The Food Police in the Land Down Under – actually New Zealand – aren’t happy that Weight Watchers has endorsed a few items on McDonalds’ menu.  Weight Watchers has put their stamp of approval on the Filet of Fish (“Give me back that filet of fish, give me that fish.”), Chicken McNuggets and Sweet Seared Chili Chicken Wrap, which has sent members of the Food Police into a frenzy.

Some person from some group called, “Australia’s Obesity Policy Coalition” said Weight Watchers endorsement, “Implies this food is healthy … when often it is high in fat and salt. Chicken McNuggets are Chicken McNuggets whether it’s got Weight Watchers on it or not.”  Relax, it’s just fake chicken they are approving,  not a Big Mac or french fries or a shake.

The bigger joke is that anyone would think that Weight Watchers promotes healthy eating.  They assign points to foods so that people can eat the proper amount of points in a day so they can lose weight and be healthy!  There’s nothing healthy about Weight Watchers.  For what it’s worth these Mickey D’s meals are worth 6.5 points on the Weight Watchers program. In case you didn’t know, Weight Watcher drones are indoctrinated to consume 18 to 40 points each day to achieve their goal weight.

Doesn’t everyone know that 18-40 points of food per day is healthy eating and is the key to weight loss and improving fitness? That makes sense to me, 18-40 points, it’s just so simple!

But seriously, if these so-called obesity experts have research that proves McDonalds’ food kills people or has any other direct effect on people’s health, they really should share it with the rest of us. But they don’t have this data, so these no-fun, know-it-all types like Sian Porter, a dietician at the British Dietetic Association, say things like, “This sort of initiative should be applauded, but the danger is that someone will go in, choose one of the healthier options and then think: ‘Ooh good. Now I’ll have an ice cream’, which is not the right message.”

WTF? Ice cream is awesome.

If Weight Watchers wants to be able to tell their followers what they should eat in a fast food restaurant, let them. Their method relies on being able to tell people what, and how much to eat rather than focusing on the benefits of exercise, so let them do it.  After all, people have to keep going back to Weight Watchers because they can’t figure out all of this food point stuff by themselves.  I say Weight Watchers should strike deals with all the fast food chains so that people won’t have to be conflicted and concerned about getting those 18-40 points.

When presented with nutritional information regarding calories contained in food in New York City’s fast food restaurants – as required by law – 85% of consumers ignored it.  According to a study released by researchers from New York University and Yale medical professors only 56% of consumers saw the information and a paltry 15% of fast food customers used the nutritional information to make their decision.

This law is a spectacular failure on the basis of these statistics alone. However, the researchers also found that fast-food consumers actually have purchased higher calorie foods after the law when into effect than they did before the law went into effect.  This proves, once again, that the government cannot legislate behavior and that this kind of “lawmaking” is counter-productive and a waste of time.

People eat fast food because they like how it tastes and because it gives them a good value for their money.  They also like how it tastes – that’s why it’s incredibly popular – and don’t really care if it fits someone else’s definition of, “good food.”  Also, people who visit fast food joints really aren’t going there to buy grilled chicken over salad

Legislators must think everyone thinks like they do and/or think people want to be told what they should eat.  Some things never change, like people who love fast food and elected officials who think that they exist to micromanage people’s lives. In the current economic climate where so many people have to watch every penny they spend, a $2 double cheeseburger makes a lot more sense than any item that may cost twice as much, or more. Although given the track our government is on, perhaps the government will subsidize “healthy food choices.”

With all of the major problems our country is facing, on the local, national and international front, you would think our elected officials would have more important things to worry about.  This kind of Nanny State legislation illustrates how tone deaf elected officials can be.