While I agree that our nation needs to become healthier, this is not the way to do it. There is no way you can tell a person's BMI simply by looking at them.

Yeah this is ridiculous and how would that poor person feel when a restaurant turns them away for being too d*mn fat? That's just wrong and in a way discriminatory.

This is too much freaking government.

I agree with NYYPrincess. While improving the nations health is important, its not the government's place to tell people what they can and cannot eat.

Unfortunately, there are overweight people out there that are not able to control it. I had a co-worker that began experiencing medical issues that caused her to gain weight at a rapid weight. (I thought she might be expecting, that is how quickly it came on). She went from average to almost obese in less than a year.

I want people in the country to be healthier, but I think there is only so much the government can do. You can't force people against their will to drop weight. Ultimately we are responsible for ourselves.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. How dare these legislators try to overstep their bounds in such an obvious, intrusive way? The government is NOT supposed to tell people how to live their lives or run their businesses. They don't have the right to protect us from ourselves.

This is absurd.

This is crazy - there's no way this will pass. Are they suggesting that fast food employees break out some measuring tape to measure the waistline of every person that walks in their door?

I really believe that piling on more regulatory laws is not only more expensive, but ultimately, it's ineffective. I believe this applies to many, many things even beyond this example. Why not avoid all the inevitable discrimination lawsuits that are bound to come out of this and spend more money on education and health incentives instead?

This is wrong on SOOOOOO many levels.

No, that's discrimination. That's fatism.

I can't believe Mississippi came up with that. What an interesting state!

That is insane! How about taking the money that would be spent on such an outrageous program and actually use it to give PE back to kids in school.

Answers 2 and 4 aren't mutually exclusive, and you can basically agree with both of them at the same time, so my vote is divided between them.

How do unhealthy people cause tax payers money, btw? Anyone know? I'm very curious.

And since when is unhealthy a 1-1 correlation with your BMI? Or are we using unhealthy as a euphemism for obese?

I want that burger.

kings queen great suggestion!

This is absolutely absurd. You know what - I am working HARD on losing weight and don't need to feel any shame by going to an establishment and being denied because of my weight. My BMI is MY business to attend to and nobody besides a medical professional should be helping me make decisions about where and how to eat. If they really want to help out the state they need to introduce legislation that would allow free or reduced gym memberships, give tax breaks to establishments that serve lower fat/lower calorie/nutrient rich foods, and assist grocery stores in being able to reduce prices on whole and nutritious foods to make it easier on the citizens to make healthy choices.

Yikes...this would be the first step down a very dangerous path. I find it totally unacceptable that this is even being considered.

This is totally ridiculous. They're trying to pass a law to restrict someone's diet? It's not even matter of someone's health. This is outright crazy.

As someone with a BMI *much* higher than 30...I can tell you that if a law like this DID come into existence in my state, I would be moving quicker than you can say "Holy sh*t".

It's discrimination, and it's completely ridiculous.

Not everyone is fat because they pack in too many double cheeseburgers. I have firsthand knowledge. In general, my family has a genetic predisposition to obesity, but I, personally, also have hypothyroidism, and polycystic ovarian syndrome. Even when I was a little kid, I ate healthier than my friends, played just as much and as hard as them, and STILL could not lose weight.

I had a BMI over 30 by the time I was TWELVE YEARS OLD. Guess what? My doctor tried EVERYTHING. *I* tried things that no child should attempt in an effort to lose weight.

It still hasn't worked.

So suddenly, telling me I can't eat a restaurant is going to solve the problem? I don't think so.

The Anti-Fat movement (that's all I know to call it) that is spreading in our country makes me so unbelievably devastated for younger generations. When I was a kid, yeah, I got made fun of A LOT. But at least it wasn't a f*#$ing crime to be fat.

They could pass that law and who says the restaurant will turn anyone away who is fat? I agree that obese people have serious health problems, and the state has to take on that burden especially health cost issues, but the way to solve it is to educate, to give incentives, to get the fatties while they are young.

Besides BMI is only based on Net Weight and Height it does not take into account muscle or bone mass. a better way to evaluate is to measure body fat with skinfold measurements or underwater weighing.

Matredalia, I'm with you. There are many reasons other than sheer gluttony for people to be overweight. I know from experience too!

FATTIES. i'm not even fat and i hate that term. it is hateful and horrible and just wait for it to come out of your mouth at the wrong time! a friend of mine let it slip at our last book club meeting, and in attendance was a new girl who was heavy. needless to say, she never came back. and she was sweet, would have been a great friend and addition to our group.

sorry i don't mean to start an argument. i know you probably didn't mean it in a hateful way, but neither did my friend when she let it slip. inevitably, it's going to sting somebody.

Seems like this would have trouble passing a constitutional court battle.

This is pretty ridiculous. I mean, seriously, this is not going to convince people to get in shape and start living a healthy lifestyle. That's a personal choice that a person has to make.

It's discriminatory, and stupid, and proves that overweight people are one of the last acceptable people to beat up on. And I'm also sick of people automatically assuming that overweight or obese people are automatically a leech on the system and tax dollar - it's a significant risk factor, don't get me wrong. I won't say what my weight/BMI is but upon looking at me people might think I'm unhealthy, and although I'm dieting because of the risk factors, I haven't had more than a common cold in my lifetime. Zero drain on the system. People need to stop assuming that people's weight alone determines whether or not they're gluttons, lazy, or have multiple health problems. It's a factor, but it isn't the only one.

This is absurd, but no different than helmet laws, seat belt laws, drug laws, etc... all different ways of the govt telling us when we can do with our own bodies.

Listen my own husband is overwieght and believe me i dont call him a fatty, maybe lardo or Ton-o-Fun but never Fatty.

Lighten up.

Remedios - Actually, your comparison of helmet/seat belt laws doesn't really fly here... simply because there is a 1-to-1 correlation between slamming your unprotected head into asphalt/your flesh and bone body going through a windshield and severe injury/death. Both of those things are much more likely to save a life if they're in use than if not (that's not to say people haven't died while using both/either).

However, this law doesn't take into consideration medical reasons that people may be obese/overweight... after a skiing accident I was in, I was put on a high dosage of oral steroids to try and repair my spinal cord/vertebrae discs, and within 6 months of taking them, I gained 50 lbs. (Luckily, I'm tall enough that 50 lbs looks more like 25 on my frame... but still, 50 lbs is 50 lbs.) 3 years after going off the steroids, I'm still fighting to take off the weight, and I barely fall into the overweight BMI category, despite the fact I eat a nutritionally balanced diet, I teach 3 dances classes per week and am training for a half marathon.

All I can say is that is really sad. What have we become, it is no better than any other action taken against a single group of people. Sick

This is not the correct way to try to make people thinner.

If you don't call him fatty because you think it will hurt his feelings, why do you use the term so loosely otherwise? and "lardo" is not so nice either btw.

Wow the audacity ... Im all for promoting good health habits but this is crossing the line just a bit. Communism if you ask me, I can not believe anyone with a conscious and moral mine would think of such a thing. FREEDOM ... CIVIL LIBERTIES.. is that the foundation of this Country.

We need to teach people to be more informed so they can make better decisions, not discriminate against them and take away their privacy and freedom.

I agree with the idea, I think it's shameful that our country is getting fatter every day, but this is a sad way to go about it. It's hurtful not to mention unconstitutional- even though people will get angrier over not being able to eat fatty foods than illegal wire tapping.
What about banning commercials for that stuff? If they can do it for cigarettes what about fast food?

undoubtedly, a democrat thought this one up

Not practical. WHo hasn;t seen the articles that talk about BMI being a bad way to judge whether someone is overweight or not. Based on their BMI, Tom Brady, Matt Damon, Brad Pitt and George Clooney would all be considered overweight. It does not take into account someone's lifestyle. Maybe they could just use their own judgement. Like, if a patron comes through that you feel needs to lose weight, refuse to serve them.

Actually, it was 2 Republicans and, I'm sorry to say, one Democrat. Stupidity is bipartisan

"Like, if a patron comes through that you feel needs to lose weight, refuse to serve them."

Empower waitstaff to judge, that's brilliant. Not.

I'm still in disbelief over this one...after the Jena Six this year and most of America discovering that racial segregation still exists, they're thinking up NEW ways to separate people? That's going backwards in a big way.

I don't expect this to have a hope of passing, though.

Allowing people to use their own judgment to refuse service to people they considered obese...? No way, dude.

There's a few problems with this:
1. How is a restaurant going to know someone's BMI? "I'm sorry, sir, but what's your height and weight? Oh, sorry...you looked pretty fat; I thought your BMI might be over 30. What can I get for you?"
2. People would just have someone go out and get their food for them or take it home in a doggy bag. There's always ways to get around things.

Hilarious! What a great suggestion, but a silly solution. They (the overweight people) need to get off their booty's and do something, i guess starving them is the answer now! Hahaha.

(I think this law is incredibly stupid)

Food related health disorders do cost society money. Food related diseases are extremely costly, and their treatment and medication are part of what is causing the increase in health insurance premiums and the reduction of employer health care benefits. (I know that GM reduced their benefits for ALL employees specifically because of cost of diabetic, cholesterol, and high blood pressure medication costs for SOME employees. WSJ).

However, I don't think that denying people food is the answer. There are so many other ways that could make a positive impact that wouldn't violate civil liberties! I can't believe this is the "answer" they came up with!

Isn't this the same state that denied an adoption because one or more of the parents was obese?

(note: it's a growing trend among the states -- and actually, other countries have specific BMI requirements for adoptions) (no one is claiming that the child won't be loved, but the courts are concerned about the lifestyle, particularly the levels of activity and the health of the child)

*not agreeing or disagreeing -- just pointing out that it's a current and relevant issue -- certainly something that needs to be explored further

So it's Mississippi...right? ...consider the source....(no offence to my pop sugar family that hail from there!)

Jillness thanks for the info. I definitely understand that health issues associated with obesity are expensive. I was just confused because Citizen said "taxpayers". To me, the use of that word made it sound like somehow our taxes were paying for obese people's medical care. I suppose in some cases, they are, but to me the inference is that obese people are on the government's dime.

popgoestheworld -- essentially, our tax dollars ARE going towards paying for health care for obese people. Obviously it would be unfair (not to mention WRONG) to say or imply that tax dollars go to the care of ALL obese people (or any other similar blanket statement)

Interestingly, not long ago, a few members of Congress bit the bullet and decided to participate in the "food stamp challenge" (link below) -- and they kept a blog of sorts about their experiences. Basically, what they realized is that it is nearly impossible to eat healthy food while relying on food stamps.

What does this have to do with our tax dollars going towards health care for obesity? Well, when you're limited to cheap, easy to access food (in major cities, it's mostly corner stores with zero to limited 'fresh' meat and produce selection) you are setting yourself up for a wide array of health problems -- including diabetes, heart disease and obesity.

Essentially, we're setting up some of the most vulnerable populations for failure. Have you looked at a school lunch menu lately? It is atrocious -- particularly when there are children relying on those hot meals at school to supplement what their families are unable to provide on a regular basis. It's even more atrocious that there are programs that are willing to provide healthy, fresh food to schools for LESS MONEY than we currently pay out to food services like Sysco (sp?) and others -- and the benefits of these programs are exponential (not only are there studies indicating that improving students' diet is directly tied to improvements in behavior and academic performance, but we would be helping them learn how to eat healthy food, and we would be decreasing the likelihood that they'd be at risk for future health complications, including obesity -- which costs the US millions, if not billions, each year) Why don't we use these programs? Well, Sysco, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and the conglomerates that own the food services the public schools currently contract with provide perks -- like buses, scoreboards on high school football fields and various other facilities that the schools wouldn't otherwise be able to afford.

So basically, we use tax payer dollars to create obesity, and then we use another chunk of tax payer dollars to try to fix the health problems associated with obesity.

http://foodstampchallenge.typepad.com/

I don't think that it's very practical-- how can the typical person working in a restaurant(probably their second job, or just to make ends meet/pay bills-- not as part of a career goal) eyeball a BMI of 30+?? And it is unfair to the small amount of people who are obese because of medical reasons. They can't control their weight, as opposed to the people who just eat junk food and never exercise. There's no way to tell a difference between those two, and therefore it wouldn't be fair.

Coming from a person living in the "fattest" state in the union, something seriously needs to be done about this problem, but it's definitely NOT by way of this Unconstitutional bill, which won't get past the House.

You have to admit though, it's an interesting way to get everyone's attention about this growing problem (no pun intended).

I'm so glad sugarbean posted her comment and the link for the Food Stamp Challenge. It's very important that people understand what is happening here in Mississippi and in some of the poorer areas around the country.

She's not exaggerating either... I grew up going to a public school where the "cool" thing to do was forgo eating in the lunch room (which was mediocre at best) and instead eat straight from the vending machines (it was cheaper and I was never once told by a teacher or any authority figure that we should consider health risks). Meanwhile our scoreboards and wall clocks housed the prominent "Cola Cola" label.

Granted, I graduated about two years ago (ok maybe a few more than two), but the same traditions are alive and well at that school and many others around the state.

Great post Sugarbean. Take a stroll through an elementary school cafeteria, and you'll certainly find all sorts of food additives and colors, that have been directly linked to hyperactivity.

This thing is so unconstitutional it's scary. Too bad more people would be fired up about THIS than things like the Patriot Act. Meanwhile our civil liberties are just flying out the window.....

The 'law' doesn't make too much sense... and restaurants wouldn't participate. I doubt any place is going to turn away customers (no matter the size). And who's going to enforce it? "I'm sorry kid, you're fired. That man has a BMI of 32 and you served him a Big Mac!"

Also: why not place the responsibility on the restaurant? Stupid as it may sound- why not try to pass a law that demands restaurants to ONLY serve food with less than x amount of calories?

This just reminds me of in Super Size Me when the guy that Morgan is talking to asks when it will become socially acceptable to ban people from eating because they're fat like it is to ban people from smoking. (Not an exact quote of course, its been a few years since I saw it)