- Status
North_Ranger
Staff member
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.
The Penn & Teller episode about fast food? They make some fair points in that episode, so if you can, have a look.
Necronic
Staff member
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.
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 had a happy meal the other day. Om nom nom.
North_Ranger
Staff member
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.
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.
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.
I was in the US for two days three weeks ago and was pleased to see this at the nearest McDonald's.
/jealousAbout to nom a Red Robin Banzai Burger. I'm happy.
My favorite burger!!
It must be admitted, if there were ever any kind of meat that would probably survive the bomb, it's probably the McRib.
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.
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.
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
At least someone in SF has brains.
M
Mountebank
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.
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.
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.
Not according to the courts... man, it is a sick sad worlds, isn't it. I'm gonna go watch some Daria now...
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.
C
Chibibar
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)
C
Chibibar
Feds move to ban caffeinated alcoholic drinks - USATODAY.com
the first example is a bad one
the first example is a bad one
umm... 12 pack of beer can make some light weight smashed without the Lokos.
now if the person just drink Four Loko and became intoxicated.... that is understandable.
M
Mountebank
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").
C
Chibibar
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...
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?!
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):
- Status