OHH NO THE HORROR, no more KFC AND MICKY D'S FRIES
New York Bans Most Trans Fats in Restaurants.
By THOMAS J. LUECK and KIM SEVERSON.
Published: December 5, 2006
The New York City Board of Health voted yesterday to adopt the nation's first major municipal ban on the use of all but tiny amounts of artificial trans fats in restaurant cooking, a move that would radically transform how food is prepared in thousands of restaurants, from McDonald's to fashionable bistros to Chinese take-outs.
City's Notice of New Regulations.
Some experts said the measure, which is widely opposed by the restaurant industry, would be a model for other cities. Chicago is considering a similar prohibition that would affect restaurants with more than $20 million in annual sales.
"New York City has set a national standard," said Harold Goldstein, executive director of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, who predicted that other communities would follow suit.
Trans fats are the chemically modified food ingredients that raise levels of a particularly unhealthy form of cholesterol and have been squarely linked to heart disease. Long used as a substitute for saturated fats in baked goods, fried foods, salad dressings, margarine and other foods, trans fats also have a longer shelf life than other alternatives.
While the trans fat regulation captured the most attention, the Board of Health approved a separate measure — also the first of its kind in the country — requiring some restaurants, mostly fast food outlets, to prominently display the caloric content of each menu item on menu boards or near cash registers.
Health officials said displaying calorie counts was meant to address what is widely regarded as a nationwide epidemic of obesity.
The city's prohibition on trans fats, which would be phased in starting in July, was a victory for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, an outspoken health advocate, and his activist health commissioner, Dr. Thomas R. Frieden.
After the city's aggressive campaign to ban smoking in restaurants and in public places that goes back more than a decade, the regulation governing trans fats has again thrust New York to the forefront of a significant public health issue.
Experts say eliminating trans fats need not change the taste of foods, but chefs and restaurant owners say it is hard to replicate the taste and texture of some items without them.
Both the trans fat and calorie regulations would be enforced by the health department's restaurant inspectors. Inspectors would check the packaging of ingredients used in restaurant kitchens for the amount of trans fats they contain, but prepared food would not be routinely tested. Violators would face fines of at least $200.
Both measures have come under fire as impractical and unwanted intrusions by the government into free enterprise and civil liberties.
"This is a misguided attempt at social engineering by a group of physicians who don't understand the restaurant industry," said Dan Flesher, a National Restaurant Association spokesman. He said one or both measures could be challenged legally.
Mayor Bloomberg said the city is "not going to take away anybody's ability to go out and have the kind of food they want, in the quantities they want," adding, "We are just trying to make food safer."
Still, some restaurant workers said the trans fat ban would represent a challenge.
"This will be better for people's health, but we'd like to know where to go from here," said O'Neil Whyte, a baker at Sweet Chef Southern Styles Bakery in Harlem. "Things without trans fat are harder to get and more expensive."
With artificial trans fat increasingly seen as a health risk, many city restaurants had begun seeking alternative ingredients long before the new regulations were proposed.
Most packaged food manufacturers began removing them on a large scale in 2002, in anticipation of federal rules that trans fat content be disclosed in nutritional labeling. The rule took effect in January.
Some restaurant chains are following suit. Wendy's has switched to a soy-corn blend cooking oil in its 6,300 restaurants in the United States and Canada, and KFC says it will eliminate trans fat in its food by April.
Chicago's proposal is under discussion. "I'm disappointed we're losing bragging rights to be the first city in the nation to do this," said Edward Burke, a Chicago alderman who is pushing the ban.
New York's Board of Health, made up mostly of physicians and health professionals appointed by the mayor, can adopt regulations without approval by any other agency.
Still, the board granted concessions to the restaurant industry, which had complained vehemently that it was not being given enough time to experiment with new ingredients and recipes that would preserve or improve the taste of their food.
Restaurants will still have until next July 1 to eliminate oils, margarines and shortening from recipes that contain more than a half-gram of trans fat per serving. By July 1, 2008, they would have to remove all menu items that exceed the new limit, including bread, cakes, chips and salad dressings.
But under terms adopted yesterday, some foods will fall under the later deadline, including donuts, fritters, biscuits and deep fried items that the board said were particularly hard to prepare with a trans fat substitute.
"We want the taste, and the experience of food, to be the same or better," Dr. Frieden said.
The requirement for posting caloric content will take affect next July 1, and applies to restaurants that before March 1, 2007, already provided calorie counts on Web sites or in some other public format. Health officials said it would apply to about 10 percent of the city's restaurants, mainly large chains that have highly standardized menus and portions.
Restaurants can decide how to display the calorie counts as long as it near where diners pay for their food, officials said. "We want to allow creativity," said Dr. Lynn Silver, an assistant health commissioner. "If someone has a better way of doing this, great."
Rebecca Cathcart contributed reporting.
Some more Washington Post World Bank propaganda
An internal report criticizes World Bank's efforts on poverty.
By Peter S. Goodman.
Updated: 6:27 a. M. ET Dec. 8, 2006
NEW YORK - Despite an intensified campaign against poverty, World Bank programs have failed to lift incomes in many poor countries over the past decade, leaving tens of millions of people suffering stagnating or declining living standards, according to a report released Thursday by the bank's autonomous assessment arm.
Among 25 poor countries probed in detail by the bank's Independent Evaluation Group, only 11 experienced reductions in poverty from the mid-1990s to the early 2000s, while 14 had the same or worsening rates over that term. The group said the sample was representative of the global picture.
"Achievement of sustained increases in per capita income, essential for poverty reduction, continues to elude a considerable number of countries," the report declared, singling out programs aimed at the rural poor as particularly ineffective. Roughly half of such efforts from 2001 to 2005 "did not lead to satisfactory results." During that period, new World Bank loans and credits aimed directly at rural development totaled $9.6 billion, or about one-tenth of total bank lending, according to the group.
But the study found that growth has rarely been sustained, exposing the most vulnerable people -- the rural poor -- to volatile shifts in their economic fortunes. Per capita income rose continuously from 2000 to 2005 in only two in five of the countries that borrowed from the World Bank, the study reported, and it increased for the full decade, from 1995 to 2005, in only one in five.
Distribution as important as growth.
The study emphasized that economic growth is, by itself, no fix: How the gains are distributed is just as important. In China, Romania, Sri Lanka and many Latin American countries, swiftly expanding economies have improved incomes for many, but the benefits have been limited by a simultaneous increase in economic inequality, putting most of the spoils into the hands of the rich and not enough into poor households, the study concluded.
In Georgia, the bank has helped foster growth by lending in support of the oil industry, but this has created few jobs and had a negligible impact on poverty, the study found. In Brazil, on the other hand, there has been little growth but significant advances against poverty because wealth has been distributed more evenly.
"For a sustained reduction in poverty over a period of time, it really pays to worry about both growth and distribution," said Vinod Thomas, director-general of the Independent Evaluation Group. "It has been a mistaken notion that you can grow first and worry about the distribution later."
Overall, from 1990 to 2002, the percentage of the world's people who subsist on less than $1 per day declined from 28 to 19, according to World Bank research. But officials with the evaluation group noted that much of the advance was registered in CHINA, which has rejected many of the tenets of the development model advocated by the West and barely relied on the largesse of the World Bank.
"If you take out China, the numbers would be unfavorable," Thomas said. "The sheer numbers of people living under the $1-a-day definition of poverty has been stubbornly high." By the bank's reckoning, 1.1 billion people subsisted at that level in 2001.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Badboy
It sucks to be George the teacher. But
The cover of The Economist features "The Falling Dollar," with George Washington's jaw dropping. The accompanying editorial expresses so much concern about the dollar reaching "a 20-month low of $1.32 against the euro" -- noting, with alarm, that this was close to "the record low of $1.36" that lasted four days in December 2004. The Economist and others were equally agitated about the dollar back then. Yet here we are two years later, and the euro is not even as high as it was then, and nothing bad has happened to the economies of the United States or Europe.
The editorial's focus on the euro could make sense only to Europeans. The U. S. Dollar has risen against the Canadian dollar and not weakened against the Japanese yen, much less against the currencies of such key trading partners as China, India and Mexico. The Federal Reserve's broad trade-weighted index of the dollar (with 1997 equal to 100) has fluctuated narrowly between 107.5 and 108.8 for the past seven months -- about where it was (108.8) in December 2004, when the euro last peaked (before dropping to $1.19 this March) It would be more accurate to say the euro has been rising for the past seven months than to say the dollar has been falling.
Now factor in several other key elements that the Europeans and most others with economy-envy neglect to include such as:
1) interest rates are rising in Europe.
2) unemployment is high in Europe.
3) inflation is higher in Europe.
4) the American economy has continuously outgrown that of Europe.
5) the economy of the United States represents 25% of all goods and service transactions in the world yet the combined economies of all the EU countries is only slightly larger.
So the question that begs to be asked is why a rational person would even suggest that a country with relatively low interest rates, no increase in costs on goods that they are purchasing from their largest trading partners and low inflationary pressure, would be close to a recession.
On the other hand, if I was employed in Europe I would very quickly begin to contribute to my savings account as their largest competitor in goods and services currently enjoys one hell of a competitive advantage thanks to a low dollar.
Warning - Equitable Paternity
N. Y. High Court Says Mistaken Avowal of Fatherhood Imposes an 'Equitable Paternity'
"With this decision, this Court supports a public policy that says a man should never take on a parental role unless he wants to be unconditionally responsible for the child's financial support," Judge Bundy Smith wrote.
Barak for prez 2008. Will the Dems vote for him ? Is he electable ?
I have heard many times this past year about this new guy Barak Obama, I heard him speak once and the guy has some charisma. The question is, Is he electable and would you vote for him ? I have heard many arguments for and against, some people say the Republicans have been so disgraced during Bushes last term in office, what with all the Republican homosexual scandals and Iraq, and corruption numbers increasing and what not, that they are going into the 2008 elections with a handicap, the question is, will the person chosen by the Democrats be electable. In other words , it is the Democrats election to lose.
What do you guys think ?
The arguments for Obama is that he is new to the scene, and so people think he will bring change to a corrupt system and maybe bring new ideas.
The arguments against him are, he is too young, he lacks political credentials, only being in the senate for two years. I have also heard the same thing over and over again, is the U.S.A ready to elect an African American for Prez? I have heard similair things regarding Hillary, is the U.S ready to elect a woman? Although I am no Democrat, if Barak gets nominated, I will vote for him. I don't see to many other options on the table for Dems or Independents. Hillary, I would not vote for. She isn't liked at all by Republicans, so she won't bring any votes to her from disillusioned Rep's and alot of her rhetoric is very Republican sounding and that might cause many Dems to not show up at the polls. It's a tough one this year and most in the country agree, we need a change, but the question is who will lead that change and more importantly, who will the electorate choose to lead them in this time of change ?
Badboy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The New Yourk Times.
By ADAM NAGOURNEY.
Published: December 10, 2006
AFTER a 217-year march of major presidential nominees who were, without exception, white and male, the 2008 campaign may offer voters a novel choice.
POSSIBILITIES Some political analysts say they think the country may accept a woman as president. But they are less sure about an African-American, even one as popular as Barack Obama.
But as Barack Obama, the senator from Illinois whose father is from Kenya, spends this weekend exploring a presidential bid in New Hampshire, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, the first woman to represent New York in the Senate, calls potential supporters in Iowa, the question remains: are Americans prepared to elect an African-American or a woman as president?
Or, to look at it from the view of Democrats hungry for victory in 2008, is the nation more likely to vote for a woman or an African-American for president?
Without question, women and blacks have made significant progress in winning office. The new Congress will include 71 women — one of whom will be the first female speaker of the House — compared with 25 when Representative Geraldine Ferraro, a Queens Democrat, became the first woman to run as a major-party vice presidential candidate in 1984. There will be 43 blacks in the new Congress, compared with 13 when the Congressional Black Caucus was formed in 1969. A Gallup Poll in September showed a steady rise in the number of people who expect the nation to elect a woman or an African-American as president one day: Americans, it seems, are much more open to these choices than, say, someone who is an atheist or who is gay.
Times are indeed changing. But how much?
Over the past of the past eight years, in the view of analysts from both parties, the country has shifted markedly on the issue of gender, to the point where they say voters could very well be open to electing a woman in 2008. That is reflected, they say, in polling data and in the continued success of women running for office, in red and blue states alike. "The country is ready," said Senator Elizabeth Dole, the North Carolina Republican, who ran unsuccessfully for president in 2000. "I'm not saying it's going to happen in '08. But the country is ready."
By contrast, for all the excitement stirred by Mr. Obama, it is much less certain that an African-American could win a presidential election. Not as many blacks have been elected to prominent positions as women. Some high-profile black candidates — Harold Ford Jr. A Democrat running for the Senate in Tennessee, and Michael Steele, a Republican Senate candidate in Maryland — lost in November. And demographics might be an obstacle as well: black Americans are concentrated in about 25 states — typically blue ones, like New York and California. While black candidates cannot assume automatic support from black voters, they would at least provide a base. In states without big black populations, the candidate's crossover appeal must be huge.
Many analysts suggested that changing voter attitudes can best be measured in choices for governors, since they, like presidents, are judged as chief executives, rather than legislators. There will be one black governor next year — Deval L. Patrick in Massachusetts, the second in the nation since Reconstruction.
By contrast, women will be governors of nine states, including Washington, Arizona and Michigan, all potential battleground states in 2008, a fact that is no doubt viewed favorably by advisers to Mrs. Clinton.
"Of course, governors don't have to handle national security. And Mrs. Clinton has used her six years in the Senate to try to counter the stereotype that women would not be as strong on the issue, especially with the nation at war. Mrs. Clinton won a seat on the Armed Services Committee, and was an early supporter of the war in Iraq.
Mr. Obama is in many ways an unusual African-American politician, and that is why many Democrats, and Republicans, view him as so viable.
Mr. Obama is a member of a post-civil-rights generation of black politicians and is not identified with leaders like Mr. Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York, who are polarizing to many white voters. He has a warm and commanding campaign presence that, as he showed in Illinois, cut across color lines.
Donna Brazile, a prominent Democratic strategist who is black, said that she had been deluged with e-mail messages from people looking to volunteer for Mr. Obama — and that most of the requests were from white voters.
Moreover, there is abundant evidence that attitudes toward black candidates are changing among white voters. In Tennessee, Mr. Ford lost his bid to become the state's first black senator since Reconstruction, but by only three percentage points.
Surveys of voters leaving the polls showed that 40 percent of white voters supported Mr. Ford, compared with 95 percent of black voters. More intriguing, the final result was the same as what the exit polls had suggested. Before this, in many races involving black candidates, the polls predicted that they would do better than they actually did — presumably because voters were reluctant to tell questioners they did not support the African-American.
Race and gender are big issues in American politics, but they are not the only ones, particularly in the coming race. Mr. Obama, should he run, may find his lack of experience will be far more troublesome to voters than his color. He is 45 and serving his first term as senator.
Mr. Obama said that many black voters he spoke with have serious questions about whether America is ready to elect an African-American president.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Badboy
