That's right. If you live in the great state of Mississippi and you have a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or more, you may be denied service at restaurants soon.

There is a bill working its way through the Mississippi House of Representatives now that would require restaurants to refuse to serve patrons who are obese. The bill would require eateries to keep track of customers BMI's and have scales at the doors. The states Department of Health would be responsible for enforcing compliance, and would revoke business permits for those dining establishments that violated the legislation.

This bill was introduced by Representative W.T. Mayhall, JR. Though he doesn't think his legislation will actually pass, he is very serious about it. He is concerned about the "serious problem of obesity and what it is costing the Medicare system." You can read the full text of the bill at this link.

I'm all for the government trying to protect its citizens and curbing its spending but I'm not sure this is the way to go about it. I think that prevention programs would be much more useful. I also believe that it's not the role of government to lead in the persecution of some of its citizens. Sorry Mr. Mayhall, that's not a good way to get reelected.

[Via coldmud]

Small microbreweries in Texas are lobbying to sell beer directly to the public to open up an entirely new sales area for the industry. Presently, the Texas A & B code only lets microbreweries sell to distributors and retailers. This puts Texas craft breweries at a disadvantage to those in other states where sales directly to customers are allowed.

To improve this, Saint Arnold Brewing Co. in Houston, TX is presenting a proposition to change the current beverage code. This proposal is supported by all five Texas microbreweries, which have joined together to recruit a sponsor to put it before the Legislature in the form of a bill. Brock Wagner, founder of Saint Arnold Brewing says that as many as 14 Texas microbreweries have gone out of business for various reasons since craft breweries first opened in the mid-1980s and early 1990s.

This proposal follows strongly on the heels of the strongly supported 2003 Proposition 11, which changed the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission code to allow state wineries to directly sell limited quantities of wine. The founder of Rahr & Sons, Fritz Rahr, thinks that Texas voters would again support such a change in the beverage law. He says, "It's time Texas craft brewers are offered the same customer-friendly advantages that Texas wineries already have."

Don't get too excited from the headline.

Bars and restaurants in California aren't going to be giving away all their beer, but this year, for the first time, they will be permitted to give out free samples of beer, much in the same way that free samples of wine and spirits are sometimes given out to promote new brands or new products from those industries.

Previously, beer companies could only offer tastings at their own plants or breweries, but the new law allows for up to 8-ounces per person per day, to be given away promotionally, provided that it is served in a glass at an establishment that already serves beer or spirits. The tastings can last no more than one hour and can only feature one type of beer, which effectively prevents consumers from having more than those 8-oz (without paying for more, anyway). St. Louis-based Anheuser-Busch was the driving force behind the new law, pushing the issue on the grounds that existing law excluded a major portion of the beverage industry. They plan to offer tastings of some of their seasonal products in the future.

The primary objectors to the legislation were the religious groups behind the California Council on Alcohol Problems, which basically tried to say that all beer tasted the same (unlike wine, in their opinions) and that this would cause drinking problems. Clearly, legislators did not agree with their thinking and neither would any of the many beer lovers out there, all of whom can attest to the fact that beer does vary from brand to brand and even batch to batch.

The Big Island City Council in Hawaii has just passed a resolution to require coffee sellers to use more Kona Coffee in their "Kona coffee blends." Currently, the required minimum amount for a coffee to be labeled with the Kona blend term is only 10% of the beans. The new resolution ups the amount to 75% - an increase the growers and officials say is necessary to protect the Kona coffee name and reputation, as well as the financial well-being of the growers. They borrowed the 75% standard from California wine growers, who require that 75% of the grapes used in a wine to come from California grapes.

Proponents of the change, which passed through the council in a unanimous vote, say that not only will this protect the (wee deserved) reputation of Kona coffee as a luxury product, but it will ultimately prove to be better for consumers, who will know with certainty what they are paying for when they buy a Kona Blend and won't end up overpaying for a substandard product that bears the region's name.

Health officials in Los Angeles and Philadelphia are considering enacting legislation that would restrict or ban the use of trans-fats in restaurant foods. These announcements come after Washington State announced a similar plan earlier this week.

In Los Angeles, a committee has been formed to investigate the feasibility of such a ban. That committee has 45 days to make their recommendation. If enacted, a ban would affect all of Los Angeles County. An additional piece of legislation, modeled directly from the New York rule, would require "fast food restaurants" to post nutritional data on their menus.

Philadelphia is not planning to venture in to the calorie-counting aspect of this trend, but lawmakers are seriously considering instituting a ban that will take effect in 2008. Their proposal, like the New York law, would inclue all food service venues but would exempt manufacturers and processed food that is served, at restaurants, in its original packaging

A few months ago, I posted about the debate that several vodka producing countries are having over what should and shouldn't be called vodka. An article in today's New York Times picks up the story. Basically, certain countries, including Finland, Sweden and Poland, contend that for something to be called vodka, it must be distilled from either potatoes or certain grains, not from things like grapes or maple syrup. These countries are seeking labeling restrictions for these "non-traditional" vodkas. BBC News reported that such restrictions could affect up to two thirds of all the vodka currently produced in non-Baltic EU countries. The NYT article also points out that vodka's history and original ingredients are up for debate, citing possible Russian, Polish, Italian and Arabian origins that may have included plums, apples or grapes.

While some producers might balk at this legislative change, it is one that will add a little more clarity to the California wine industry. Governor Schwarzenegger signed a bill last weekend that prohibits wineries from using "Sonoma" as part of their name unless at least 75% of the grapes used to produce it were grown in Sonoma County. "Sonoma transcends a county name and has become nearly a brand name synonymous with quality wine produced by some of the greatest vintners in the world," Schwarzenegger said. A similar decision was reached last year regarding Napa wines and regulations may eventually be put in place to regulate other wine-growing areas, such as Mendocino County, and restrict the use of those names.

Not too many wines should be affected by the change, but any brands that are out of compliance will have until December 31st, 2008 to change their labels to reflect a non-Sonoma origin. A California appellation will probably be used in place of county references for these wines.

In California, there is a small, but growing debate developing over rice cakes - not the dry, crispy cakes that are sold in packages in the grocery store, but traditional Vietnamese rice cakes that consist of sticky rice, filled with seasoned pork and wrapped in a banana leaf. The problem is that the restaurants and shops that sell them are being made to comply with state food safety regulations that go against the way that these buns are normally served. Ken Trieu, whose family has been making and selling the cakes in San Jose for two decades, says that the cakes should be at room temperature and can remain that way for two days. The health department says that the cakes can only remain out at room temperature for 2-4 hours, or need to be in a hot or cold (less than 41F or more than 135F) environment to prevent bacterial growth. Health analyses have shown that the cakes are "potentially hazardous'' at room temperature, as are several other similar rice and pork pairings.

At the moment, vendors are trying to get the cakes, and other traditional foods, re-tested for safety.

The real question is whether you, the consumer, think that foods that are served in a slightly less than traditional manner are losing something in terms of quality or flavor or if the tradeoff for safety is worth a compromise.

Connecticut's state senate has voted to ban the sale of sodas in schools and the governor has said that she supports and will sign the legislation. The ban would prohibit schools from stocking anything other than low-fat, nonfat, soy and rice milks and 100% fruit and vegetable juices in their vending machines. There would be an exception that could allow sodas, diet sodas and sports drinks, like Gatorade, to be sold at school events, such as football games.

The idea behind the legislation is, of course, to try an promote healthier choices among students while decreasing childhood obesity and Connecticut joins several other states, including California, in passing such legislation.

 

 

Last fall, Congress passed legislation  that ceased federal, tax-generated funding for the inspections of facilities used to slaughter horses for human consumption. Because all facilities must be inspected to operate, this effectively shut them down. They could not pay the inspection fees themselves. While not illegal in the US to eat horse meat, it is a disgusting idea to many diners, so the horse meat produced was typically exported to Japan or European countries, like France, Belgium and Italy.

This week, in response to aggressive lobbying efforts from pro-slaughter groups and the owners of the slaughtering plants, the Department of Agriculture amended its policy, which has essentially reversed the federal spending ban on equine slaughterhouse inspections by allowing the slaughterhouse inspection fees to be paid by the slaughterhouse or a third party. This means that they will once again be open for business. On of the congressional bill's sponsor's, said that the Department of Agriculture was "intent on going against what was very clearly the purpose of passing the amendment ... to end horse slaughter."

While there has been a great deal of controversy in the past over the treatment of horses destined for slaughter, the primary sticking point is whether horses should be considered to be companion animals, like cats and dogs, or livestock, like cows. The majority of people lean towards the former viewpoint, especially because almost all horses in the US are kept for pleasure and recreational purposes. This move on the part of the Department of Agriculture shows the pull of the slaughtering industry's money over both animal activists and popular opinion.

California is the only state to have a law completely banning the slaughter of horses for human consumption.

A bill passed a legislative committee on Tuesday that would make the sale of raw, unpasteurized milk legal in the state of Utah, according to an article in The Salt Lake Tribune. If it goes through, Utahns (yes, Utahns) could soon be able to purchase the highly-coveted dairy product in retail stores. The bill is sponsored by Rep. Brad Johnson, R-Aurora, who is also a rancher.

The Utah Dairyman's Association opposes the bill, however, for fear of possible health issues associated with unpasteurized milk. They feel that if an illness were to result from a problem with raw milk, consumers and the media would fail to differentiate between raw (unpasteurized) and pasteurized, leaving the entire industry to suffer.

The Utah Public Health Association opposes the bill as well, for fear of shouldering the financial burdens they say may accompany public illness due to tainted milk.

In an effort to curb underage drinking, two California senators have launched a plan to make sweet malt liquor products like Mike's Hard Lemonade and Smirnoff Ice more expensive, less available and less aggressively advertised. Democratic Senators Carole Migden of San Francisco and Liz Figueroa of Sunol feel that the makers of sweet, carbonated drinks they call 'alcopops' are illegally targeting underage drinkers with their advertising. Advertising that is "intended to encourage minors to drink" alcohol is illegal in California. According to a recent Sacramento Bee article, the senators' proposed legislation would eliminate the need to prove intent. The other approach contained in the proposed law would change the tax status of such sweet drinks from that of brewed alcohol (like beer) to distilled spirits--a tax jump of over $3 per gallon. Opponents say that the proposal unfairly targets drinkers of legal age, as it would make malt beverages unavailable in restaurants that have only beer and wine licenses. Moreover, opponents of the proposal say that those selling liquor to underage drinkers should be targeted over advertisers.

On January 1st, a new law went into effect in California prohibiting seafood from being labeled "organic." The bill was supported by consumer and organic food groups, as well as the Monterey Bay Aquarium. State Senator Jackie Speier, who authored the bill, stated that it is designed to protect consumers in the absence of national standards regarding the production of organic seafood, which would ideally be both healthier and better for the environment.

Some markets and seafood production companies are objecting to the legislation, claiming that they can only recoup their costs for feeding their “organic everywhere but California” seafood by using the “organic” label to command higher prices. But while truly organic producers may find themselves hurriedly searching for new buzz-words to describe their fish and shellfish, the less scrupulous producers will be prevented from falsely marketing their own products as organic.