Export thread

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?

Chibibar said:

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?

Click to expand...

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).

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

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

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.

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.

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.

^^

morality police - not just for conservatives.

Covar said:

morality police - not just for conservatives.

Click to expand...

Dear Liberals,

Git offa our turf ya dang hoodlums!

Best regards,
Social Conservatives

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.

First Lady Puffinstuff;449758][QUOTE=Covar said:

morality police - not just for conservatives.

Click to expand...

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.

Great intentions.

Poor implementation.

Frankie Williamson said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

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.

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.

Fun Size said:

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

Click to expand...

D:

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

sixpackshaker;449803][QUOTE=Frankie Williamson said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

First Lady Puffinstuff;449818][QUOTE=sixpackshaker;449803][QUOTE=Frankie Williamson said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

First Lady Puffinstuff;449818][QUOTE=sixpackshaker;449803][QUOTE=Frankie Williamson said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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.

sixpackshaker said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

sixpackshaker said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

sixpackshaker said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

sixpackshaker said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

sixpackshaker said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

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.

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...

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.

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.

San Francisco doesn't exist in what I would really term 'reality'. There's also no Walmarts within city limits.

As much as I enjoy limiting smoking in restaurants (and not having to air out my clothes because they smell like a chimney), this kind of legislation goes way beyond my comfort zone. I felt the same way when they tried to hike up taxes on sweets and sodas here in Finland; that isn't going to help balance the budget or pay the foreign loans, it's just a feel-good law that penalizes people for buying something beside spuds and veggies. Kinda like that whole mandatory vegan meal once a week they have in Helsinki primary schools. Most schools do serve good vegan meals as part of their selection - spinach soup, casseroles, spring rolls etc. It's just unnecessary to make it into a statute :/

The Penn & Teller episode about fast food? They make some fair points in that episode, so if you can, have a look.

I saw that episode, North Ranger. Some good points, but they are not good at presenting opposing arguments in a fair light. They follow the John Stossel school of debunking. Present your side, present opposing sides weakest arguments, then tear it down.

Yeah, Penn & Teller are entertaining but I wouldn't put much credence in their arguments. Especially not in the same sentence you say you are for smoking bans in restaurants (they have a whole episode on smoking/second hand smoke/smoking in restaurants.) Their arguments are pretty much what Krisken says, with a couple of really good "I had no idea" facts, like the fact that the research behind almost all second hand smoke legislation was severely flawed.

Anyways, I am strongly against laws restricting smoking in businesses, so you can guess where I stand on this one. I have little patience for the government telling a business what it can do with(in) its property. Understand that that doesn't affect environmental legislation. Because I am bored and wasting 10 minutes at work I'll tell you why:

I believe that in a capitalist country like ours everything is owned by someone. There is no matter that has no ownership. In the case of air and water, there is no way to segregate it (when in the river/aquifer/ocean/atmosphere). This means that the ownly possible ownership definition is a shared ownership within a region. The boundaries of the ownership region will roughly depend on the common supply. With an aquifer it could be within the water table, for the air it could be the entire country east and or west of a major mountain range.

The point is that it is impossible to take pee out of a swimming pool, therefore it is impossible to define who owns what air. Therefore it is jointly owned. Air and water environmental laws are therefore simply an extension of property laws, something that anyone, including the most die-hard libertarians, will argue is the business of government.

When it comes to more oblique applications of this definition, such as endangered species, this doesn't hold up as well. For oceanic and river dwelling creatures it does, but for a land based animal you could argue that you own the entirety of the property that animal exists in. Possibly you could argue that the biodiversity the species provides affects everyone equally, and is therefore owned by all, but I don't know if it holds up as well because we are not talking about a physical object at that point.

I agree with the smoking ban for public or government owned property, where people might HAVE to be there for whatever reason and should not be forced to inhale the smoke of others. Privately owned businesses though should be allowed to set their own policies, either banning cigarettes from the building or allowing everyone to smoke to their heart's/lung's content. Those who don't like the pro/anti smoking policies of one establishment can go to a competing business that has the opposite.

I know that the bartender at the place I go to is awful happy about it. She said they get more business than before the ban and it's nice to not have all that smoke being blown at her every night. Oh, and she's a smoker herself.

I had a happy meal the other day. Om nom nom.

About to nom a Red Robin Banzai Burger. I'm happy.

Gonna make me some sandwiches. Salted veal, home-made cheese, ketchup and bread baked yesterday. Yummy.

Technically, I could go and get a take-away Double Burger from the Hesburger in the next block, but Hesburger doesn't really make good burgers when you really want something good. If you just want something quick to bite and stave off hunger for a bit, that's what it's good for.

All I know is the McRib is back for a few weeks so it's going to be a primary part of every meal I eat till it's gone.

I've never been big on McRibs. They always reminded me of school hot lunches.

Krisken said:

I've never been big on McRibs. They always reminded me of school hot lunches.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the McRib is a symbol of everything that's wrong with our society.

And GODDAMN WHY IS IT SO TASTY...

I'm so weak. Om nom nom.

Espy said:

All I know is the McRib is back for a few weeks so it's going to be a primary part of every meal I eat till it's gone.

Click to expand...

I was in the US for two days three weeks ago and was pleased to see this at the nearest McDonald's.

It's like, if you were a child born into the post apocalyptic world and you never tasted pork, then you had a McRib and were told, that that is kind of what pork used to taste like. And it was the most delicious thing you had ever had.


THAT'S what a McRib tastes like.

DarkAudit said:

About to nom a Red Robin Banzai Burger. I'm happy.

Click to expand...

/jealous
My favorite burger!!

Espy said:

It's like, if you were a child born into the post apocalyptic world and you never tasted pork, then you had a McRib and were told, that that is kind of what pork used to taste like. And it was the most delicious thing you had ever had.


THAT'S what a McRib tastes like.

Click to expand...

It must be admitted, if there were ever any kind of meat that would probably survive the bomb, it's probably the McRib.

Don't you guys have other laws that limit certain types of marketing?! Especially when it comes to children?!

Because really, this isn't about taking away your food, is about whether or not McD should be allowed to use toys to market unhealthy food to minors...

@Li3n said:

Don't you guys have other laws that limit certain types of marketing?! Especially when it comes to children?!

Because really, this isn't about taking away your food, is about whether or not McD should be allowed to use toys to market unhealthy food to minors...

Click to expand...

It's about weighing the rights of a company/corporation in a free market against the public good, with a touch of "Who should decide what's right for our kids - parents, or the government" thrown on top.

"Unhealthy" is a subjective measure. A kid whose parents feed him good meals at home with an occasional meal at a fast food restaurant is perfectly fine. The meal itself may not be considered "healthy" but if the child is normal in most respects, it's not particularly unhealthy to infrequently indulge in a meal with additional fat, sugar, and cholesterol than one would normally consume.

A kid whose parents choose to feed them this type of meal several times a week, however, is providing an overall unhealthy diet.

Now - do the McDonald's happy meal toys move kids from the first group to the second group, and by eliminating them will they then move kids from the second group into the first group?

It is utterly ludicrous to believe that this will be the case. The problem lies solely with the parents, and no small government intervention is going to change their diet in a way that will make an iota of difference.

We do have laws that restrict marketing of certain materials to minors. But the law is very strictly limited.

For instance, minors are NOT permitted to smoke at all. Therefore tobacco companies are not permitted to use marketing that may appear to target children.

Children are still permitted to eat, however, so it's within food company's rights to market their foods towards children.

Further, toys are only one way of enticing children. Desserts, shakes, and food treats work nearly as well. So the next obvious step is that these items can no longer be "bundled" as part of the meal. Then, of course, commercials contain fun situations and characters that don't represent one's experience when entering a restaurant, but they also entice children, so we'd better get rid of those too. The bright primary colors of the restaurant are attracted even to pre-verbal children, so we should really force those businesses to convert to a beige color palette. Also, the prices are obscenely low - oftentimes it's cheaper to feed kids a $1 cheeseburger twice a day to fulfill their calorie requirements than it is to give them three good meals a day, so those on exceptionally limited budgets may make the economic decision to go with fast food, we should totoally force them to raise the prices. Since we already artificially raise prices on other "bad" products, such as tobacco and alcohol, let's just add a tax to fast food so we can both raise prices and boost the gov't coffers at the same time. Of course, that money will be earmarked for school lunch, health care, and other such programs that help people make better choices, or care for those that didn't make good food choices.

But that would change nothing.

Businesses exist largely to make money. They will optimize for profitability. Just like the financial sector, the fast food industry will "innovate" around regulation to maintain, and in many cases increase, their overall profit.

And it still wouldn't matter. Not until you similarly restrict all the subjectively "unhealthy" food choices available to all consumers. Get rid of restaurants entirely? The stores will burst with "ready to eat" meals that will be just as bad, if not significantly worse.

But worse than all that - it's an infringement on liberty and freedom. Yes, there are differences between corporations and citizens, but the ability to sell (assuming I'm not selling something illegal) from one citizen to another is a freedom we enjoy with few limitations.

If they really want to "fix" this "problem" they need to get the government to declare that selling or giving "unhealthy" food to a minor is illegal. Then getting rid of marketing programs aimed at doing so would be automatically included.

Until it's illegal to sell or provide these items to a minor, though, marketing to them should not be restricted.

You created a bit of a false dichotomy there, FLP. There is a continuum of parents in between. What the toys do is presumably move people up the continuum. Yes, it would be ludicrous for the toys to move people from one end to the other. Even with your dichotomy, though, you SHOULD see a higher number of kids eating happy meals with toys than without toys. I'm not arguing in favor of the law. Its just that I don't care for that kind of reasoning.

MindDetective said:

You created a bit of a false dichotomy there, FLP. There is a continuum of parents in between. What the toys do is presumably move people up the continuum. Yes, it would be ludicrous for the toys to move people from one end to the other. Even with your dichotomy, though, you SHOULD see a higher number of kids eating happy meals with toys than without toys. I'm not arguing in favor of the law. Its just that I don't care for that kind of reasoning.

Click to expand...

I completely understand. I also used slippery slope as well, which is not a great reason to avoid a new regulation.

But the other extreme "If it only saves one child, it's worth it!" is also fundamentally flawed.

What I would have liked to see is research pointing out the increase in quality of life for children exposed to this marketing versus those not exposed to it. All the people for the measure have suggested is that children are getting more obese, and that by restricting marketing the children may become less at risk for obesity, and frankly I don't see evidence that would suggest this might happen, nevermind being a foregone conclusion. But no one says that this change will increase quality of life, and as minimal as the entertainment at the fast food joint is, it is still a "treat" for many kids.

The blunt reality is that the toys are only a small fraction of the difference. If toys really made a significant difference, then you'd see health food restaurants popping up all over offering toys to children and being as successful as the fast food joints.

For the fast food industry, adding toys to the meal improves the margins only very slightly. In such a huge industry, that normally insignificant effect becomes profitable, so they use it where it makes sense to do so.

But the reality is that it's the combination of taste, low cost, and convenience that bring parents and children to to the restaurant. The toys aren't anywhere near as decisive as the above three.

In fact, the biggest effect of the toys is NOT influencing the choice between healthy and unhealthy. It's influencing the choice between which unhealthy option - BK, Wendy's, McDonald's, etc.

By the time the toys come into the equation, the decision to eat unhealthily has already been made in most cases.

First Lady Puffinstuff;450366][QUOTE=MindDetective said:

You created a bit of a false dichotomy there, FLP. There is a continuum of parents in between. What the toys do is presumably move people up the continuum. Yes, it would be ludicrous for the toys to move people from one end to the other. Even with your dichotomy, though, you SHOULD see a higher number of kids eating happy meals with toys than without toys. I'm not arguing in favor of the law. Its just that I don't care for that kind of reasoning.

Click to expand...

What I would have liked to see is research pointing out the increase in quality of life for children exposed to this marketing versus those not exposed to it. All the people for the measure have suggested is that children are getting more obese, and that by restricting marketing the children may become less at risk for obesity, and frankly I don't see evidence that would suggest this might happen, nevermind being a foregone conclusion. But no one says that this change will increase quality of life, and as minimal as the entertainment at the fast food joint is, it is still a "treat" for many kids[/QUOTE]

I'm in 100% agreement here.

Mayor vetoes San Francisco ban on Happy Meals with toys - CNN.com

"Parents, not politicians, should decide what their children eat, especially when it comes to spending their own money," said Newsom. "Despite its good intentions, I cannot support this unwise and unprecedented governmental intrusion into parental responsibilities and private choices."

Click to expand...

At least someone in SF has brains.

I'm all for parental responsibility over government regulation. Educating the parents should be the top priority - what constitutes good nutrition, and how to say no to your child, even when they're whining and screaming.

But I will say this regarding USA restaurants: HOLY FUCK, those portion sizes are too big. Every time I go back there, I'm amazed with the sheer quantity of food on the plate. It's good value for me, as I generally eat a third to a half with it and box up the rest for a second meal. But I see people around me shovelling it all down in one go with bottomless fries, followed by a huge wedge of cheesecake and a soda you could drown a horse in. I eat too much, I'm overweight. But still those portion sizes freak me out.

I've known Americans come over to the UK and complain that the portion sizes are too small. They then get used to them, no longer crave food in the quantities they were used to and lose weight. Then when back in the States, they get used to bigger portion sizes again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

I know I'm the last person to lecture about nutritonal health, but I every time I see them I can't prevent the HOLY FUCK.

First Lady Puffinstuff said:

For instance, minors are NOT permitted to smoke at all. Therefore tobacco companies are not permitted to use marketing that may appear to target children.

Children are still permitted to eat, however, so it's within food company's rights to market their foods towards children.

Click to expand...

See, i don't think that logic works... just because kids are allowed to eat doesn't mean that you can market anything eatable to them, does it (eatable underwear, for your child's next play-date).


Not to say that you aren't right about the effect (or lack of) of the law itself... it was just that everyone seems to be approaching it wrong.

Yes, there are differences between corporations and citizens,

Click to expand...

Not according to the courts... man, it is a sick sad worlds, isn't it. I'm gonna go watch some Daria now...

@Li3n;452997][QUOTE=First Lady Puffinstuff said:

For instance, minors are NOT permitted to smoke at all. Therefore tobacco companies are not permitted to use marketing that may appear to target children.

Children are still permitted to eat, however, so it's within food company's rights to market their foods towards children.

Click to expand...

See, i don't think that logic works... just because kids are allowed to eat doesn't mean that you can market anything eatable to them, does it (eatable underwear, for your child's next play-date). [/QUOTE]

I disagree. "edible underwear" is hardly food - it's at best lingerie, and at worst a sex toy. Neither of which are suitable for child consumption. There are laws against providing materials to children that are of a sexual or perverted nature (vary by state), and this would most certainly fall under those laws.

So I'm still not sure that there's a good example that disproves my statement generally, and even if you came up with a specific example it might merely be the exception.

But our laws in the US are pretty liberal regarding marketing. You should read up on marketing in Germany. Very strict rules on what you can and cannot say about your product, nevermind to whom you may say it.

First Lady Puffinstuff;453058][QUOTE=@Li3n;452997][QUOTE=First Lady Puffinstuff said:

For instance, minors are NOT permitted to smoke at all. Therefore tobacco companies are not permitted to use marketing that may appear to target children.

Children are still permitted to eat, however, so it's within food company's rights to market their foods towards children.

Click to expand...

See, i don't think that logic works... just because kids are allowed to eat doesn't mean that you can market anything eatable to them, does it (eatable underwear, for your child's next play-date). [/QUOTE]

I disagree. "edible underwear" is hardly food - it's at best lingerie, and at worst a sex toy. Neither of which are suitable for child consumption. There are laws against providing materials to children that are of a sexual or perverted nature (vary by state), and this would most certainly fall under those laws.

So I'm still not sure that there's a good example that disproves my statement generally, and even if you came up with a specific example it might merely be the exception.

But our laws in the US are pretty liberal regarding marketing. You should read up on marketing in Germany. Very strict rules on what you can and cannot say about your product, nevermind to whom you may say it.[/QUOTE]

I have to agree. In the U.S. there are laws in place for
Sexual nature items - Varies from state to state, but generally over the age of 18. This include clothing, printed materials, programs, software, games, and other stuff that are related to sex.
Alcohol - most states are 21 some are 18 (varies) but again, there are laws of soliciting to minors
Cigarettes - most states are 18 (some 16 still? not sure) - The court had ruled that Joe the Camel can't be use anymore since it was a gimmick toward younger audience (if I remember that correctly)

Now general food products that doesn't fall in those category above are usually free game unless they violate FDA health regulation (like the certain blue and red dye a while back)

Feds move to ban caffeinated alcoholic drinks - USATODAY.com

the first example is a bad one

• A 14-year-old Arlington, Texas, girl died after her boyfriend, also 14, lost control of their car. The boy, charged with intoxication manslaughter, told police they had a 12-pack of beer and had five Four Lokos.

Click to expand...

umm... 12 pack of beer can make some light weight smashed without the Lokos.

•Police charged Lanae Cummins, 18, of Mesa, Ariz., with extreme driving while intoxicated after she drove into a house. She told police she had been playing "beer pong" with Four Loko.

Click to expand...

now if the person just drink Four Loko and became intoxicated.... that is understandable.

Strangely there's not such a stigma against drink driving in the US as in the UK. Here it means an instant 12 month driving ban at the very least, whereas the punishment in the US seems a lot lighter. It seems more socially acceptable too (not in a "you're drink driving? Great choice!" way, but it seems like it's just "one of those things").

Mountebank said:

Strangely there's not such a stigma against drink driving in the US as in the UK. Here it means an instant 12 month driving ban at the very least, whereas the punishment in the US seems a lot lighter. It seems more socially acceptable too (not in a "you're drink driving? Great choice!" way, but it seems like it's just "one of those things").

Click to expand...

I say have a stiffer punishment. Drive drunk? lose your license for two years. Again? never have a license ever again.

note: I'm bias cause my best friend was killed by a drunk driver. The guy hardly injured and got only a couple of years from what I heard.

I bet Drew Carey is glad he got out of the Buzz Beer racket years ago...

Let me just remind everyone that San Francisco invented the Mission burrito.

This is the the point where they should sheepishly say, "nevermind." and GTFO.

First Lady Puffinstuff;453058][QUOTE=@Li3n;452997][QUOTE=First Lady Puffinstuff said:

For instance, minors are NOT permitted to smoke at all. Therefore tobacco companies are not permitted to use marketing that may appear to target children.

Children are still permitted to eat, however, so it's within food company's rights to market their foods towards children.

Click to expand...

See, i don't think that logic works... just because kids are allowed to eat doesn't mean that you can market anything eatable to them, does it (eatable underwear, for your child's next play-date). [/QUOTE]

I disagree. "edible underwear" is hardly food - it's at best lingerie, and at worst a sex toy. Neither of which are suitable for child consumption. There are laws against providing materials to children that are of a sexual or perverted nature (vary by state), and this would most certainly fall under those laws.[/QUOTE]

Hint: toys aren't food either.

Think of it like "kids can wear underwear, so they should be allowed to sell them lingerie". Any objection to that is as arbitrary as the ones to not allowing toys with food.

Oh, and as an aside for the lingerie thing, are there actual laws that say you can't sell it to kids?!

@Li3n said:

Oh, and as an aside for the lingerie thing, are there actual laws that say you can't sell it to kids?!

Click to expand...

The Supreme Court of the United States has stated many times that children can be protected from adult material and such protection does not violate the minor’s First Amendment rights. Material that is inappropriate for children can be regulated but it cannot be completely outlawed.

Click to expand...

Found via sell indecent minors - Google Search

Keep in mind that you can sell "lingerie" for and to children. But edible lingerie sized for a child would probably fall afoul of these guidelines (From Utah attorney general):

For minors, when taken as a whole, appeals to a prurient interest in sex;
Is patently offensive according to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect as to what is suitable material for minors; and
Does not have serious value for minors.

Click to expand...

Oh, i didn't mean edible underwear... that's obviously illegal just because of where it's sold.

I meant lingerie being for looking sexy and kids not being allowed anything sexual (USA wise).

Now, what if a minor walks into your store and tries to buy condoms?

Do you become the store that sells condoms to kids? Or the store that would prefer kids go out and have unprotected sex?

Are condoms restricted materials?

It's not illegal for a minor to buy condoms, nor is it illegal to sell them. If it was illegal to give minors condoms, some safe sex programs in schools would be illegal.

That's kinda what I figured.

I'm not one of those who think the availability of condoms will greatly enhance promiscuity in teens. They already have hormones for that.

I don't blame them. McD's Happy Meals is a marketing machine and the food is fucken disgusting.

When I get my nephew over (he's 6) and I ask him where he wants to go eat, he used to ask to go to McD's... I always said no. He asked one day why and I sat him down in front of my laptop and showed him fat pictures of American kids. "Do you want to be a fattie ? Do you want people pick on you? Do you want to be picked last? Do you want cute girls to smile at you?"

Great, now he'll have anorexia.

I hope you explained to him the other spectrum, too.

Jay said:

I don't blame them. McD's Happy Meals is a marketing machine and the food is fucken disgusting.

When I get my nephew over (he's 6) and I ask him where he wants to go eat, he used to ask to go to McD's... I always said no. He asked one day why and I sat him down in front of my laptop and showed him fat pictures of American kids. "Do you want to be a fattie ? Do you want people pick on you? Do you want to be picked last? Do you want cute girls to smile at you?"

Click to expand...

He probably just wanted the toy.

That's how we were as kids. That's the only reason my cousins want to go to McDonalds.

He has 2 treasure chests of toys. It was more of "being cool" since the marketing of it is created to give it a "cool thing to do" concept.

Somehow Sideshow Bob sipping a glass of wine suits perfectly to your argument, Jay

Health group sues McDonald's over Happy Meal toys - Yahoo! News

update: Now someone is suing McD for adding toys to the meal? ummm... last time I check, aren't the parents paying for the meals? where is the discipline? where is the training? I remember when my mom only buy me happy meals (with toys) if I was good for like a week. It is more of a treat than a meal.

Chibibar said:

Health group sues McDonald's over Happy Meal toys - Yahoo! News

update: Now someone is suing McD for adding toys to the meal? ummm... last time I check, aren't the parents paying for the meals? where is the discipline? where is the training? I remember when my mom only buy me happy meals (with toys) if I was good for like a week. It is more of a treat than a meal.

Click to expand...

Given that you can buy the same food without the toy, then I don't think they have much of a case there.