No Soup for You! Bloomberg Bans Food Donations to Homeless

by Sarah TheHealthyHomeEconomist November 28, 2012

Fans of the beloved 90′s sitcom Seinfeld will no doubt remember the words of the Soup Nazi which were quickly directed at any customer who did not strictly follow his no nonsense rules for standing in line, ordering, and payment at his popular New York deli.

“No soup for you!  NEXT!” the Soup Nazi would shout at the red faced customers who would silently slink away in shame after being lambasted for not adhering to his standards.

New York Mayor Bloomberg has taken Soup Nazi’s tactics to a whole new level with his Administration’s banning of food donations to all government-run facilities that serve New York City’s large homeless population.

The nanny-esque ban, put in place in March 2012, still stands despite city resources stretched to the breaking point by the devastating effects of Hurricane Sandy on the City’s five Boroughs in October 2012.

Perplexingly, the reason for the ban is not the result of homeless getting ill from food contamination!

Rather, Mayor Bloomberg has become New York’s new Soup Nazi by insisting that because the nutritional content of donated food cannot be adequately assessed by the Department of Homeless Services (DHS), homeless shelters are thereby required to turn away all Good Samaritans wishing to donate even such innocuous items as soup and bagels.

Seth Diamond, Commissioner of the DHS, defends the decision saying that the ban is in line with Bloomberg’s passion for improving the nutrition of all residents of New York City.  The measure tightly controls what can and cannot be served at city run facilities for New York’s down and out including portion sizes and the amount of sodium, fat, fiber and calories per serving.

No exceptions to the strict ban are given even for established donation centers with a healthy track record such as Ohab Zedek, an Upper West Side Orthodox congregation which has donated freshly cooked and nutrient rich foods left over from synagogue events for over ten years.

Mayor Bloomberg’s relentless pursuit of a New York food utopia through implementation of his social justice agenda, while well meaning, is certain to fail (note the ban on all sugary sodas larger than 16 oz in September 2012 which head scratchingly exempted diet sodas which are arguably just as bad if not worse as diet drinks have been shown to trigger overeating).

The reason is that is removes all personal choice and responsible actions from the individual – be it positive or negative.  If people want to drink a Big Gulp, they should be free to do so.  And, if citizens like Glenn and Lenore Richter, who lead a team of food-delivery volunteers from their local congregation, want to donate fresh foods to homeless shelters in their neighborhood, they should have the freedom to perform such charitable activities as well.

Attempting to control consumer behavior with a socially “just” agenda cannot and never will accomplish health.  It just creates a populace that becomes highly adept at circumventing the “rules” such as what happened in America during Prohibition.

 

Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist

Source: Nanny Bloomberg Bans Food Donations to Homeless Shelters

Picture Credit

 

Comments (109)

  1. Roseann Ligenza-Fisher via Facebook November 28, 2012 at 11:20 am

    I agree that while canned soup isn’t exactly the healthiest, it’s at least SOMETHING. Maybe we should bring over jars of bone broth??…wonder how he would react to that..LOL

    Reply
    • No, they aren’t. But it depends on what you are willing to live with. I think conservatives nannying of reproductive rights is wrong (and a very real and concrete threat) so I often vote liberal. But I ALSO don’t want this kind of nanny state but it’s far more nebulous. I don’t think we knew Bloomberg was going to go this far. We need more real options out there.

      Reply
  2. Pam Chastain Skaggs via Facebook November 28, 2012 at 11:23 am

    Just plain idiotic. They can’t assess the nutritional value of donations?? I guess they could throw it in the dumpsters and hungry people could get it there. What is wrong with this man? Everyone can’t eat organic arugula like Mr. Bloomberg.

    Reply
  3. Barbara Torrey Centofante via Facebook November 28, 2012 at 11:30 am

    This istesting/slow boiling us towards getting us easily herded and groped (TSA), easily dictated to about good food/bad food (no Big Gulps, school lunches, donated food) all for the “common good” re: ObamaCare, herded into flu shots (healthcare employees must do this or lose their jobs) so there’s not much of a leap to herd everyone into flu shots for the “common good” re: Obama Care, etc. Even Fox News calls employees ‘workers”… words have consequences… Ready for the collective comrade ????

    Reply
  4. Bloomberg gets a ton of crap for his attempts to raise consciousness in NYC about what people put in their mouths. I am one who believes that his heart is in the right place, even though his measures seem like droplets in the ocean.

    How many politicians are making ANY effort to raise food awareness? I’d think that this community would welcome someone who cared enough to even talk about it. Most of them keep their mouths shut and/or bend over for the food lobbyists.

    There was a huge uproar here in NYC over the large-soda-ban a few months ago. People were up in arms about him ‘taking away their freedoms’, but it was merely a restriction on cup size, NOT on the soda itself and not on the limit you can buy at one time.

    If somebody still chooses to ingest a tub of Pepsi with their meal, they are still free to either:
    A: Buy a 1 or 2 liter bottle of pepsi from any supermarket or corner store
    B: Buy as many 16 oz. cups of Pepsi as they choose to
    C: Bring their own tub of Pepsi

    People feel the need to finish what they buy, but rarely actually *need* as much as is served to them, or is contained in the vessel sold to them.

    Bloomberg raises awareness of a HUGE problem we have as a society — a problem that we, as members of the real-food community, rally against every single day.

    Most people, sadly, are not visiting the traditional food websites the rest of us do. Bad publicity is still publicity, and I think Bloomberg knows this.

    Reply
    • I agree that Bloomberg’s heart is probably in the right place. However, that doesn’t make limiting and restricting people’s choices, based on what a politician believes, a good thing. This is an extremely slippery slope!

      What if Bloomberg, or another governor somewhere, decides that no one should be allowed to purchase full fat dairy because they think it contributes to heart attacks and obesity, and passes a ban on everything except fat-free dairy?

      This is the can of worms that is opened when these sorts of bans become normal. No one, and I mean NO one has the right to decide and dictate what anyone else decides to eat or drink.

      Reply
      • Exactly right ! Everyone is so busy minding everyone elses business.
        That’s not what our country is founded on. Regardless of anyones political
        leanings please care and support our incredible constitution. We are each
        responsible for our own journey in life. Creating a state of dependency
        handicaps all and hastens our doom

        Reply
  5. Interesting. So only items with nutritional labels can be donated? Ironically, these items are usually nutritionally inferior to fresh foods without labels. In my town in Alberta local farmers are not allowed to donate their farm fresh eggs anymore. The food bank has to buy the factory eggs from the grocery stores. Sounds like the same idea and it’s really quite sad.

    Reply
  6. Chrystina Swain via Facebook November 28, 2012 at 11:39 am

    Kenny- it’s about freedom and loss of it. IF people choose to eat dog food they have the right. If they choose to have a tub of Pepsi then they have the right. It has nothing to do with food awareness, and everything to do with control.

    Reply
  7. Nicole Rice via Facebook November 28, 2012 at 11:49 am

    Kenny- although I agree no one needs that much soda- the issue isn’t the soda. It’s wether or not it’s the governments job to control our food choices. Today we agree with what is being limited – but what if tomorrow it’s butter, or meat? Controlling the size is just the first step towards controlling the availability if the product itself.

    Reply
  8. Roseann Ligenza-Fisher via Facebook November 28, 2012 at 11:51 am

    Chrystina..while I agree with food freedom, I also believe that when these people get sick and need medical care, who will provide it? They will go to the ER for treatment they can’t pay for and who pays?? WE DO with higher health care costs. To me it’s pitiful that junk food has become the norm and to even suggest healthy food is an attack on freedom. Freedom for what? To get cancer? heart disease? diabetes?

    Reply
    • Who decides what “healthy food” is though, Roseann? We all know what the mainstream medical community and media promote as “healthy”. Canola oil; low fat and fat free, pasteurized, homogenized dairy; egg whites; margarine and other genetically modified, rancid vegetable oils; highly processed, extruded breakfast cereals and granola bars; yogurt full of petroleum dyes and artifical sweeteners, and on, and on, and on. So what happens if the good stuff, like coconut oil, raw and full fat dairy, butter, etc. are deemed “unhealthy” and bans begin to pass on those items? It’s a slippery slope!

      Reply
    • Thank you Lea Ann! When I try to tell people what is happening they will tell me to take off my tin foil hat. They think I’ve lost it! When I point out the chemicals in food, they tell me the government wouldn’t allow us to eat something dangerous. When I tell them about the fluoride in our water, they tell me we need it for good teeth. When I tell them about vaccines, they say they are necessary for good health. When I point out the chem-trails in the sky, they say those are normal flight patterns of commercial jets. I keep pointing out the many, many examples of Agenda 21, NWO and eugenics but people just don’t want to see it.

      My friends also tell me I should stop listening to Alex Jones, and while he may be a little over the top at times, I don’t know how anyone can listen to the layers upon layers of proof he has thrown out there and not believe/understand/ comprehend that something very scary is going on.

      Reply
      • Hello Susan, always nice to meet a fellow tin-foil-hat-sister ;-) My awakening came in an unusual way. When I was pregnant with my first child and researched natural child birth, I learned quite clearly that routing medical interventions into the birthing process directly oppose the PUBLISHED MEDICAL LITERATURE on the topic! Every “routine intervention” greatly increased the odds of a C-section. I learned then to look for the $ incentive behind anything that contradicted common sense. I went on to research vaccines, then when I was introducted to the information Alex Jones presents, it wasn’t very difficult to see the “connect-the-dots” patterns. Agenda 21 scares me the most because I’d be happy to just pull out of society and become self-sufficient (if it ever became necessary), but Agenda 21 directly prevents this escape route…
        Lea Ann Savage\’s last post: Updated Vitamix Lady website launched!

        Reply
  9. This is what happens when government gets involved in things they have no business interfering in. If these organizations were not affiliated with the city (DHS), then the city would not be able to dictate what can or cannot be served. As much as I hate commercially prepared and canned soups and foods, it’s better than allowing these people to starve to death. When you looks at how he has handled everything surrounding Hurricane Sandy, it seems as if Mayor Bloomberg has some sort of genocidal agenda for the people of New York. In the words of my late great-grandparents: ACH DU LIEBE!

    Reply
  10. @nicole, did you think it was a bad idea when the gov’t put an age minimum on alcohol and tobacco? Did they eventually make it illegal? no.

    You can say “what if” about tons of things. It doesn’t make the scenario any more likely. As @roseann said, diabetes and obesity are taking a toll on our society, causing healthcare costs to rise for ALL OF US, not just those who need to drink a tub of pepsi every day.

    Reply
    • Healthcare cost will continue to rise if we follow the government guidelines on proper nutrition. Not to worry, they will take care of us with Obamacare.

      What needs to happen is public education on the reality of how sugar effects our health, not the government telling us what we can and cannot consume.

      “If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as the souls who live under tyranny.”
      Thomas Jefferson (1778)

      Reply
  11. Wow, so I suppose he thinks its better to starve than to risk veering from the USDA’s laughable guidelines! Ludicrous just isn’t a strong enough word. In the words of Ronald Reagan, the nine most terrifying words in the English language truly are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

    Reply
  12. I am still puzzled at why this guy is STILL mayor! Then I realize that many Americans keep electing the same people in office everytime (not matter what party!) There was a similar issue that happened in Texas where this couple had been cooking foods from their home to feed to the homeless, and they had done this for many years. Well, the city found out about it, and the said they had to have a permit, which costs lots of money. They stated that it was a “health hazzard” to the homeless (meanwhile, if these people weren’t feeding them, they would have been eating out of garbage cans). Lea Anne you are right on Agenda 21. Most people don’t even know about it. We THE PEOPLE allow the government & media to run our lives, when is enough going to be enough! Thank you for posting this Sarah!

    Reply
    • I hear ya Joyce! More government is NOT the answer, and we have to keep telling anyone who will listen to educate themselves. I think it might be easier for people to be introduced to the plans of the NWO via the topic of Agenda 21. Topics like 9/11 turn off too many people, but everyone eats, and if they can see the threat that Monsanto and the NWO poses to our food supply, they might open their eyes to all of the other pots the NWO has their fingers in…
      Lea Ann Savage\’s last post: Updated Vitamix Lady website launched!

      Reply
  13. Yana Wagg Gardephe via Facebook November 28, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    I do think the soda ban in a backwards way has raised awareness of the dangerous outcomes of consuming this poison. Perhaps education of public is preferable, but if they can’t get the food pyramid right, because for example low fat high fiber is still considered good, and raw milk is not trusted, I don’t have hope that they could do much. At least in it sounding so preposterous (which it really shouldn’t because the stuff it poison long term) it brings the discussion out in the open. Likening to cigarettes is not that preposterous, its restricted, but people still have freedom to be addicted. As far as not allowing people to feed the homeless, there may be more to it than this, I suspect. I know lots of people who made food for shelters and displaced persons. No one was shutting them down. It might be giving the freedom to feed homeless back to the people, not having the govt run the soup kitchens. Just a thought.

    Reply
  14. Annemarie Scolari via Facebook November 28, 2012 at 12:38 pm

    Why not ban the culprits, high fructose corn syrup and aspartame? I don’t remember there being an obesity or diabetes epidemic in the 80′s when people were drinking Big Gulps…

    Reply
  15. So VERY encouraging to find others who KNOW what AGENDA 21 is! I never thought I would see America in this shape in my or anyone else’s lifetime! That is what happens when people are taught to be ignorant and don’t bother to educate themselves! If you follow any story on the internet nowadays, you find so many people with aggressive opinions that are based on IGNORANCE! It reminds me of the movie “Life is Beautiful” when the hero thought he had a friend in a Nazi doctor, and then found out the doc was INSANE from believing such horrible lies! Anyway, sorry to rant, just still shocks me to see people with no integrity in such high positions… God save America.

    Reply
  16. What’s my point? I think I made my points pretty well above. Sorry you might not have understood. I did use a few big words.

    “We don’t pay taxes for the mayor to tell us how he thinks we should eat or think.” This is true, however, we DO pay taxes and into a healthcare system (ok, sickcare system) that is overly burdened by people who indulge in the practice of slowly poisoning themselves, and then need lots of doctor visits and pharmaceuticals to help them feel relatively normal.

    We ALL pay for that, whether we want to or not, and whether we drink soda or not.

    Reply
  17. Christine Ten Eyck Myers via Facebook November 28, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    @kenny- you just made a point against your point. If people want to drink a tub of Pepsi, they can despite this cup size ban. Which means, the cup size ban is purely for show. It’s the government exercising its “right” to control the citizenry. Those of us talking about it in terms of freedom typically adhere to the belief that government should only pass laws when absolutely necessary. Passing laws is not the same thing as raising awareness. And passing laws that do not actually solve problems is the high point of arrogance, stupidity, and waste. And the thing about turning away food for the homeless shelters??? It’s so freakin ridiculous, I don’t even know where to start.

    Reply
  18. Christine Ten Eyck Myers via Facebook November 28, 2012 at 1:27 pm

    By the way, people really started getting fat when the low-fat craze started, and people turned to readily accessible sugars to try to fill the need. Mayor Nutrition would keep us all on low-fat diets also. How would you feel if he banned butter next?

    Reply
  19. Disagree. It’s not “purely for show”. It’s raising individual awareness at the time of purchase for the purchaser.

    If the purchaser asks him/herself “do I really need TWO 16 oz. cups of soda?” rather than mindlessly filling one 32 oz container, the goal is accomplished.

    By and large (and extra large) its seems people aren’t thinking much about this question right now.

    Reply
  20. Re: donating food to homeless shelters: there are many in NYC who would love to eliminate the homeless problem by any means necessary, even if it meant poisoning them. I’m sure 99% of what is donated is with all good intentions, but one batch of spoiled or poisoned chili can affect hundreds, if not thousands.

    It’s a shame that there is evil in the world, but hedging the bets is the first line of defense.

    Reply
  21. We can spend all day saying “if” this happens and “if” that happens.

    Putting a limit to a size of a beverage is an entirely different action than “banning” it. There’s no “freedom” issue here as far as I’m concerned. There’s no limit to quantity you can purchase.

    Reply
  22. Christine Ten Eyck Myers via Facebook November 28, 2012 at 2:00 pm

    It’s just laughable that people think that a legitimate purpose of passing laws is to raise awareness. But that’s the new United States, isn’t it? Big government is driving this ship now, baby, so step back, stop asking where we’re going, and enjoy the ride.

    Reply
  23. Christine Ten Eyck Myers via Facebook November 28, 2012 at 2:04 pm

    Oh, and hey homeless people, sorry you can’t get any good meals, but someone might try to poison you, so Big Daddy is going to protect you. Here’s a big batch of processed chemical junk food, because we care.

    Reply
  24. Yana Wagg Gardephe via Facebook November 28, 2012 at 2:18 pm

    I havent confirmed but i suspect that there are contracts to food service companies for these city homeless shelters (akin to the huge contracts for school food). Not saying it is right, or best but it might be how it is managed on this scale to keep flow adequate. When places stop accepting donations it is possible they have “enough” food or would require more paid staff to accept and deal with the donations. Maybe food is going bad. Just a guess. Interview people working at the the shelters, not the people inconvenienced because they can’t donate leftovers to their regular drop off locations and take it personally as an insult. There are still plenty of churches that have their own soup kitchens who ask congregation for donations, like ours, in NYC. And yes, what is healthy food is so controversial but I personally don’t think businesses have the right to put just anything they want in stuff people consume even if people see it so often they have become blasé or numb to consider it normal. I don’t think majority of the population has the knowledge, health to know what is dangerous for them. Exactly why I read Healthy Home Economist, I have learned so much. Not sure this particular news story has been fully investigated though, just taken from brief stories in a couple online papers.

    Reply
  25. A: I never called him a saint. I just said that I think his heart is in the right place. (as opposed to most other politicians, who are working for personal gain and their corporate masters)

    B: He’s not denying the hungry, he’s just not accepting donations for a variety of reasons that I see as “reasonable”. I don’t think that the whole story is being told here — only enough to get people riled up.

    If food of unknown origin showed up on your doorstep would you serve it for dinner instead of what you had prepared yourself?

    Answer honestly.

    Reply
  26. Christine Ten Eyck Myers via Facebook November 28, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    GMO labeling is about requiring *corporations* to be honest with *citizens* about what is in the food they are eating. It does not affect the freedom of individuals at all, and because it is something most citizens want, it is the government acting on behalf of the people. This is comparable to Bloomberg’s push for restaurants to display nutrition information. It facilitates the freedom of the individual to make informed decisions. Facilitating informed decisions is different than coercing certain behaviors. In the case of the food for the homeless, homeless people are still human beings. They should be given the opportunity to choose whether to accept food that may or may not be ideal health wise. And the government can offer alternatives that meet the official health standards.

    Reply
  27. OK….so you’re a homeless person. You eat at a shelter, and the food makes you sick.

    A: All the food came from one place, so the problem can be contained and minimized.
    B: The food came from all over the City from unknown kitchens and food sources and ….well…..ummmm…..I don’t know what to do now. We can’t trace or track ANYTHING to prevent it from happening again.

    Reply
  28. Christine Ten Eyck Myers via Facebook November 28, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    We should definitely outlaw potlucks then. Or is it just homeless people who don’t have the right to take that risk?

    Reply
  29. I can’t believe there are people on here that support this…You want to talk health care? Look at it this way:

    Right now the government thinks WE are burdening the healthcare system with all of our full fat (and raw!) milk, tons of butter, bacon, coconut oil etc…They will not help these people. They want them on low fat, or gmo canola oils. You think it’s a good idea to give them this control?

    If there was any chance for those homeless people to get good food, this ends it.

    Reply
  30. Mat_7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
    Mat_7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
    Bloomberg is a man that produces evil fruit. What he has done is pure wickedness.
    Luk_6:44 For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.
    Pro_28:15 As a roaring lion, and a ranging bear; so is a wicked ruler over the poor people.

    Reply
  31. Christine Ten Eyck Myers via Facebook November 28, 2012 at 3:04 pm

    Kenny, your assertion is that feeding the homeless is not comparable to a potluck dinner. Please tell us how they are different in way that relates to this discussion.

    Reply
  32. Its simple. If the number of ppl needing help goes up Bloomberg can prove the goverment needs to “help” more. Help is code for control. More control means more power and money to the dumbasses!
    People with certain political agendas have been trying to prove we NEED the goverments help(control) for decades. The problem is that people are just too caring and nice, which makes their ideas look silly! The statistics after every disaster prove the goverments “help” is nearly innefective wastefulness while donations selected by people who care where their hard earned money goes has been multiple times more help. We need to get the goverment out of charity! Their stealing our money and throwing it away for nothing! Nonprofit organizations are many times more effective! This is a war on freedom, individualism and good grief-niceness of all things!

    Reply
  33. Although there is a desperate need for nutrition info out there, banning donations is COMPLETELY inappropriate & counterproductive. It’s also stupid to ban a certain size cup – it’s just ineffectual! Bloomberg is not the parent of New Yorkers.

    Reply
  34. I think what you said Sara is exactly right. If the government keeps implementing rules like this to control our every move, all it is going to do is create tyrany and rebellion. Our government is really starting to scare me now more than ever. I keep wondering where are freedom is going. Don’t we live in America, Land of the free?!

    Reply
  35. Christine Ten Eyck Myers via Facebook November 28, 2012 at 3:31 pm

    1. Smaller scale is irrelevant. It doesn’t decrease risk, it only decreases potential number of people that get sick. On the other hand, the quantity of any one particular donated food also decreases the potential number of people who get sick. 2. A feeling of trust is also irrelevant to actual risk factors. And individual people reaching out to help the homeless does more to foster community spirit than the government running everything. 3. In the history of people feeding the homeless, has there ever been an instance of purposeful poisoning? I doubt there has been. But if I go to a potluck function at my church, for instance, I have no way of knowing if the potato salad brought by the new family is poisoned because they don’t actually like Christians. I *choose* to take that risk. What is to say that a volunteer won’t poison the official government sanctioned food? What we’ve been saying all along is that homeless people are still people and should have the same right to choose what risks they will take.

    Reply
  36. I’d heard before that some soup kitchens ban donations of wild game as lead from the buckshot is, well, not meant for human consumption. When a relative serves us wild game they just laugh and tell us to look out for buckshot!

    Does Bloomberg’s ban apply to government run homeless shelters only or do his henchmen plan to meddle in the affairs of private or church-run charities?

    It does not make sense to implement such a rule in this difficult economy and with charities being unable to meet the demands placed upon them.

    Mother Teresa of Calcutta used to save sugar packets and give them to homeless street persons. Sometimes that would be all they would get in a day. Refined sugar isn’t food, but will you let a person starve because you don’t approve of it?

    Reply
  37. Bloomberg is a POLITICIAN first and foremost. Nothing redeeming about him.
    The dumbing-down of America has come to fruition. Uneducated, uncaring, unethical, malnourished minds and bodies… not caring that we are becoming a marxist country. It’s woeful and saddens my heart.
    We desperately need values and common sense to return and help us retain our
    free enterprise democracy…. IT matters and name calling will not solve anything.
    You will not find a healthy mind or spirit in a malnourished body….

    Reply
  38. Lee Foley via Facebook November 29, 2012 at 2:43 am

    just another attempt at the left to take over our rights, our freedoms by taking control of everything and taking our FREE choice away from Americans.

    Reply
  39. I’m sure the mayor is not going hungry tonight or any night. I believe that if you chose to eat unhealthy then you should suffer the natural consequences that go with it – poor health, high insurance premiums, etc. But this is America is it is my right to chose this, just as it is my right to chose to eat a healthy diet and buy the best food I can afford. What if another mayor decides that butter and liver are bad for you and bans them – many do think this! We already see issues like this with raw milk. We need to fight for everyone’s freedom.

    Reply
  40. I will agree with most of the previous posts and feel that the big brother attitude of our government is not truley in the best interest of the people. BUT let us not loose site of a very good point that Yana Wagg Gardephe brought up,…. donations can still be made to private run ‘soup kitchens’ . I suppose an other option would be to pack a few hot meals, go to the homeless persons location, sit down and share with them…… they are sill people.

    Reply
  41. I’ve been reading through the post and this “Kenny” person is starting to tick me off. Bloomberg is a nazi (who is probably a Zionist and not an actual jewish person). I can’t believe that someone would agree with the over-regulation of food. First it was soda, and now it’s what the homeless can and cannot eat. Next they could go after our way of life. They could install cameras in our kitchens to make sure that we wouldn’t eat our beloved butter, raw milk, and unpastuerized lacto-fermented goodies. But, no, that wouldn’t be all, Bloomberg or any other government person can make more and more regulations, even from telling you what to wear (clothing may be offensive to people, except for tan pants and gray polo shirts), they could even tell you how to wear your hair. This regulation stuff scares me, as it can become a slippery slope.

    Reply
  42. Can I just say that I wish New York had New Jersey’s mayor during all of this. I am very upset with Bloomberg, for numerous reasons insofar as the way in which this whole Sandy thing was handled, or is being handled. Thanks for posting.

    Signed,

    Disgusted in Maryland, and for once, glad I have my crappy mayor.
    Cindy\’s last post: Mannequin Head Miss Molly

    Reply
  43. So restricing cup sizes or controlling food donations is going to help us? The problem is that companies with deep pockets and agendas are able to offer poison in pretty packages and the government is NOT going to stop that, being that they are all in bed together. Not to worry, sick care is there for us, another behemoth ready with it’s greedy hand out. It works so well, keep us healthy enough to generate $$, then when we are past our prime, sick enough to give whatever money we have left back into the system.

    When/if I see a politician truly addressing the root of the problem (out of control companies) I will take notice. As long as they want to control MY freedoms, I know what they are up to.

    What’s the answer? Wish I knew! Too many people are alsleep and attached to the government umbilical cord.

    “If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as the souls who live under tyranny.”
    Thomas Jefferson (1778)

    Reply
  44. This is just another attempt by a government agency to try and control the people. When people contribute food that saves the city a lot of money Maybe the mayor should donate his salary to feed the homeless.

    Reply
  45. i’m an ny’er and i’m tired of people bashing bloomberg. i’ll have to read more about the soup issue, but i’m all for banning giant sodas. portion sizes makes a huge difference in health/weight. i spent a year living in london, where portions are normal (what americans would call small), high fructose corn syrup is illegal, gmo’s are banned, there are a lot fewer pesticides used, many weird food dyes/additives are illegal, etc. and it is a WAY better place to live! and people are thinner and healthier. you buy a tomato or onion at the store, and it is amazingly flavorful. i’ve never found that in this country, and i buy organic/farmer’s mkt/csa.

    Reply
  46. Just because giant sodas are bad for you doesn’t mean that our government should ban them – what happened to personal responsibility? Do you want the government to also ban your ability to grow your own food because that is where we are headed…

    Reply
    • Personal responsibility is where it’s at. Remember, you are a consumer.
      You have the individual right (at this moment at least) to not purchase or consume
      bad food or drink.

      Reply
  47. Pingback: Seattle Mission ordered by city to stop feeding the homeless. - Page 3 - Stormfront

  48. Pingback: Health Dept to Homeless: You Can’t Eat Deer Meat « Set You Free News

  49. Pingback: Feeding the poor and homeless is now a crime | Move for Change and the Brooklyn Culture Jam

Leave a Comment

CommentLuv badge

Login to your account

Can't remember your Password ?

Register for this site!