<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Things I don&#8217;t miss&#8230;</title>
	<link>http://mccrarey.com/2009/11/27/things-i-dont-miss/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 18:05:38 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Fortuneate</title>
		<link>http://mccrarey.com/2009/11/27/things-i-dont-miss/#comment-348641</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Nov 2009 23:06:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://mccrarey.com/2009/11/27/things-i-dont-miss/#comment-348641</guid>
					<description>Sorry it looked like the issue was your allegation that the US is a nanny state not the fact that the mission is throwing out food.  The next paragraph in the article quotes another organization -a soup kitchen -that accepted a load of food from a deli going out of business which they did not throw out. It concluded with the fact that less than 5 % of donated food contains trans fats. Sounds like we are missing a piece of the story.  In any event the decision of the mission to throw out donated fried chicken from a local church -even if that decision was actually prompted solely on the fear that the chicken might have been fried in trans fat hardly paints the picture that the new law is reducing the cities ability to feed its poor or reduced contribtions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry it looked like the issue was your allegation that the US is a nanny state not the fact that the mission is throwing out food.  The next paragraph in the article quotes another organization -a soup kitchen -that accepted a load of food from a deli going out of business which they did not throw out. It concluded with the fact that less than 5 % of donated food contains trans fats. Sounds like we are missing a piece of the story.  In any event the decision of the mission to throw out donated fried chicken from a local church -even if that decision was actually prompted solely on the fear that the chicken might have been fried in trans fat hardly paints the picture that the new law is reducing the cities ability to feed its poor or reduced contribtions.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: John McCrarey</title>
		<link>http://mccrarey.com/2009/11/27/things-i-dont-miss/#comment-348640</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:38:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://mccrarey.com/2009/11/27/things-i-dont-miss/#comment-348640</guid>
					<description>Fortuneate, the issue was about the homeless shelter being required to throw away donated food.  Your response seems to be along the lines of "let them eat cake".</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fortuneate, the issue was about the homeless shelter being required to throw away donated food.  Your response seems to be along the lines of &#8220;let them eat cake&#8221;.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Fortuneate</title>
		<link>http://mccrarey.com/2009/11/27/things-i-dont-miss/#comment-348639</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:27:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://mccrarey.com/2009/11/27/things-i-dont-miss/#comment-348639</guid>
					<description>I googled your story to fact check it.  It was such a small story in such a small online rag that it apparently didn't merit any chatter.  Moreover, I could not find any similar stories.  Usually you see a story get picked up over and over by different news services.  I did see a lot of reports-the most recent by Forbes-that the ban was successful.  The sky didn't fall down, profits weren't lost, diners could tell the difference or any other of the dire predictions of the naysayers.

People I know do not voluntarily eat lard a common form of trans fat.  Rather lard turns up in food we buy --primarily baked goods in order to extend the shelf life.  That is done to extend the profit margin.  How is telling businesses that you are no longer allowed to make a profit off of making people sick a bad thing?  We do not allow the meat industry to sell rancid meat or the dairy industry to sell sour milk or allow restaurants to use such in their food prep.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I googled your story to fact check it.  It was such a small story in such a small online rag that it apparently didn&#8217;t merit any chatter.  Moreover, I could not find any similar stories.  Usually you see a story get picked up over and over by different news services.  I did see a lot of reports-the most recent by Forbes-that the ban was successful.  The sky didn&#8217;t fall down, profits weren&#8217;t lost, diners could tell the difference or any other of the dire predictions of the naysayers.</p>
<p>People I know do not voluntarily eat lard a common form of trans fat.  Rather lard turns up in food we buy &#8211;primarily baked goods in order to extend the shelf life.  That is done to extend the profit margin.  How is telling businesses that you are no longer allowed to make a profit off of making people sick a bad thing?  We do not allow the meat industry to sell rancid meat or the dairy industry to sell sour milk or allow restaurants to use such in their food prep.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: We've Got Seoul</title>
		<link>http://mccrarey.com/2009/11/27/things-i-dont-miss/#comment-348638</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:53:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://mccrarey.com/2009/11/27/things-i-dont-miss/#comment-348638</guid>
					<description>Wow, I never thought about that before - so wasteful and annoying at the same time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, I never thought about that before - so wasteful and annoying at the same time.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>

