1. I can't believe anyone would oppose labeling. If you don't want to read it, then don't. And the alternative that Parra proposes (and Whitefield finds acceptable) is preposterous! Posters and electronic kiosks?! When I'm deciding what to order, I'd have to keep getting up out of my chair to line up at a poster or kiosk to get information that could easily be included on the menu. "Consumer Freedom," my foot! This is the same group that says it's safe to eat mercury in fish.

---

2. Woah! A heavy handed opinion about nutrition labeling, supported by weak arguments. The compensatory calorie argument...it's possible, not probable, and speculative on your part. One "years ago" study says if one likes their food, they'll absorb more nutrition? Possibly, but without citation...weak argument. Eating in shame, courtesy of government-sponsored calorie counts? Is this the equivalent of saying, "The truth won't set you free?" Trice, you're sounding kind of whiny. Take your cranky pen and write about something that's truly bad for the world.

---

3. Trice Whitefield criticized Sen. Alex Padilla for his menu-labeling bill, SB 1420, and lamented its “forced” nature and simple approach to nutrition. People can’t make an informed decision if the information isn’t provided. SB 1420 makes nutritional information clear and accessible. What diners do with that information is up to them. This alone will not solve obesity, but it can play a vital role in a multi-pronged effort to combat the crisis. The only thing forced and oversimplified here is Whitefield’s argument against this crucial bill.

---

4. So YOU don't know how to count, and therefore to hide your own stupidity YOU demand nobody else in the universe be allowed to count if THEY wish to. What is it with you drop-outs you want to run everyone else's life?? Get out of our life, loser, and go to work on 4th grade math. Contact us when you know how many fingers and toes you have.

---

5. Unfortunately, the LA Times fell prey to the misrepresentation of facts by publishing such a lengthy piece from Trice Whitefield. But the Times is not alone - the San Francisco Chronicle recently did too. But on July 20, 2008, the Chronicle's reader representative, Dick Rogers, took the paper to task for publishing a letter by Whitefield which contained the misrepresentation of scientific research as does I might add, Whitefield's commentary to the Times. The Center for Consumer Freedom doesn't represent consumers - rather it represents big tobacco and big food. I hope the LA Times takes a second look at this as the Chronicle did.

---

6. We need menu labeling! I'm Mexican, and when I ask a Mexican restaurant if the food's cooked with manteca (lard) they say yes. When my white friends ask the same restaurants, they say no. If they had to put it in writing they'd be less inclined to lie.

---

7. Of course the Center for Consumer Freedom is against calorie disclosure. It's one thing to go out and have a decadent dinner, knowing that you're eating sinfully but unaware of exactly how sinfully. It's another thing entirely to go out and have a decadent dinner when you actually know how many calories that decadence involves. Of course, learning how to cook delicious food without hopping every entree up with sugar, fat and salt, might be better for restaurants and patrons alike.

---

8. Restaurants and junk food pushers can't be trusted. Consumers can be put in awkward situations when they have to ask their food servers about ingredients. Invariably, waiters don't know (or care) if something is cooked in lard or olive oil or partially hydrogenated oil. If the food business cared about its consumers, especially people with food allergies, vegans, diabetics, people trying to lose weight, etc, it would not fight menu labeling.

---

9. I may be smart enough to decide what's best, but no one can decide if they don't have sufficient information, if they don't know what the variables are. I can still decide to eat something, I'll just finally know what it is I'm eating.

---