San Francisco trying to ban Happy meals?

[Chibibar]

McDonald’s Happy Meal Ban Goes Through in San Francisco! – EcoLocalizer

the other thread is closed.

Wow. This is kinda scary. So the government is going to decide what is good for our children? why can't parents make those decision instead?

 

[AshburnerX]

McDonald’s Happy Meal Ban Goes Through in San Francisco! – EcoLocalizer

the other thread is closed.

Wow. This is kinda scary. So the government is going to decide what is good for our children? why can't parents make those decision instead?

Because parents keep asking for them to do it, usually. It's the same reason they are currently holding debates in the Supreme Court right now, to determine whether or not California's proposed Anti-Videogame law is constitutional (And it shouldn't have even gotten that far, as it's been thrown out of every lower court).

 

[Espy]

Well, if the government has proven anything in the last few decades its that they clearly know what is best for you.

 

[Krisken]

I don't know why you are blaming the government. They are being pressured to do it by the moron public.

 

[Espy]

My bad then, I thought it was saying that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Land Use Committee was behind it and that parents provided pressure for it. Which is even dumber since they could, you know, just NOT GO THERE.

 

[Krisken]

Oh, I absolutely agree. I find there isn't enough personal responsibility in some things. Where you go to eat should be a basic thing.

 

[strawman]

That's wrong on so many levels, it makes me sick.

Now I'm curious how they define "healthy" because this could restrict sales of cereals, cracker jacks, and other children's foods that contain toys, coupons for toys, etc. Restaurants would no longer be able to hand out crayons and coloring placemats to children.

 

[Krisken]

^^

 

[Covar]

morality police - not just for conservatives.

 

[strawman]

morality police - not just for conservatives.

Dear Liberals,

Git offa our turf ya dang hoodlums!

Best regards,
Social Conservatives

 

[Frank]

So, no more happy meals.

So, now when the fat parents go to McDonald's with their fat kids they're going to get what, regular sized adult meals? Let's start supersizing kids early.

 

[Espy]

morality police - not just for conservatives.

Dear Liberals,

Git offa our turf ya dang hoodlums!

Best regards,
Social Conservatives[/QUOTE]

The only saving grace is that when the two groups go to the crazy ends of their circle and meet up at the same conclusion "BAN IT IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT" they disagree on what to ban. If they all got behind it... well... hocrap.

 

[Shegokigo]

Great intentions.

Poor implementation.

 

[sixpackshaker]

So, no more happy meals.

So, now when the fat parents go to McDonald's with their fat kids they're going to get what, regular sized adult meals? Let's start supersizing kids early.

They can still sell hamburgers to kids, they just can't lure them into unhealthy food choices with Toys.

 

[Necronic]

This is the kind of stuff that gives liberals a bad name

 

[Fun Size]

What you guys don't realize is how fattening those toys are. I ate like ten of the Fionas from Shrek two, and I'm still trying to lose the weight I gained.

Totally worth it though when I heard Cameron Diaz make that little "Hiiiiya!" in the bathroom.

 

[sixpackshaker]

I'd rather see a ban in the direct marketing to children.

Of course if that happened there would no longer be animation on TV.

 

[Shegokigo]

Totally worth it though when I heard Cameron Diaz make that little "Hiiiiya!" in the bathroom.

D:

I prefer having her make that noise in the bedroom. :sneaky:[

 

[strawman]

So, no more happy meals.

So, now when the fat parents go to McDonald's with their fat kids they're going to get what, regular sized adult meals? Let's start supersizing kids early.

They can still sell hamburgers to kids, they just can't lure them into unhealthy food choices with Toys.[/QUOTE]

When is the last time you saw a 4 year old walk into mcdonalds unattended and buy their own happy meal?

The law, as written, is intended to replace parental responsibility.

I don't know about you, but I'm against the government taking the role of parents. They already do a horrible job in the educational sector.

The idiots who are demanding these extra regulations are ONLY doing so because they don't believe that their children should be burdened with the responsibility of making good choices when they raise their family.

Next someone's going to be preaching youthful fiscal responsibilty is being damaged by showing commercials with saturday morning cartoons, luring children into the deathly cold grips of poverty.

If kids don't learn to control their appetite (mental, physical, financial, etc) in their youth, they will have a rude awakening (best case) or spin out of control as they grow older. By putting these regulations in place you are actually removing opportunities for parents to teach their children.

No one will need to have conversations like this: "You're right, that is a cool toy, Timmy. Let's look at everything else you get with the meal. Hrm. The calorie serving is 25% of the amount an adult should be eating each day, or half of what you should be eating each day. Further, the meal costs more than the food alone. I'll let you choose it if you want, but I want to give you an alternative - you eat a reasonably sized meal right now, and afterward we can go to the dollar store and you can spend the difference - which should be about 2 toys, wheras McDonalds is only offering one (and you don't even get to choose which one)."

Sorry for the rant, but the particular phrasing of your statement rankles me with the implication that children are being preyed upon and are currently not protected by anything but the law.

 

[Espy]

So, no more happy meals.

So, now when the fat parents go to McDonald's with their fat kids they're going to get what, regular sized adult meals? Let's start supersizing kids early.

They can still sell hamburgers to kids, they just can't lure them into unhealthy food choices with Toys.[/QUOTE]

When is the last time you saw a 4 year old walk into mcdonalds unattended and buy their own happy meal?

The law, as written, is intended to replace parental responsibility.[/QUOTE]

BINGO.

Also, and everyone, try and stay calm: I had, over the course of my childhood, SEVERAL happy meals. And somehow, SOMEHOW, I have managed to not be 5000lbs.

 

[Chibibar]

So, no more happy meals.

So, now when the fat parents go to McDonald's with their fat kids they're going to get what, regular sized adult meals? Let's start supersizing kids early.

They can still sell hamburgers to kids, they just can't lure them into unhealthy food choices with Toys.[/QUOTE]

When is the last time you saw a 4 year old walk into mcdonalds unattended and buy their own happy meal?

The law, as written, is intended to replace parental responsibility.

I don't know about you, but I'm against the government taking the role of parents. They already do a horrible job in the educational sector.

The idiots who are demanding these extra regulations are ONLY doing so because they don't believe that their children should be burdened with the responsibility of making good choices when they raise their family.

Next someone's going to be preaching youthful fiscal responsibilty is being damaged by showing commercials with saturday morning cartoons, luring children into the deathly cold grips of poverty.

If kids don't learn to control their appetite (mental, physical, financial, etc) in their youth, they will have a rude awakening (best case) or spin out of control as they grow older. By putting these regulations in place you are actually removing opportunities for parents to teach their children.

No one will need to have conversations like this: "You're right, that is a cool toy, Timmy. Let's look at everything else you get with the meal. Hrm. The calorie serving is 25% of the amount an adult should be eating each day, or half of what you should be eating each day. Further, the meal costs more than the food alone. I'll let you choose it if you want, but I want to give you an alternative - you eat a reasonably sized meal right now, and afterward we can go to the dollar store and you can spend the difference - which should be about 2 toys, wheras McDonalds is only offering one (and you don't even get to choose which one)."

Sorry for the rant, but the particular phrasing of your statement rankles me with the implication that children are being preyed upon and are currently not protected by anything but the law.[/QUOTE]

Yup. this is how I see it.

A happy meal or two (in a course of a month) is not bad. It is kinda like a reward or having a treat.

I believe the parents should be parents and not the government.

 

[sixpackshaker]

18% of children are now obese compared to 5% 30 years ago. Yep, parents are doing it right...

 

[Fun Size]

So instead of educating parents, we make it so those of us who aren't irresponsible tools can't treat our kids to a toy. Interesting.

 

[Espy]

18% of children are now obese compared to 5% 30 years ago. Yep, parents are doing it right...

And this will fix that? Do you really believe some kind of silly pointed government control over Happy Meals will make a difference? If you really think that the government should control what you and I eat or feed our children then lets start making a list man and ban the shit out of things. I'll start:

1) Most breakfast cereals.
2) Pancakes
3) Cookies
4) All types chips
5) Orange Juice
6) Apple Juice
7) All fast food

See, now THAT is making a difference. These wimps don't have the guts to actually do anything that will help. It's just bullshit pandering. You implement a list like that and I'll actually be impressed.

 

[Krisken]

18% of children are now obese compared to 5% 30 years ago. Yep, parents are doing it right...

Yes, but our lifestyles have changed in the country. Playing outside is no longer as prevalent as it used to be. Fear of people, what may happen to kids, the rise of computers, all these things can also be contributed to the decline in fitness.

 

[strawman]

18% of children are now obese compared to 5% 30 years ago. Yep, parents are doing it right...

So your position is that the government can do a better job.

Further you suppose that humanity will be better off if we eliminate personal choice and responsibility, except when those choices are "approved" and "right" according to some arbitrary measure.

You must live in a very scary world to think that this is the best path for all involved.

But, to more directly address your comment, the reason children are obese is not because food establishments are "luring children" with toys. The reasons are complex, but a primary factor is that cheap food is cheap because it's easy to manufacture, and the easiest foods to manufacture are based on highly refined sugars and starches.

30 years ago sugar - not high fructose corn syrup - was more prevalent in the industry, and it cost more, inflation adjusted, for a family to feed themselves. Now food is cheaper because HFCS, and many other food components, are delivered in tanker trucks and piped around the factory, instead of having workers push carts with bags of granulated and powdered sugar around the factory floor.

Now we have ultra cheap food, and people are overeating. The answer is not to remove personal choice - you know, prohibition was an stellar example of how humanity improved overnight because they weren't allowed to drink.

 

[sixpackshaker]

We've already educated the parents, these may be the same bunch that ignore the scientific research that kids need to be vaccinated.

 

[Fun Size]

We've already educated the parents, these may be the same bunch that ignore the scientific research that kids need to be vaccinated.

So you regulate it? Look, you can't stop stupid. Evolution can potentially slow it down, but people will make bad decisions no matter what.

 

[Hylian]

I am all for tryign to get kids to eat less junk food and stuff but it really should be up to the parents/individual to decide what to eat. But than again the average individual wants to use there brain as little as possible so they ask the government to make all there decisions for them and of course the government is only all to eager to do just that.

 

[Espy]

We've already educated the parents, these may be the same bunch that ignore the scientific research that kids need to be vaccinated.

Clearly it's far more than that. But again, what is your point? You and I both know this won't stop childhood obesity. So what do we really do?

 

[Fun Size]

What's really funny to me is that I like Happy Meal toys, but I refuse to eat at McDonold's. When I'm on a road trip with the kids, I can stop for a Diet Coke, get them each a juice and a cheap ass dollar toy that brings them both glee, and move on.

 

[Krisken]

 

[MindDetective]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a moment. Note, I don't take this position in order to troll but to try and figure out where I stand on it.

Let me posit the following:

1.) Fast food meals are packed pretty fully with fat, salt, and sugar to maximize the tastiness of the food. You could consider it largely fabricated food and thus not a natural substitute for food our ancestors would normally have eaten. Our bodies (and brains) are not evolved for this kind of food.
2.) In addition to the draw of the maxxed out taste, toys are included with children's meals for the sole purpose of attracting customers to buy those meals. They would not include them if they did not believe more meals would be sold.
3.) (Here's the tricky one) We are largely creatures of habit. Choice, if it exists at all, is a rarity. We can identify some instances where we feel we are faced with choice but I would argue that even if you accept those instances, much of the time we are on automatic pilot and not genuinely considering choices.
4.) Given how automatically we respond, businesses can create products and market specifically to instill habits in people that subvert any choices they may make.
5.) The government can intervene in ways that curtail negative societal trends that are unobservable on any individual level.

IF given these, it may seem like a reasonable course of action to try and regulate the ability for a company to instill unhealthy habitual purchasing in consumers, which may have a general impact on society but not necessarily any given specific individual. This measure would either result in eliminating the prize that is intended to increase sales of their product or to curb the maximization of unhealthy ingredients in their products. Does it take the choice away from parents? If you don't accept premise 3 (or 4), then I suppose so. If my premises are reasonable, then perhaps not.

Of course, that still leaves room for speculation on whether or not this measure would actually be effective...

 

[Chibibar]

I usually buy the toys if it is interesting (my wife does it too) but we hardly (if ever) get the meal to go with it. Most toys are like 1$ anyways.

HFCS are cheap because of Government subsidies? maybe we should look into that.

 

[sixpackshaker]

HFCS is cheap because corn grows well over a large area of America. Most of the subsidies we pay out is to keep the amount of a certain crop down, to keep the prices up, so there is not an agricultural collapse in this nation.

This is just more nanny state impulse. It goes beyond Left/Right, just look at public smoking bans and other health related measures that get passed.