I don't know about you, but I hate coming home to take-out menus stuffed in my door, or left on my porch. Oh, if only I lived in New York.

Apparently there's a new law in New York state that any kind of unwanted advertising cannot be left on a property, and the city of New York has just started enforcing it. The property owner will have to post something that specifically states that they don't want the advertisements and that must be highly visible. There's also a whole complaint process that the sanitation department has worked out, and the fines start at $250.

Check out this article in the New York Times City Pages for more information.

[via Grub Street]

If you are Marilyn Manson and you decide to launch a line of absinthe, what do you call it?

Why, Mansinthe, of course.

The drink is made in Switzerland, and, despite the U.S.'s recent lift on the absinthe ban that has been in place for 80 years, is not yet legal in America.

Epicurious recently conducted a taste test of the drink, and the results were less than desirable. Several tasters described Mansinthe as "oily," one called its color "pale and green in color, like the fourth horse of the Apocalypse."

Some eloquently compared the aroma to "sewage" or "swamp mud." And the overall responses in the test's "flavor" category were so hilarious, I had to print them here, word for word:

"Main flavor is just plain."
"Yuck. Sour + bitter"
"If you don't smell it, the taste is good. A little woodsy, but not too much"
"Holy sh*t, is this poison?"

So, there you have it, folks. Everyone thought it reeked of bathroom waste and three out of the four tasters thought it tasted like crap. Drink at your own risk...preferably while brooding and listening to "The Dope Show" at full volume.

San Francisco is considering making a change that will affect most shoppers in the city: they're talking about instituting a ban on the use of plastic grocery bags. Lawmakers are blaming the bags for everything from "littering streets and choking wildlife" to playing a major part in global warming. The expect that such a change will save the city millions of dollars, although taxpayers may have an increased out-of-pocket expense for reusable canvas (or other materials) shopping bags and alternative plastic bags that would serve the functions that reused grocery bags often do now (lining small trash bins, picking up after dogs, etc.).

San Francisco is not the first city to consider such legislation. Plastic bags are either taxed or not used in parts of South Africa, Ireland and Taiwan. Bangladesh has banned them and Zanzibar, Rwanda and Paris are also considering a ban. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors will vote on the measure next week and, if passed, it will take effect in six months.

Last year, the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) was involved with the promotion of several measures to restrict the content of food advertisements that were targeted at, or easily viewable by, children. Broadcasting regulator Ofcom instituted a ban on junk food ads that were targeted at 16-and-under TV viewers during non-primetime hours, which was a major victory for those supporting restrictions.

The FSA also supported a ban on online junk food advertising that was targeted at this demographic, a step which many believed was a step too far at the time. Clearly, times and opinions have changed, however, because further regulations have just been drawn up by the Department of Health's Committee on Advertising Practice that will ban "junk food companies" from advertising in magazines, on the internet, on billboards and at movie screenings that are targeted at under-16s.

Fortunately for the companies in question and the media outlets that rely on their advertising dollars, there is no official oversight of all these forms of advertising, which means that following the regulations is voluntary - for the moment, anyway.

Kid's television shows may be cheesy, but if one group has their way, the ads will be cheese-free from now on. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has requested that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ban cheese and cheese-related advertising from airing during children's TV programs. The Committee feels that cheese, as it is very high in fat, is "is not an acceptable food to be promoted to kids during the obesity epidemic." This means that cheese in any form - grilled cheese, string cheese, Laughing Cow cheese snacks and pizza, to name just a few - would be off limits.

Believe it or not, there is precedence to back up their request. The ban on junk food advertising during children's TV programs in the UK, which has been in place for several months now, includes cheese.

Despite a high fat content, cheese should not be made a villain. Cheese is high in protein, vitamins, and minerals like calcium, phosphorus and zinc. Eating cheese can also help prevent tooth decay - and let's not forget that there are plenty of low and reduced fat cheeses out there, including cream cheese, cottage cheese and sliced sandwich cheeses. The FTC is under no obligation to honor the PCRM's request, so we will just have to wait and see how things turn out.

The UK's Soil Association has just put forward a proposal to exclude any foods imported by air from using the "organic" label on their products. In theory, the proposal is based around the "food miles" theory, which states that the nearer to the point of sale that food is grown, the better for the environment it is. The theory assumes that emissions from airplanes and long-haul trucks will be greater than any of the pollutants that result from shorter journeys. There are many situations in which the theory does hold up, but by and large, it has been debunked, so even though it is given as the primary reason for this suggested policy change, the real motivation is simply money.

The demand for organics is very high. Stores can charge more for organics, as can growers. By effectively prohibiting imports in a country where the farmland is so limited (compared to some other countries, such as New Zealand, Chile and the US), the Soil Association is simply driving high prices even higher. Such a move may support local farms, but unless their production is able to match demand, consumers are really going to feel the effects of a change like this one.

Even before Chowhound became a part of the Chow network, users frequently had problems with deletions. Controversial posts and less than glowing reviews of certain restaurants were deleted without explanation and some users found that their posts were deleted with a high frequency, regardless of the topic. Since the message board is a public forum, it is perfectly appropriate for moderators to remove offensive content, but when non-offensive reviews of "off the table restaurants" and other posts relevant to the website were taken down without explanation, many users grew frustrated. The problems persist with the new Chowhound, leaving many former contributors to head to different, more open minded, websites.

It appears that Eater is one such site because they have just offered to post anything that has been inexplicably removed from the Chowhound site. They are able to do this because the "offending" posts are not removed from the Chowhound feed as quickly as they are from the site, so there is a window of time where it is possible to retrieve the posts. Of course, you will have to contact the staff to let them know if your post was stricken, but it will be interesting to see what types of pieces are selected for removal.

In India, the government is a little less subtle than other governments about their desire to prevent consumers from being exposed to products they deem to be unhealthy. New York, for example, is trying to get restaurants to list their calorie counts on their menus so that people can make an informed decision and choose (hopefully) the lower calorie item. Delhi , on the other hand, has decided to ask for schools and universities to ban sodas, citing sodas as an unhealthy form of junk food.

Coke, in a statement, said that the amount of Coke sold at universities and schools was very small and that they have been supporting campaigns that promote active lifestyles and sporting events in India.

Following India's attempt to get Coke and Pepsi to turn over their recipes to the government earlier this year, it is hard to believe that this is not a health-related move as much as a symbolic political one, trying to get back at the companies after their efforts were unsuccessful. This is especially true when you consider that "the country [has]some of the worst infant and maternal mortality rates in the world" and some of the most extreme poverty.

Soon, New York City might not be the only place in the country with a ban on trans-fats in restaurants. The Washington State Board of Health and Public Health commended the NY Board of Health and said that the ban "is a step in the right direction and is boosting awareness of the ingredient's link to heart disease and stroke." They will spend the next several months conducting their own studies to see whether or not to follow suit and ban the use of trans fats in the state.

The biggest issue holding them back from making the decision at this point is whether or not a change could drive small companies out of business. The National Restaurant Association has raised concerns in the past over whether the demand for trans-fat free oils will meet the growing demand, saying that the deadlines imposed by the NY Board of Health could cause restaurant owners, especially small ones, to pay a premium for the oils just to meet them, while larger restaurants will have the clout to work out more equitable deals with suppliers.

Many Seattle restaurants and smaller chains have already shifted to trans-fat free products, or are in the process of doing so. They say that it is an important issue to their customer base and they want to make them happy. The fact that these changes are already taking place could encourage the Board of Health to move forward with the issue.

It's official. New York City has become the first in the nation to ban the use trans-fats at restaurants. The members of the Board of Health voted unanimously for the ban and heath advocates are already applauding the decision. Restaurants will have until July 2007 to switch to trans-fat free frying oils - meaning that all french fries in the city, as well as other fried foods will have to be trans-fat free by that time - and will have until July 2008 to remove all trans-fats from their food.

Trans-fats, which have been called "chemical abominations" by some health officials, are known to raise bad cholesterol and lower good cholesterol, changes which can contribute to an increased risk of heart disease. According to FDA estimates, "the average American eats 4.7 pounds of trans fats each year" in spite of the reductions that food processors have made with their use. They are favored in the restaurant and food processing industries because they are easy to work with, have a long shelf life and can increase the shelf life of foods that use them.

Today, the board of health in New York is going to vote on whether or not the city will ban trans fats from restaurants. If the ban passes, eateries will have until July 2008 to eliminate all but 0.5g of trans fats per serving from their food. Restaurateurs are anxious, many worried that the quality of their food - by which they mean the taste - will suffer if the ban is accepted. While we wait to hear the ruling, what are some common sources of trans fats in our food? Forbes has named their five worst offenders in terms of the amount of trans fats they contain. They picked prepared and prepackaged foods; stick margarine; and chips and crackers fried in partially hydrogenated oils. Many breakfast foods, from donuts to pancakes, contain trans fats because they are either fried in type of partially hydrogenated oil or are claiming to be lower in cholesterol, since maybe breakfasters worry about the potential health risks of adding butter to their eggs. The most surprising item on the list is the fact that they name kosher baked goods as being at a high risk. The reason is that they are more likely to use partially hydrogenated shortening in place of dairy ingredients, like butter.

All year long, there has been discussion about whether the TV advertising regulator, Ofcom, would institute a ban on junk food ads on programs that were targeted to kids. Recently, Ofcom said that they would be instituting guidelines for advertising, but that they would not restrict the commercials shown during prime time, a statement which prompted some to believe that the restrictions might not be too severe. Ofcom, however, has just published its guidelines and they call for a "total ban on junk food advertising around all children's programming, on all children's channels" and on any show that would specifically appeal, for any reason, to under 16-year-olds. Due to their decision to include kids up to the age of 16, some awards shows and music channels will be affected.

Ofcom has given marketing companies until March 2007 to comply with the new regulations and to change their ad campaigns, but TV channels that are kids-only networks have until the end of 2008 to comply, so as not to cause such a significant loss of revenue.

The controversial energy drink, Cocaine, has been banned by 7-Eleven convenience stores, after the company received numerous complaints from parents about the drink. The drug-like effects promised to teens by a drink named after a drug crossed the line with them, especially considering that the beverage is marketed to teens. A spokeswoman said "the product's name promotes an image which we didn't want to be associated with." And 7-Eleven isn't the only company that feels this way. Many other stores in Chicago and New York have pulled the drink from shelves.

Representatives from the drink company said that "the company wasn't glorifying an illegal drug" - even though it seems that way to just about everyone. They also say that Cocaine will be available through Amazon soon, so teens in areas that don't sell it can get their fix that way.

A few months ago, Chicago Councilman Edward M. Burke proposed a city-wide ban on trans-fats, but it doesn't seem like there is a significant amount support for a total ban, because he has modified his proposal to force fast food places and other restaurants to post warnings about trans fats. The legislation is targeted at large companies and only applies to companies that have a gross annual income of $20 million or more, so no warnings would need to be posted at a small burger joint or at the local diner regardless of how much trans fat they use.

Thomas Tunney, another Councilman from a different Chicago district, pointed out that other cooking fats "have their own problems," implying that such a ban could prompt people in government to consider what other foods they might restrict in the name of health. Scientists do not even agree as to how bad trans fats actually are for you, so there is no baseline from which Burke and his supporters are operating from when they turn their attentions to "bad for you" foods.

After New York City officials announced a plan to ban trans fats from restaurants, there has been some debate among scientists as to whether the ban will have a beneficial effect on the population. Virtually all experts agree that trans fats are not good for you, but the question about how bad they are has not actually been answered. Trans fats seem to raise the bad levels of cholesterol and lowering the good, which can increase the risk of heart attack and other heart problems. The problem is that while they do increase the bad, the amount that the good is reduced by is not great, so some scientists don't think that the ban will "save lives," as some of the officials behind the ban suggest.

So, the answer seems to be that banning trans fat might be beneficial. And if they change isn't a radical one in terms of health - although it could be - it certainly won't be bad for people to replace trans fats with fats from other sources. Even saturated fat "is at least a natural constituent of our diets," and not a "chemical abomination," as trans fat is.