust says fluorescent lighting uses 80% less electricity than traditional bulbs.
The ban will be extended to all incandescent bulbs by 2012.
Both Europe and the United States now have plans for the eventual phaseout of the energy inefficient incandescent light bulb, a relic that has been virtually unchanged since its invention by Thomas Edison. Given the high cost of energy and the long lead times to develop alternative energy sources, banning the incandescent light bulb is a quick and painless way to conserve energy and reduce home owner’s energy costs.
The merits of the compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) had been explored in a previous post - A Bright Idea - CFL (Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs)
The Energy Department announced new lighting standards that are expected to reduce the nations energy bill by $4 billion annually when implemented in 2012.
The change that will affect the average American the most will be the ban on the sale of standard incandescent light bulbs in 2014. Huge energy savings are already immediately available to every American by simply replacing incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent. One has to wonder, why would the Energy Department take another 5 years to ban the energy wasteful incandescent bulb?
Replacing just one incandescent bulb with a CFL can save a homeowner roughly $90 over four years in electricity cost. Incredibly, many Americans still chose the much more costly incandescent bulb over the much less expensive and energy efficient CFL because of the cost difference up front. An incandescent bulb can cost 25 cents while a CFL can cost $2 to $3.
Given the facts involved, why would most people still use the much more costly incandescent light bulb? Is it simply a case of consumer ignorance - or is the average American budget simply too tight to afford the right choice?
Energy Department’s New Lighting Standards
The Energy Department announced new lighting standards that are expected to reduce the nations energy bill by $4 billion annually when implemented in 2012.
The change that will affect the average American the most will be the ban on the sale of standard incandescent light bulbs in 2014. Huge energy savings are already immediately available to every American by simply replacing incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent. One has to wonder, why would the Energy Department take another 5 years to ban the energy wasteful incandescent bulb?
Before beginning any calculations or comparisons, it is important to understand some basic differences between CFLs and incandescent light bulbs, which are the watts of electricity used and the expected lifetime of each. Understanding these differences will help ensure that two equivalent light bulbs will be compared.
The first difference between the two types of bulbs is that CFLs use up to 80% less electricity, or watts, to produce similar light output, or lumens, as incandescent bulbs. For example, a typical 100 watt incandescent light bulb will have a light output between 1600 and 1750 lumens, which is a similar range to that of a 23 watt CFL. This is why a 23 watt CFL would be labeled as a 100 watt replacement. It is important that two light bulbs that produce similar light output are being compared.
Another difference is how long they last, or the life of the bulb. CFLs last anywhere between 7,000 and 12,000 hours compared to incandescents that will only last between 750 and 1,000 hours.
Replacing just one incandescent bulb with a CFL can save a homeowner roughly $90 over four years in electricity cost. Incredibly, many Americans still chose the much more costly incandescent bulb over the much less expensive and energy efficient CFL because of the cost difference up front. An incandescent bulb can cost 25 cents while a CFL can cost $2 to $3.
Thomas Edison unveiled his incandescent bulb in 1879, and since then it has illuminated the world. But it is highly inefficient, generating 90% heat and 10% light.
There is a better bulb. In fact, there are several. The spiral-shaped “compact fluorescent,” around for years, produces the same amount of light as its incandescent ancestor with one-quarter the energy. It lasts for years, provides light in an array of hues, and, by lowering electricity bills, pays for itself in about seven months.
Studies say improving the efficiency of the light bulb is among the easiest ways to start meaningfully curbing fossil-fuel consumption. Lighting accounts for some 20% of residential electricity use in the U.S. — a lot to fritter away as wasted heat. Yet about 80% of all bulbs sold to U.S. consumers are incandescents, which often cost less than 25 cents apiece, about one-tenth the price of a compact fluorescent.
Given the facts involved, why would most people still use the much more costly incandescent light bulb? Is it simply a case of consumer ignorance - or is the average American budget simply too tight to afford the right choice?
Designed By :
