Saturday, December 27, 2014

Not taking it lying down from the Freedom-Haters

The pro-decline-and-tyranny regime is getting resistance from the makers of post-America's favorite pie:

It’s been a month since the Food and Drug Administration announced its final rule for menu labeling, a regulation that’s already proving to be a nightmare for the major chain restaurants and retail food establishments that must comply by Dec. 1, 2015, or face a stiff penalty. 
“It got much worse in the final rule,” Lynn Liddle, chairperson of the American Pizza Community and executive VP of communications and investor relations for Domino’s Pizza, told Townhall. “I was surprised, disappointed, and befuddled because there’s all this new stuff in there where I go, ‘I don’t know how we’re gonna do this.’ … We’re gonna need a lot more time to untangle this mess, which I don’t think is viable or workable.” 
While the regulation is bad for all industries, pizza has been hit particularly hard. For one, it’s a food industry unlike any other—90 percent of customers get their food delivered, making the idea of in-store displays of calorie information unnecessary and costly, not to mention extremely difficult since it’s such a customizable food. 
It's not just the big players getting squeezed, by any means.  And, once again, the main point is for the nannies-in-jackboots to be able to congratulate themselves on how caring they are for the ignorant cattle-masses (who, much to the consternation of the overlords, still don't care how many calories a 14-inch meat lovers' pie has in it):

While Domino’s is a major pizza chain across the country, the vast majority of stores are franchises, meaning the burden of implementation falls squarely on the backs of small business owners. And failure to have the appropriate signage or serving food that’s outside of the labeled calorie range can carry civil and criminal penalties, Liddle said, but specificity over how it will be policed and what the penalties are remains unclear.
Meanwhile, studies continue to show that menu labeling has little to no effect on consumers’ purchasing habits. In other words, despite the cost to small business owners across the country, menu labeling will have no significant impact on obesity in America, the purported benefit the FDA used to justify the law as part of the Affordable Care Act to begin with. 
Liddle sees the rule as a way for its proponents to feel like they’ve done something that will be good for Americans. “I’ve seen a number of article and commentary from people … saying we need to tell people what to eat,” she said. “I think there’s this belief that … Americans can’t or won’t ever help themselves.”
“I don’t think slapping calorie ranges on a pizza menu board that no one looks at is gonna be any kind of a solution [for reducing obesity],” she continued. 
It’s been a long road fighting against the rule since it first came out as part of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, and Liddle says she isn’t done yet. 
“I don’t think I have the luxury to stop fighting against this because it’s hurting my small business franchisees … and it’s hurting the [entire] pizza industry with an additional cost their customers haven’t asked for,” she said. 
Do your part.  Eat their products.  The ones with extra cheese and sausage.

16 comments:

  1. Remind me again how overlords like Nixon and Reagan were right about marijuana being a dangerous drug? We said fuck 'em, did it anyhow, often to our legal and financial detriment (Billions and Billions of assets seized, especially since Reagan ramped it all up full speed). And because millions of your alleged ignorant cattle masses said fuck it to the nannies in jackboots, ole Mary Jane is well on her way to nationwide legalization. Just say yes to pizza too! That'll break the jackboots.

    Read more at http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304753504579282940412941998

    ReplyDelete
  2. Of course the magnitude of the issue is dwarfed by the miracle of pizza and the threat of its nationwide demise.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A miracle made to seem even more miraculous at quashing a nasty side effect of the damned and damnable medication.

    Read more at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/20/-pot-infused-pizza_n_5852074.html

    The Dream Comes True: Pot-infused Pizza Sauce Comes To Marijuana Dispensaries

    ReplyDelete
  4. You bet. Government making restaurants do this regarding pizza is a far more consequential issue than whether marijuana is legal. An actual fundamental principle is at stake. And to say that political leaders in the 1970s backed policies to reinforce its illegality were somehow draconian is to demonstrate a stark ignorance of American cultural history.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In 1952, 62, 72 or even 82, how did your parents or mine, or any high school principal in the nation, or any sheriff, or any state legislature or governor, feel about marijuana? To get all bent out of shape because they didn't see that it make people groovy and enlightened is a pretty stupid stance to take.

    ReplyDelete
  6. To throw people in jail and take their assets is somehow freedom, eh? What was Prohibition then? Booze can be enlightening up to a point where wife beating, deadly accidents and cognitive and physical decline and horrid deaths begin. Aint nobody's business if we do, Overlords.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Then don't drink that much. When the wedding guests murmured about the refreshments running out, Christ didn't turn the water into hash oil. When Churchill and FDR repaired to the strategy room to go over war plans, they had cocktails; they didn't pass the pipe.

    And would you care to answer my question about sherifs, governors, etc. in the 1952 - 82 time frame? You know that nearly all of society at that point thought weed was something marginal types did, and that it would lead to a dissolute life.

    Plus, you're smart enough to know that you're trying to argue apples and oranges here. This post is about government making purveyors of food (something everybody has to partake of) incur market-distorting and prohibitive costs, and government getting involved in micromanaging people's food preferences.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The overlords are ovelords whether it comes to personal use of mj or corporate preparation of pizza. With mj proponents simply ignored Nixon and Reagan. far from the cattle you like to call us. Even you call for us to. essentially eat more pizza to protect corporate freedom. Also, there are numerous negative references to alcohol. None at all for mj.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You really need to give up this hard-left indoctrination regarding corporations. For one thing, in this instance, as I point out, small-scale pizza purveyors are in on the resistance as well.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Aren't small businesses usually LLCs?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Whatever. When American citizens join forces to form private organizations, they should be free from government telling how to conduct their affairs.

    ReplyDelete
  12. But the catte masses need to be prodded to go into whatever corral governmemt want them in. I hear the Republican Congress is set to nix the DC's herd who voted for legal pot and Rick Scott continues to try to work his will on drug testing state workers in Florida, despite ongoing supreme Cow set backs.

    ReplyDelete
  13. For sure we should be free to enact laws we pass by repeal by the democratic process.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It's time to focus on actually important issues rather than marijuana policy - that is, if you have any desire to be taken seriously as an engaged citizen.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It is way more important than you imply and/or impugn. All life is multi-tasking anyhow. Of course you must think it is limited to certain tasks we must direct our full attention to. I am telling you mj is not only the best anti-depressant, freedom to take it is vital to personal freedom. Shit, your large and small businesses are interested in making a legitimate buck at selling it and government gets a huge chunk of tax money, it's gonna be legal, as it always should have been. I cannot understand your conditional views on freedom and it irritates the hell out of me that you refer to people whose views you disagree with as freedom haters when all you are ever talking about is corporate freedom and taxes.

    ReplyDelete
  16. You may not be aware of this, but Richard Nixon did not suddenly institute public disapproval of marijuana, and its codification into federal, state and local law. As a music historian, I can tell you about lots of marijuana arrests from the 1940s and 50s.

    My term "freedom-hater" refers to collectivists - Democrats, Communists and radical Muslims. Those who advocate redistribution, and who do not really believe that individuals have a right to their possessions and money. Freedom-Haters often have overlapping views with Libertarians regarding some kind of supposed right of the individual to engage in all kinds of libertine, sybaritic behavior, completely trivializing the notion of freedom. In short, those who are fine with schemes like single-payer-health care, or government-managed retirement, or a carbon tax on producers of fossil-fuel energy, but who also go in for homosexual "marriage". It leads to such absurdities as an advocacy of liberated marijuana coming from the same people who want to demonize tobacco cigarettes.

    Conservatives understand, as did John Adams, that a society that allows maximum freedom within a framework of basic order must be comprised of individuals who, of their own volition, strive to live according to God-authored morality. Yes, I'm talking about Judeo-Christian values. And, except for a few weirdos, Christians like a bracing drink as much as any other kind of person.

    ReplyDelete