All plant, animal or manufactured foods or products that are intended to be put in or on human (or even pet) bodies should be ranked on a scale of 1-100 where 1 would represent a totally natural product and 100 would represent a totally unnatural product. For example, an unwashed apple growing on a wild tree out in the middle of a forest would earn a ranking of 1, while a medicinal tablet or pill made completely from artificial, non-naturally occurring ingredients would earn a ranking of 100. Everything else would rank somewhere in between. This system could also be applied to foods and products for pets. A tax structure may also be created based on this scale to encourage people to eat more natural foods.0 Comments
For foods that sell more than 1,000 package units per year, it should be highly recommended, perhaps even mandatory, for each unit to be labeled in a way that would indicate that food’s contribution, per serving size, to satisfying an average individual’s needs for nutrients from each of the food groups. For example, a can of soup (1 serving) could probably be rated/labeled as satisfying a certain percentage of the recommended daily intake for each of the food groups. So, for a can of soup, the ratings could be as follows:
1.Meats = 40%
2.Milks = 20%
3.Breads & Cereals = 25%
4.Fruits & Vegetables 35%
The idea is that an individual would only need to add up all of these percentages from all the foods consumed each day to arrive at, ideally, 100% for each food group. A disclaimer should also be printed that indicates that eating a balanced meal from each of the food groups does not guarantee a balanced diet because a wide variety of foods should also be eaten from within each of the food groups.
The practice of adding fluoride to public water should be prohibited because of the severe lack of evidence that the cost-benefit of the systemic human ingestion of fluoride is beneficial. For purposes of protecting teeth, topical applications, such as through toothpaste, are far more effective.
Public Water Fountains
Water drinking fountains should be placed in heavily walked public areas, such as the corners of busy districts, major bus stops, subway stations, shopping centers, parks, etc. They should also be located right next to public restroom facilities. Among other things, it may encourage exercise because people would no longer need to carry liquids or otherwise make significant provisions for hydration. It would also tend to increase the health of a population by making water more readily available, thus decreasing people’s desire to purchase sodas or other drinks.
Perhaps in areas where such fountains are abused, a small fee (perhaps 1 cent for each minute of available water run time) could be charged to the users of such fountains. After the money has been deposited, a button would still need to be pressed in order for the water to flow. This would save much more water than just having the water begin flowing automatically after the coins have been deposited. All such fountains should have a countdown meter indicating how much purchased time is left. Or some sort of mechanical crank could be installed that would require a user to actually do something other than simply press a button so that water is not needlessly wasted.0 Comments
Clearly legible, non-coded expiration dates including the year, month, and, preferably, day of expiration should be printed on the outside of all food product containers, and even on the containers of all non-durable non-food goods. “After opening, use before…(a certain amount of time)” should also be written on the containers of many types of food and other goods.
The “Use by…” or “Best if used by…” dates indicate peak quality, which is not really necessary for the consumer to know. What really needs to be conveyed is the expiration date, i.e., the estimated date at which the product ceases becoming reliably safe to consume. Obviously, the sooner a product is consumed, the better it will taste.
The maximum recommended times for properly refrigerated or frozen foods should be permanently printed on those food packages, especially meats, eggs, and other foods that may be often be inadvertently stored beyond their safe shelf lives.
All this information should be printed in a very clear to understand manner and in a way that will not fade or rub off the surface of the package.
Because of storage and handling variables, as well as the temperature histories of a product, it is very difficult to project a highly accurate expiration date for food. Ideally, what is necessary (but not yet available) is a cheap reliable way to assess the quality/ripeness of foods, fruits, etc., so that the consumer could be given an accurate assessment in real time.
More accurate dates printed on food packages will result in a lower quantity of food being disposed of due to consumer ignorance about the food safety. However, it will be inevitable that at least a slightly higher incidence of sickness will occur as a result of food having later expiration dates printed on their packages. Nevertheless, this trade-off may be worth the cost.0 Comments
Supermarkets should be required to measure the amount (weight) of food they “discard” per day or week. “Discard” would be defined as food that has been required by management to be removed from the shelves because of its age and which is no longer intended by that store to be sold for consumption. Perhaps these ‘discards’ could be divided into at least two categories: natural foods (fruits, vegetables, etc.) and packaged/processed foods (cheese, meats, TV dinners, canned goods, etc.). This would enable the uniform, comprehensive gathering of statistics on this problem and can be used to provide a way to measure the effectiveness of any efforts aimed at reducing this problem of waste. All this quantitative ‘discards’ information from each significant food vendor in the state (or country) should be uploaded onto one industry-wide and operated website so that there is only one clearinghouse for information of this sort for people in the secondary market to accurately and efficiently search through to find and perhaps even purchase this excess food before it is ultimately thrown away. The goal of this program is to list such products so that they could be more efficiently located and sold (or given away) before they are ultimately thrown away, composted or otherwise used for non-consumptive food purposes.
For whatever weight of products that remain unsold or not given away (for example, to food banks), these stores would then be charged a fee for every pound of product that is thrown away. This fee would naturally incentivize stores to increase their utilization efficiency by optimizing their own practices to reduce waste by either advertising their products to satisfy smaller niche markets (i.e., selling ripe or overripe products for a lower price) or by naturally helping to create financially viable secondary markets for these imperfect, near expired, or otherwise sub-optimal fruits and vegetables and other foods.0 Comments
Restaurants should give people the option to buy leftovers for a reduced price. Leftovers would include residual foods left on pots and pans after whatever necessary servings were already removed. Foods or dishes that either the customer ordered by mistake or dishes that restaurants make by mistake could also be offered to customers at a reduced cost. This practice would both reduce the amount of food wasted and increase the profit margins of restaurants.0 Comments
No person should be restricted or prevented from consuming anything except human meat/blood and other body products, except, of course, human breast milk. Also, the consumption of moderate and strong mind- and body-altering substances without permission should be illegal.0 Comments