LA Times: San Francisco bans Happy Meals

[#98QBKiller]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103,0,5438230.story


San Francisco bans Happy Meals

The city's board of supervisors votes to forbid restaurants from giving away toys with meals that have high levels of calories, sugar and fat.

By Sharon Bernstein, Los Angeles Times

San Francisco's board of supervisors has voted, by a veto-proof margin, to ban most of McDonald's (http://www.latimes.com/topic/lifestyle-leisure/dining-drinking/mcdonalds-PLENT000009.topic) Happy Meals as they are now served in the restaurants.

The measure will make San Francisco the first major city in the country to forbid restaurants from offering a free toy with meals that contain more than set levels of calories, sugar and fat.

The ordinance would also require restaurants to provide fruits and vegetables with all meals for children that come with toys.

"We're part of a movement that is moving forward an agenda of food justice," said Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure. "From San Francisco to New York City, the epidemic of childhood obesity (http://www.latimes.com/topic/health/physical-conditions/obesity-HEDAI0000057.topic) in this country is making our kids sick, particularly kids from low income neighborhoods, at an alarming rate. It's a survival issue and a day-to-day issue."

Just after the vote, McDonald's spokeswoman Danya Proud said, "We are extremely disappointed with today's decision. It's not what our customers want, nor is it something they asked for."

The ban, already enacted in a similar measure by Santa Clara County, was opposed by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/gavin-newsom-PEPLT007332.topic), who was vying to be lieutenant governor in Tuesday's election. But because the measure was passed by eight votes — one more than needed to override a veto — his opposition doesn't matter unless one of the supervisors changes his or her mind after the promised veto.

Under the ordinance, scheduled to take effect in December 2011, restaurants may include a toy with a meal if the food and drink combined contain fewer than 600 calories, and if less than 35% of the calories come from fat.

Over the last few weeks, the proposed ban caused a stir online and on cable television, with supporters arguing that it would help protect children from obesity, and opponents seeing it as the latest example of the nanny state gone wild.

Supervisor Bevan Dufty, whose swing vote provided the veto-proof majority, said critics should not dismiss the legislation as a nutty effort by San Franciscans. "I do believe the industry is going to take note of this. I don't care how much they say, 'It's San Francisco, they're wacked out there.' "

Proud, the McDonald's spokeswoman, said the city was out of step with the mainstream on the issue.

"Public opinion continues to be overwhelmingly against this misguided legislation," she said. "Parents tell us it's their right and responsibility — not the government's — to make their own decisions and to choose what's right for their children."

McDonald's is not the only fast-food chain to offer toys with children's meals, but because it is so prominent the company has become a key face of opposition to the ban.

Daniel Conway, spokesman for the California Restaurant Assn., bemoaned the ordinance's passage and contrasted it with San Franciscans' exuberant feelings after the Giants won the world series on Monday night.

"One day you're world champions, and the next day, no toys for you," Conway said.

He said the industry could respond in a number of ways to the ordinance. Some might continue to include toys but charge separately for them. Others might reformulate their meals so that they comply with the law. Restaurants might also simply stop offering children's meals altogether, he said.

Proud said the company does offer more healthful menu options, including apple slices that can be ordered with kids' meals instead of French fries.

The vote was held the same day that McDonald's reintroduced nationwide its McRib sandwich, a pressed pork patty that gets half its calories from fat and has a cult-like legion of fans.

Mar said it would lead the fast-food giant and other restaurants to provide more healthful food for kids. The ban, he said, was crucial to the fight against childhood obesity and the illnesses that go along with it, including diabetes (http://www.latimes.com/topic/health/diseases-illnesses/diabetes-HEDAI0000022.topic) and the risk of heart problems (http://www.latimes.com/topic/health/physical-conditions/heart-problems-HEPHC0000056.topic) and stroke. The cost of fighting those diseases, he said, will be in the billions.

"It's astronomical how much it's going to cost if we don't address it," Mar said. "It's incredible the crisis that's going to hit us."

http://mv.trb.com/clear.gif?dname=www.latimes.com&uri=/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103,0,5438230.story&tag=/business&citype=story&title=San%20Francisco%20bans%20Happy%20Meals&tnurl=http://www.latimes.com/media/thumbnails/story/2010-11/57267962-02164055.jpg&hkey=a7ec9341d8fdc8f5aad07baa97f4d37b

[twa]

Hell in a hand basket....fruits and nuts anyone?

[81+83+84=Posse]

My son would be pissed if we lived in SF.

[Tweedr01]

Lol, they had to get that McRib in there somehow right?

I don't like the idea of the government mandating food that individuals pay for. McDonald's might be smart to lower the price of the happy meal, and make the toy 'separate', in which the cost of the toy makes up the discounted price of the happy meal. They said something along those lines in the report, which I think is a pretty good idea.

[DieselPwr44]

And San Fran stays permanently on the list of places I never want to live.

Bunch a tree hugging hippie crap......

[Popeman38]

And San Fran stays permanently on the list of places I never want to live.

Bunch a tree hugging hippie crap......You can disagree with the city govt, but San Fran is an AWESOME place to visit. DC, Boston and SF are my favorite US cities, and ones I would actually live in....

[SnyderShrugged]

Edgar Friendly:

"You see, according to Cocteau's plan, I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener".



Best Monolog of the century! (And apparently quite prophetic)

[Thiebear]

The happy mean can come with apple dippers. (pickle/fruit) = loophole?
600calories puts it way above the avg. happy meal??? = loophole? 380-580

http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritionexchange/Happy_Meals_Nutrition_List.pdf
The mighty kids meal with the doublecheesburger takes it over the 600 amount by 100calories.

[twa]

:ols: ...great quote SS

[Corcaigh]

Just replace the unhealthy food with a packet of smokes. There's nothing wrong with marketing unhealthy products to young kids. And replace the parents with ones who can say no.

[twa]

My children ate a ton of happy meals....the meals are not the problem.

[Corcaigh]

My children ate a ton of happy meals....the meals are not the problem.

The meals are not the problem for a minority. Other products can't be marketed to kids, this is just another example. I don't think it's a great idea, but I understand it.

[twa]

When they gonna ban ice cream or candy bars ect?....idiocy

[Henry]

Edgar Friendly:

"You see, according to Cocteau's plan, I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener".



Best Monolog of the century! (And apparently quite prophetic)

Love that quote. And I agree with you. This law strikes me as particularly dopey.

Now, if someone could just get Virginia to allow ABC stores open on Sunday ...

[Burgold]

I'm of two minds here:

I remember the Joe Camel ads and the tobacco companies targeting cigarrettes for their unhealthy products eventually most got on board with the notion that trying to seduce kids into smoking ain't cool.

This is along a similar line. Junk food is bad for you. Obesity is a genuine problem in this country. The toy in the happy meal is obviously a lure to try to get kids to pressure parents to go to that restaurant and by that meal. It's a smart and effective gimmick. For a nickle's worth of plastic they sell billions in burgers, nuggets and fries. So, do we like the targeting of kids this way? Do we think that this is appropriate?

On the other hand, restaurants need to hustle to make a buck and figure out a way to stand out. The Happy Meals aren't being laced with addictive drugs (as the cigarettes were) and parents have the ultimate ability right now to say "no!" or to say "yes!" Taking this tool away from restaurants seems a bit unfair and wrong esp. on an arbitrary standard of... toys not being allowed with healthy meals. Does that mean a happy meal that includes a sallad or apple slices can have toys? The big brotherish aspect of this bothers me even though I kinda like the impulse behind the decision.

I think ultimately I'd err on the side of business here and wish that customers would take a firmer stand and by their habits force menu changes.

[Tweedr01]

Edgar Friendly:

"You see, according to Cocteau's plan, I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener".



Best Monolog of the century! (And apparently quite prophetic)

:ols: ...great quote SS

Love that quote. And I agree with you. This law strikes me as particularly dopey.

Now, if someone could just get Virginia to allow ABC stores open on Sunday ...

That quote is something great, lol

Also, ABC stores are open on Sunday in VA. At least everyone in Woodbridge, they do close at 6 or 7 though instead of the normal 9.

[Henry]

That quote is something great, lol

Also, ABC stores are open on Sunday in VA. At least everyone in Woodbridge, they do close at 6 or 7 though instead of the normal 9.

Not up here in Springfield. We run out of margaritas quite often over the weekends. :)

EDIT: Apparently ABC stores are closed on Sundays on a store-by-store basis.

http://www.abc.virginia.gov/stores/sundayOpenings.htm

Amazing the things you learn around here. :)

[Rdskn4Lyf21]

So anything unhealthy should be banned, especially things that "target" kids because some parents can't say no?

:applause:

[Corcaigh]

When they gonna ban ice cream or candy bars ect?....idiocy

Maybe when they ban fast food?

It's the co-marketing with the toy with the unhappy meal that is the issue, not the existence of unhealthy food.

[Corcaigh]

So anything unhealthy should be banned, especially things that "target" kids because some parents can't say no?



"target" or target?

[daveakl]

What about kids cereals that come with a toy?

[Chicken Fried]

The government has no authority to tell us what we can't eat.

[Thiebear]

The avg happy meal is 400calories.
The ban is food over 600calories.

whats the issue i'm apparently missing?

[Rdskn4Lyf21]

"target" or target?

I don't think I accidentally put in quotation parks at those precise locations :ols:


The government has no authority to tell us what we can't eat.

Yes they do. They are smarter than us. We need them to make our decisions for us.

[daveakl]

The meals are not the problem for a minority.

If that is the case then simply banning happy meals is not going to create the results wanted.

[Califan007]

"We're part of a movement that is moving forward an agenda of food justice," said Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure.
http://www.antiquiet.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/aqua-teen-hunger-force.jpg

[Califan007]

Maybe when they ban fast food?

It's the co-marketing with the toy with the unhappy meal that is the issue, not the existence of unhealthy food.

So does that mean McDonalds can no longer use Ronald McDonald as its spokesperson unless its entire menu is deemed "healthy"?

[zoony]

Just replace the unhealthy food with a packet of smokes. There's nothing wrong with marketing unhealthy products to young kids. And replace the parents with ones who can say no.

if they put a dime bag in the happy meal instead of the toy, I think most SF residents would be okay with that.

[#98QBKiller]

Maybe when they ban fast food?

It's the co-marketing with the toy with the unhappy meal that is the issue, not the existence of unhealthy food.

That doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

I'm also on the same page with Thiebear and wondering if the option of fruit over fries in the Happy Meal is a loophole.

[Corcaigh]

So does that mean McDonalds can no longer use Ronald McDonald as its spokesperson unless its entire menu is deemed "healthy"?

Anyone whose coached youth sports would confirm that 98.7% of parents are unfit to take care of kids. I think San Francisco should run a sting operation where anyone buying an unhappy meal will have their kids placed in care. The parents should be sterilized too.

[#98QBKiller]

if they put a dime bag in the happy meal instead of the toy, I think most SF residents would be okay with that.

I'm not sure about that, only crappy weed comes in dimebags.

:paranoid:

[zoony]

Happy Meals = evil
Pot Brownies = wholesome and good

...

[Corcaigh]

if they put a dime bag in the happy meal instead of the toy, I think most SF residents would be okay with that.

I used to "collect" Happy Meal Toys from my kids. Some of those were seriously cool such as the Animaniacs. One had an icecream cone oscillating in and out of a box as it moved. I got aroused every time I pushed it across my desk at work. I got the promotion too.

[Bang]

SO, I'm noticing that you can still go and get a Happy Meal in San Francisco, this measure just says no toys will be offered with it unless it complies to a certain nutritional standard.

No toy is not a ban Happy Meals. Your kid can still go and get his cheeseburger and fries in a fun box. But if the food inside adds up to more than 600 calories (with over 35% being from fat) then no toy. And he can go get a Happy Meal that has raisins or apple slices in it and get the toy.

But hey,, don't let that get in the way of a good cry.

~Bang

[Corcaigh]

That doesn't make it any less ridiculous.



This is 'merica. Who the **** are you to determine what's ridiculous or not.

[Corcaigh]

SO, I'm noticing that you can still go and get a Happy Meal in San Francisco, this measure just says no toys will be offered with it unless it complies to a certain nutritional standard.

No toy is not a ban Happy Meals.

But hey,, don't let that get in the way of a good cry.

~Bang

The right of male adult Redskins fans to collect cheap Jasmine figurines is being infringed. The horror. The outrage.

[Drop]

i'm no liberal hippy, but i like this. and i'm not one for the government getting all up in our **** either. BUT, this relates to the health of a nation whose children have the highest rate of obesity of anywhere in the world. People carelessly feed their kids McDonalds every single day, maybe two or three times a day, and don't see to it that they're eating any fruits, vegetables, or getting the exercise they need.

I have a 3 year old, who has been to McDonald's ONCE. And that was with his grandmother. My wife and i just don't eat there. Now i'll have McDonalds for lunch here and there when i'm at work, but nothing outside of once or twice every couple weeks. And it's not like my son CAN'T have McDonald's here or there....it's just not something i want him eating more than once a week or so. My wife is a helluva cook, he'd be missing out anyway. ;)

Is there really harm in feeding your children fruits and vegetables? i like my red meat and fats as much as anyone...but i eat vegetables or fruits with dinner as well because my wife goes out of her way to make sure we eat delicious, homemade, balanced meals.

Anyone who thinks this is stupid.....think about it again next time you see a news report about how fat everyone is in this country, or the next time you catch yourself gawking at how fat someone's kid is.

Again, i'm not one for government intervention in our everday lives....but if there is one place i can tolerate it, it's here.

[twa]

Anyone whose coached youth sports would confirm that 98.7% of parents are unfit to take care of kids. . The parents should be sterilized too.

I can agree on this portion, but I don't blame Happy Meals

[aREDSKIN]

So San Francisco is mandating that there must be fruits at McDonald's. :) :rolleyes:

Kinda of an odd mandate for San Fransico. :cool:

[#98QBKiller]

SO, I'm noticing that you can still go and get a Happy Meal in San Francisco, this measure just says no toys will be offered with it unless it complies to a certain nutritional standard.

No toy is not a ban Happy Meals. Your kid can still go and get his cheeseburger and fries in a fun box. But if the food inside adds up to more than 600 calories (with over 35% being from fat) then no toy. And he can go get a Happy Meal that has raisins or apple slices in it and get the toy.

But hey,, don't let that get in the way of a good cry.

~Bang

No toy = not really a Happy Meal, every kid knows that. Besides, this whole process seems like a big waste of city resources.


This is 'merica. Who the **** are you to determine what's ridiculous or not.

Which terrorist group do you work for?

[Drop]

SO, I'm noticing that you can still go and get a Happy Meal in San Francisco, this measure just says no toys will be offered with it unless it complies to a certain nutritional standard.

No toy is not a ban Happy Meals. Your kid can still go and get his cheeseburger and fries in a fun box. But if the food inside adds up to more than 600 calories (with over 35% being from fat) then no toy. And he can go get a Happy Meal that has raisins or apple slices in it and get the toy.

But hey,, don't let that get in the way of a good cry.

~Bang

absolutely. spot on Bang.

there's no crime in feeding your kid the right way. if you want the toy, you get the fruits and veggies. if you just really want the toy, pay extra for it if you're not willing to feed your kids some fruits and vegetables. why any moron wouldn't feed their kid decently is beyond me.

imo, those parents who feed their kids fast food nearly every night of the week for dinner, and sometimes twice a day......yeah, they're from the same mold as the idiots who walk around the mall with their kids on leashes because they either have no idea how to, or no desire to control their children in public.....or both.

[Bang]

No toy = not really a Happy Meal, every kid knows that. Besides, this whole process seems like a big waste of city resources.


Other than the council raising their hands to vote on it, how much resources are going to be used up? Maybe one inspector to drive around once every two months to double check?

A happy meal with no toy is not a happy meal to your adult sensibilities that grew up with it the other way.
My experience is tht kids love apples and raisins and grapes, etc. And if you tell them THAT is a Happy Meal with the toy, guess what they'll want?
A hamburger with a box of raisins and a new Buzz Lightyear super scooter! Yay!

~Bang

[Califan007]

SO, I'm noticing that you can still go and get a Happy Meal in San Francisco, this measure just says no toys will be offered with it unless it complies to a certain nutritional standard.

No toy is not a ban Happy Meals. Your kid can still go and get his cheeseburger and fries in a fun box. But if the food inside adds up to more than 600 calories (with over 35% being from fat) then no toy. And he can go get a Happy Meal that has raisins or apple slices in it and get the toy.

But hey,, don't let that get in the way of a good cry.

~Bang

Yes, because we all know that the politicians in SF will be more than content to let the law and its collective power stay at controlling a plastic toy in a Happy Meal.

Well, until they read my other post and realize that allowing McDonalds to use a clown as a mascot to entice kids into begging their parents to get them a Happy Meal, even without the toy, is just as bad...then a law will be passed that says fast food restaurants are not allowed to use imagery geared towards children in advertisements for food they deem unhealthy. If you ban Joe Camel then you sure as **** ban Ronald McDonald, right?...

Of course, those same politicians will realize that school mascots entice children to play in sports, some of which can be dangerous or lead to injuries...so mascots at any sporting event within the city limits of San Francisdo will be banned unless the sporting event has an injury rate less than a certain amount...Still, what to do about those televised sporting events from outside the city confines? Is there a way to pass a law making it illegal to air sporting events before 10:00 pm that include cartoonish mascots at physically challenging sporting events?

And what about those cute, cuddly polar bears that advertise Coke around Christmas time? Or Santa on the side of Coke cans as well? Both should obviously be banned, especially ol' Saint Nick on all of those sugary beverages that do nothing except rot kids' teefuses and make them obese. There shall be a pre-approved list of foods and beverages that can use animals and Santa on their advertisements in San Francisco.

Of course none of this should cause anyone any concern...afterall, parents will still be able to load their kids up on unhealthy junk food, take them to see violent sports events and pour gallons of ice cold Coke and Pepsi down their throats to their hearts' content...so that's good. :thumbsup:

[zoony]

I have a 3 year old, who has been to McDonald's ONCE. And that was with his grandmother. My wife and i just don't eat there. Now i'll have McDonalds for lunch here and there when i'm at work, but nothing outside of once or twice every couple weeks. And it's not like my son CAN'T have McDonald's here or there....it's just not something i want him eating more than once a week or so. My wife is a helluva cook, he'd be missing out anyway. ;)

Except for the "my wife is a hell of a cook part", I'm in the same boat :). The only time my son gets it is when he attends a birthday party that is catered with happy meals. I guess I could be the parent that makes him eat an apple, but I'm not that much of a nazi. A little fast food never hurt anyone. My daughter, to my knowledge, has never had any fast food other than Chick Fil A

[mardi gras skin]

Just mandate calories be displayed right next to the price of each item on a menu. Give ME the information I need to make good choices for my kids.

[Bang]

I rarely bought my son junk food as a small kid. He rarely got candy, hardly ever tasted soda. he did have McDonalds, and he had some Happy Meals, I didn't deprive him of those things entirely.
He doesn't dislike McDonalds food, he loves it as much as anyone does. But he also has had his tastes trained to enjoy the healthier things and to him they're just as good.
Now that he's 14 and has much more leeway in making his own choices, I see him make the right dietary choices more often than not.
About two weeks ago his Marching Band had a fund raiser night at the local Roy Rogers. I assumed he'd want to eat there with his friends, but all he wanted was a couple of bucks to get a soda, and he preferred to eat stir fry with usa at home before he left.
This makes me happy. And it proves that kids will make healthy choices so long as you positively reinforce them. And giving the toy with the healthier Happy Meal doesn't seem all that bad to me. It helps encourage healthier choices with a reward.

the funny thing is that the kids will be fine with this. It's the parents who aren't. Demanding the right to feed your kids trash is about as stupidly stubborn as anything I've ever heard.
This isn't a rights issue. It's a matter of trying to get a handle on childhood obesity by demanding these places encourage a healthier choice with their enticing toys. By the way, which in case no one notices beyond their self righteous bull****, childhood obesity is a HUGE problem in America. And whether your kids are fat or not, all those little cholesterol laden kids end up costing you in the long run. So, by saying they're removing your right to choose, realize they're also removing the rights of irresponsible parents to choose to burden you with rising health costs and other things that directly affect you via the problems childhood obesity causes.
So which rights do you want infringed? The right to a toy with your hapy meal, or the right of hundreds of thousands of irresponsible people to contribute to your rising healthcare costs thru their own self negligence?
Seems like a no-brain decision to me.

~Bang

[Drop]

Just mandate calories be displayed right next to the price of each item on a menu. Give ME the information I need to make good choices for my kids.

you can already find that information if you're a responsible parent. putting it on the menu next to the item is pointless. people already have the means and ability to make responsible choices for their children, and they don't do it. if you really think this will lead to parents making more responsible choices....well, that's a foolish line of thought my friend.

[Corcaigh]

Which terrorist group do you work for?

The ones that are winning. :ols:

[Corcaigh]

. Demanding the right to feed your kids trash is about as stupidly stubborn as anything I've ever heard.
This isn't a rights issue.

I though this was 'merica.

xfOEMwKO4Vo

[Califan007]

I rarely bought my son junk food as a small kid. He rarely got candy, hardly ever tasted soda. he did have McDonalds, and he had some Happy Meals, I didn't deprive him of those things entirely.
He doesn't dislike McDonalds food, he loves it as much as anyone does. But he also has had his tastes trained to enjoy the healthier things and to him they're just as good.
Now that he's 14 and has much more leeway in making his own choices, I see him make the right dietary choices more often than not.
About two weeks ago his Marching Band had a fund raiser night at the local Roy Rogers. I assumed he'd want to eat there with his friends, but all he wanted was a couple of bucks to get a soda, and he preferred to eat stir fry with usa at home before he left.
This makes me happy. And it proves that kids will make healthy choices so long as you positively reinforce them. And giving the toy with the healthier Happy Meal doesn't seem all that bad to me. It helps encourage healthier choices with a reward.

~Bang

Imagine this scenario:

Gladys and Stanley take lil Stanley to McDonalds with several of his little friends. They all order Happy Meals, but only lil Stanley orders the artery clogging version that includes fries.

Stanley's little playmates all get their toys out and start playing with the Transformers or whatever that came with their Happy Meals, but Stanley can only watch on with envy and sadness. He asks his mom why he didn't get a Transformer/Disney tie-in toy of the moment in his meal, too, and Gladys says "Because your food isn't as healthy as theirs. They got apple slices, you got french fries." Stanley says "But I don't like apples, I like fries! Why can't I have a toy, too?" and starts to pout and get watery eyes...

Two weeks later, Gladys and Stanley take lil Stanley and his little friends back to McDonalds, and Gladys orders Stanley a "healthy" Happy Meal so he can get a toy this time. Stanley is happy that he gets a Transformer/Iron Man action figure like his friends, but asks where are his french fries. Gladys says "I bought you a healthier Happy Meal so you could get the toy."...Stanley says "But I like french fries!" and starts to pout and get watery eyes...Stanley gives Gladys his wallet, and Gladys goes back up to the counter and orders lil Stanley a side of fries to go with healthier Happy Meal.

Little Stanley cheers up, Gladys gives a sigh of relief, big Stanley puts his wallet back in his pocket, McDonalds just made more money than they normally would on a Happy Meal, and the local politicians in San Francisco all give each other pats on the back for a "job well done". It's win-win all-around.

[zoony]

this Stanley kid sounds like a real douchebag

[Califan007]

this Stanley kid sounds like a real douchebag

LOL!! :rotflmao:

[rictus58]

This isn't a rights issue. It's a matter of trying to get a handle on childhood obesity by demanding these places encourage a healthier choice with their enticing toys. By the way, which in case no one notices beyond their self righteous bull****, childhood obesity is a HUGE problem in America. And whether your kids are fat or not, all those little cholesterol laden kids end up costing you in the long run. So, by saying they're removing your right to choose, realize they're also removing the rights of irresponsible parents to choose to burden you with rising health costs and other things that directly affect you via the problems childhood obesity causes.
So which rights do you want infringed? The right to a toy with your hapy meal, or the right of hundreds of thousands of irresponsible people to contribute to your rising healthcare costs thru their own self negligence?
Seems like a no-brain decision to me.

~Bang
I'd much rather they promote an active lifestyle than this.

[pointyfootball]

I'd much rather they promote an active lifestyle than this.

Enforce? How?

They could play dodgeball at recess, oh wait..

Football? Not at my son's school.

Basketball? Only shooting games.

As to the happy meal toys...now kids will get a healthy meal, with a side of fries & milkshake, giving them their toy AND junkfood and costing parents more $.

I can't imagine those packaged apple slices are very healthy. Maybe less UNhealthy than french fries, but I imagine they have a long list of ingredients.

[Corcaigh]

this Stanley kid sounds like a real douchebag

And his parents lack the skills to deal with their kid. At the very least they should take little Stanley to Wal-Mart afterwards and administer a severe beating.

[Califan007]

I'd much rather they promote an active lifestyle than this.

I'm not sure about the laws in Australia, but when I was in Sydney they went all-out promoting healthier lifestyles for everyone, not just kids...it was like priority #1 on their governmental to-do list lol...constant ads about walking more, exercising more, getting out of the office on your lunch breaks instead of eating in, etc, etc...I felt like I was bombarded with the suggestions on how to be more active and how much healthier and happier I would be.

And damn if the overwhelming majority of Sydney residents weren't in pretty good shape, too lol :yes:...I kept thinking that these people take being active as a very genuine every-day occurrence, like brushing your teeth. It was like every single woman I saw in Sydney had a fantastic ass lol :ols:...face might not have been much, but her ass was smokin' and her body fat percentage was decent. When I returned to the States I swear everyone I saw in San Bernardino looked obese to me...just huge. We may give lip service to leading a more active lifestyle but we don't give it the same importance as they did in Australia.

[rictus58]

I can't imagine those packaged apple slices are very healthy. Maybe less UNhealthy than french fries, but I imagine they have a long list of ingredients.
We have pre-packaged apple slices at home. they are no less healthy than a regular apple...that I'm aware of anyway. However, Mcdonalds serves theirs with caramel dipping sauce.

[Bang]

I'd much rather they promote an active lifestyle than this.

You think they're not?
I've never been into a public school that was not plastered with signs promoting exercise.
Plus, a lot of Happy meals are sold because parents are so strapped for time that it's all they can do to provide a hot meal. Trying to make them get their kids to soccer practice isn't going to be very effective.
"This" isn't the government infringing on your rights. The city council is elected to enact measures the voters want.
And what do you know, all the complaints about this seem to be coming from places other than San Francisco.

The kicker is I bet McDonalds sells just as many Happy meals and there's a likelihood this ruling redcuces the demand for toys, thus saving on operating costs and making their stockholders money.
And if demand for toys goes up, well then healthier choices are the result.
It's win win.
And if Califan's scenario plays out often enough,, that's win too. The wallet makes the choice, eh? If a parent wants to pay extra to buy the fries, that's their choice.
Now, the moment cops bust in and start arresting kids who are enjoying some mcNuggets,, well then we've got a problem :D

~Bang

[Popeman38]

Enforce? How?

They could play dodgeball at recess, oh wait..

Football? Not at my son's school.

Basketball? Only shooting games.

As to the happy meal toys...now kids will get a healthy meal, with a side of fries & milkshake, giving them their toy AND junkfood and costing parents more $.

I can't imagine those packaged apple slices are very healthy. Maybe less UNhealthy than french fries, but I imagine they have a long list of ingredients.

INGREDIENTS:
Apple Dippers: Apples, calcium ascorbate (a blend of calcium and vitamin C added to maintain natural color).

Yup, them apples be unhealthy. Dude, they are apples, sliced and packaged, with calcium and vitamin C added to keep the apple from appearing brown.

[rictus58]

You think they're not?
I've never been into a public school that was not plastered with signs promoting exercise....



"This" isn't the government infringing on your rights.
~Bang

Yet, nation wide gym and recess time is being reduced.

Signs can hang from every rafter in the gym, but unless the kids get the allotted time, what good are they?
Never said this was the government infringing on anything. I just don't think this measure will make even a scratch on the problem of fat kids.

[twa]

Anyone done a study on internet use and obesity yet?

tv+internet is the debil
http://www.healthcentral.com/adhd/news-277297-98.html

[Bang]

Yet, nation wide gym and recess time is being reduced.

Signs can hang from every rafter in the gym, but unless the kids get the allotted time, what good are they?
Never said this was the government infringing on anything. I just don't think this measure will make even a scratch on the problem of fat kids.

Choices need to be made, right?
We fall behind the world in academia, complain about reducing gym, but don't want to consider year-round school or anything that would help boost academia AND give time for gym.

Besides, I think the number one thing that keeps kids from being active are parents who work long hours. In the good ol' days a parent was at home when Junior got off the school bus,, that parent could run him to baseball practice, feed him a healthy snack... now both parents work ungodly hours just to keep up with the bills, and the kids are left with Hot Pockets and video games.

All this measure does is encourage a healthier choice by marketing that healthier choice to your kids.
The kid can still choose.. toy or no toy.

~Bang

[#98QBKiller]

Other than the council raising their hands to vote on it, how much resources are going to be used up? Maybe one inspector to drive around once every two months to double check?

A happy meal with no toy is not a happy meal to your adult sensibilities that grew up with it the other way.
My experience is tht kids love apples and raisins and grapes, etc. And if you tell them THAT is a Happy Meal with the toy, guess what they'll want?
A hamburger with a box of raisins and a new Buzz Lightyear super scooter! Yay!

~Bang

I'm not sure exactly but the article says that the proposal has been around for weeks now.

The law is very specific so I imagine that a team has to draft the legislation, run it past a team of city lawyers, propose it to the city council, have the council vote on it, push it into law next year and delegate inspection duties to whoever currently conducts restaurant health inspections.

It just seems like a lot of time and money to spend on something so insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

I know San Francisco is a great city, but I'm pretty sure they have more pressing issues to work on than deciding whether fast food chains can serve toys with meals that have x amount of calories.

[rictus58]

Choices need to be made, right?
We fall behind the world in academia, complain about reducing gym, but don't want to consider year-round school or anything that would help boost academia AND give time for gym.

Besides, I think the number one thing that keeps kids from being active are parents who work long hours. In the good ol' days a parent was at home when Junior got off the school bus,, that parent could run him to baseball practice, feed him a healthy snack... now both parents work ungodly hours just to keep up with the bills, and the kids are left with Hot Pockets and video games.

All this measure does is encourage a healthier choice by marketing that healthier choice to your kids.
The kid can still choose.. toy or no toy.

~Bang

year round school would be ****ing excellent. Less of a concern for me to find a day-camp from june-sept. :)

Look, a parent who doesn't promote a healthy lifestyle will simply not be affected by this. They'll probably just let the kid have what they want.
If a parent takes their kids to Mcdonalds frequently enough to have them obese from it, substituting the fries for apples will probably not make much of a dent.
Small fries: 230 calories 11g fat, 160 grams sodium.
Apple Dippers: 100 cal, .5g fat, 35g sodium.

so yeah...your saving 10.5g of fat and 130 calories by making that substitution...but on an active kid, that would make almost no difference.
If you eat it everyday and sit all day...then yea....it'll make you fatter. But so will other food...just at a slower rate.

The parents who play an active role in the health of their kids probably don't take their kids to McD's enough for it to change their body.
This just seems like they are paying lip-service to a problem. I don't feel this measure will do much if anything to cure the problem of Obese kids in SF.

[Prosperity]

products and services specifically marketed to children SHOULD be regulated more stringently than other stuff. It's not really a freedom thing, since kids aren't exactly free anyway.

[Drop]

I'm not sure exactly but the article says that the proposal has been around for weeks now.

The law is very specific so I imagine that a team has to draft the legislation, run it past a team of city lawyers, propose it to the city council, have the council vote on it, push it into law next year and delegate inspection duties to whoever currently conducts restaurant health inspections.

It just seems like a lot of time and money to spend on something so insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

I know San Francisco is a great city, but I'm pretty sure they have more pressing issues to work on than deciding whether fast food chains can serve toys with meals that have x amount of calories.

to keep our healthcare costs down....they're not using ENOUGH resources if you ask me. that goes for the whole country.

[Bang]

I'm not sure exactly but the article says that the proposal has been around for weeks now.

The law is very specific so I imagine that a team has to draft the legislation, run it past a team of city lawyers, propose it to the city council, have the council vote on it, push it into law next year and delegate inspection duties to whoever currently conducts restaurant health inspections.

It just seems like a lot of time and money to spend on something so insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

I know San Francisco is a great city, but I'm pretty sure they have more pressing issues to work on than deciding whether fast food chains can serve toys with meals that have x amount of calories.
Well, i am sure this isn't the only thing the city council did with their session. I'd be willing to bet they also tried to address more pressing needs. But, childhood obesity is one of those pressing needs.

Considering all of the statistics proving the burden obesity puts on society,, all of the additional costs we all absorb due to the problems cause by obesity, I'd say the long run is just what this is meant to help.

It's weird.. so many people in here sit and complain all the time about how they don't want their hard earned money paying for someone else's laziness / stupidity / incompetence, etc.
And yet given the fact that we know the costs of obesity related health problems is passed DIRECTLY to us in the form of higher insurance premiums, all of that goes out the window.
This is most definitely a case of other people's bad decisions directly costing you your hard earned money , and unlike taxes, offers absolutely no benefit to you personally other than to make your wallet lighter and easier to carry around. And the company who has been forced to change has actively marketed to people who think nothing of allowing you to pay for their child's future health problems.

Seems a pretty steep price to pay for that fat kid's bag of fries. We seem more than willing to remove actual needs from people because we don't want our taxes paying for it, but we don't mind paying higher premiums because irresponsible people make bad coices for their kids.


??

~Bang

[Thiebear]

No happy meal toy means less commerce at the worst time in the History of California. 80 more fireman cut, hope your happy.
Unless they go to Wendy's to get the Orange slices and other awesome sides.

[Drop]

Well, i am sure this isn't the only thing the city council did with their session. I'd be willing to bet they also tried to address more pressing needs. But, childhood obesity is one of those pressing needs.

Considering all of the statistics proving the burden obesity puts on society,, all of the additional costs we all absorb due to the problems cause by obesity, I'd say the long run is just what this is meant to help.

It's weird.. so many people in here sit and complain all the time about how they don't want their hard earned money paying for someone else's laziness / stupidity / incompetence, etc.
And yet give the fact that we know the costs of obesity related health problems is passed DIRECTLY to us in the form of higher insurance premiums, all of that goes out the window.
This is most definitely a case of other people's bad decisions directly costing you your hard earned money , and unlike taxes, offers absolutely no benefit to you personally other than to make your wallet lighter and easier to carry around. And the company who has been forced to change has actively marketed to people who think nothing of allowing you to pay for their child's future health problems.

Seems a pretty steep price to pay for that fat kid's bag of fries. We seem more than willing to remove actual needs from people because we don't want our taxes paying for it, but we don't mind paying higher premiums because irresponsible people make bad coices for their kids.


??

~Bang

Bang, people are too wrapped up in themselves to realize how this problem affects everyone. And it's a shame on multiple levels. From the obese children who eat nonstop fastfood, to the citizens who end up paying higher healthcare costs because of the people who feed their kids nonstop fast food.

[twa]

Bang, people are too wrapped up in themselves to realize how this problem affects everyone. And it's a shame on multiple levels. From the obese children who eat nonstop fastfood, to the citizens who end up paying higher healthcare costs because of the people who feed their kids nonstop fast food.

Then address the causes instead of the symptoms

All this crap is is a extension of govt control.

Why do we pay for others bad choices?.

[Burgold]

Then address the causes instead of the symptoms

All this crap is is a extension of govt control.

Why do we pay for others bad choices?.

Ben Franklin: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Try to deal with it now and we might have less diabetes, emergency room heart attacks, and other things that suck huge bucks out of our economy. Now, I don't know that this is the best way to attack the problem, but we can't mandate every American walks for thirty minutes a day, we can't mandate a diet, we can't educate people who refuse to be educated. Anyone who thinks that when society ignores a problem it simply vanishes is like a Vice President who says, Deficits don't matter. It may not matter today. Betcha it's going to matter down the line.

[sacase]

Other than the council raising their hands to vote on it, how much resources are going to be used up? Maybe one inspector to drive around once every two months to double check?

A happy meal with no toy is not a happy meal to your adult sensibilities that grew up with it the other way.
My experience is tht kids love apples and raisins and grapes, etc. And if you tell them THAT is a Happy Meal with the toy, guess what they'll want?
A hamburger with a box of raisins and a new Buzz Lightyear super scooter! Yay!

~Bang

Well maybe I want my kid to have his hamburger fries soda and toy without having some fart sniffing (South Park reference) retarded city council tell me that I can't.

[Prosperity]

Well maybe I want my kid to have his hamburger fries soda and toy without having some fart sniffing (South Park reference) retarded city council tell me that I can't.

but you don't have a kid

[Califan007]

Ben Franklin: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Try to deal with it now and we might have less diabetes, emergency room heart attacks, and other things that suck huge bucks out of our economy. Now, I don't know that this is the best way to attack the problem, but we can't mandate every American walks for thirty minutes a day, we can't mandate a diet, we can't educate people who refuse to be educated. Anyone who thinks that when society ignores a problem it simply vanishes is like a Vice President who says, Deficits don't matter. It may not matter today. Betcha it's going to matter down the line.
do you REALLY think taking a plastic toy out of Happy Meals that serve french fries is gonna have ANY positive effect at all on any of our societal health issues, though? lol...Really?

Any parent who is too weak-minded to dictate their child's dietary choices now is gonna be too weak-minded to tell him he can't have a side order of fries with his Happy Meal. The only thing I can see this ordinance/law/whatever leading to is more sales for McDonalds from parents supplementing their kids' Happy Meals and more law suits lol. That's it. We're kidding ourselves if we think this is gonna help in any way, shape or form. It's a poorly thought-out "solution" to whatever problem SF was trying to solve.

[Burgold]

Well maybe I want my kid to have his hamburger fries soda and toy without having some fart sniffing (South Park reference) retarded city council tell me that I can't.

Well, then buy him a hamburger, fries, soda and then go to Walmart or ToysRUs and stimulate the economy.

Jeez... who'd have thought that Conservatives are so entitled that they thought that one of their inalienable rights is toys. When I was a kid we got a box and a stick and we were damn happy about it. You get food! That's a bonus! Now, the world is ending because you can't have your little toy from China with its combo lead and toxic paint job.

[Califan007]

Jeez... who'd have thought that Conservatives are so entitled that they thought that one of their inalienable rights is toys.

Who'd have thought that Liberals are so devoid of intellect that they thought removing a plastic toy from a Happy Meal would solve the evils of child obesity lol...

[Prosperity]

Who'd have thought that Liberals are so devoid of intellect that they thought removing a plastic toy from a Happy Meal would solve the evils of child obesity lol...

probably some pissed off right wing nut

[Burgold]

Who'd have thought that Liberals are so devoid of intellect that they thought removing a plastic toy from a Happy Meal would solve the evils of child obesity lol...

Well, that just faux-ragious! I'm so faux-outraged right now, I can barely speak. My tofu and brussel sprouts are going to have a word with you.

I think your position is out of kilter, Califan... it's almost out of Kilmer (to speak in ES paralance) No one has or would ever suggest that banning toys would prevent on its own childhood or adult obesity. In fact, no one in SF is even trying to ban the substances that cause human obesity... (is it possible to ban the human brain? We seem to try. The brain is the cause of human obesity after all)...

Could this prevent an arm tug? Could it help infinitessimally? Could it create a ripple in the pond that leads to the greater ocean of health and fitness that would make kids capable of running for five minutes before collapsing in exhaustion or stop seven year old boys from developing man-breasts!

Is that what you are an advocate of!!! Is that really what this world needs more of??? Man breasts!!!!

I say NO.

Say no to Bill Parcells! And say NO to toys in Happy Meals!

And God bless America!

[#98QBKiller]

Well, i am sure this isn't the only thing the city council did with their session. I'd be willing to bet they also tried to address more pressing needs. But, childhood obesity is one of those pressing needs.

Considering all of the statistics proving the burden obesity puts on society,, all of the additional costs we all absorb due to the problems cause by obesity, I'd say the long run is just what this is meant to help.

It's weird.. so many people in here sit and complain all the time about how they don't want their hard earned money paying for someone else's laziness / stupidity / incompetence, etc.
And yet given the fact that we know the costs of obesity related health problems is passed DIRECTLY to us in the form of higher insurance premiums, all of that goes out the window.
This is most definitely a case of other people's bad decisions directly costing you your hard earned money , and unlike taxes, offers absolutely no benefit to you personally other than to make your wallet lighter and easier to carry around. And the company who has been forced to change has actively marketed to people who think nothing of allowing you to pay for their child's future health problems.

Seems a pretty steep price to pay for that fat kid's bag of fries. We seem more than willing to remove actual needs from people because we don't want our taxes paying for it, but we don't mind paying higher premiums because irresponsible people make bad coices for their kids.


??

~Bang

This is a city-wide law with a loophole. It's not a sweeping, federal legislation that's going to change the way kids eat. And even if the law were adopted nationwide, it means little in the grand scheme of trying to prevent obesity. This is a "Look at us doing something about childhood obesity (but not really), so we can add it to the list of things we've 'accomplished' come next election" move.

If lawmakers really want to buckle down and do something about obesity, they'll start in schools where physical education and athletic programs are falling victim to budget cuts. Sedentary lifestyles of video games, internet and tv are doing more to make kids fat than banning a 200 calorie order of fries and toy from being served together in a Happy Meal. There also has to be some kind of balance between personal responsibility and the law protecting you from yourself.

Make P.E. required in school, including a curriculum on nutrition. Teach kids about the importance of balance in diet and exercise. Show them that being healthy doesn't mean that you can only eat carrots and celery sticks. Let them learn for themselves how good the body and mind feels after exercising. Have lawmakers go into schools and look at what they are serving kids for lunch. Make funding for healthy foods that still taste good. Teach the kids how to read nutritional information and provide that information in the cafeteria underneath each lunch choice. Let the kids see that there are good-tasting recipes that are still good for you. Show them that there are tons of fun physical activities. Teach them to reward themselves from time to time with a nice fatty meal and some "me time" doing leisure activities, but don't make it the norm.

It goes back to the old "give me a fish/teach me to fish" saying. There's a big difference between planting the seeds for a healthy future generation and making a half-assed law that won't let kids get toys with their fries. If you're going to do it, do it right.

??

[Califan007]

Well, that just faux-ragious! I'm so faux-outraged right now, I can barely speak. My tofu and brussel sprouts are going to have a word with you.

I think your position is out of kilter, Califan... it's almost out of Kilmer (to speak in ES paralance) No one has or would ever suggest that banning toys would prevent on its own childhood or adult obesity. In fact, no one in SF is even trying to ban the substances that cause human obesity... (is it possible to ban the human brain? We seem to try. The brain is the cause of human obesity after all)...

Could this prevent an arm tug? Could it help infinitessimally? Could it create a ripple in the pond that leads to the greater ocean of health and fitness that would make kids capable of running for five minutes before collapsing in exhaustion or stop seven year old boys from developing man-breasts!

Is that what you are an advocate of!!! Is that really what this world needs more of??? Man breasts!!!!

I say NO.

Say no to Bill Parcells! And say NO to toys in Happy Meals!

And God bless America!

I know, but I was trying to be as simplistic/facetious in my response about Librulls as your were being (I assumed) in your post about Conservatives lol...

[Prosperity]

98QB, I don't understand why you keep saying other things could do more and then conclude that this doesn't do anything. There's no logic in that argument.

[Pwyl]

<snip>

You seem very focused on talking about a singular instance of an encounter with this new ordinance. Take a step back and ask yourself: If this new law pushes 2% of 1000 kids to choose apples instead of fries so they can get a toy, is it worth it?

[Bang]

Well maybe I want my kid to have his hamburger fries soda and toy without having some fart sniffing (South Park reference) retarded city council tell me that I can't.

Fine, then when your kid develops a heart murmur, make sure you pay for it yourself so my insurance rates don't go up.
I'll be damned if I want to pay for your stupid choices.


Sound familar?

All I hear is bitching about wanting the cake and also eating it,, after it's been topped with bacon and cheese sauce.

Besides, who ever taught you that you always get what you want?

~Bang

[Califan007]

You seem very focused on talking about a singular instance of an encounter with this new ordinance. Take a step back and ask yourself: If this new law pushes 2% of 1000 kids to choose apples instead of fries so they can get a toy, is it worth it?

Nope, it's not. Because I don't want the "2%" argument to be used as some sort of fall-back excuse for any and all government actions.

[Bang]

It goes back to the old "give me a fish/teach me to fish" saying. There's a big difference between planting the seeds for a healthy future generation and making a half-assed law that won't let kids get toys with their fries. If you're going to do it, do it right.

??

No sense in starting somewhere, I guess.
If enough people were teaching their kids to fish, so to speak, then this wouldn't be a problem.
But as it is, you're actively supporting their right to choose to cost you money.

~Bang

[thebluefood]

Rousseau would be proud.

Nothing like politicians telling you what you can and cannot put in your body.

Happy Meals are bad for your kid, of course; but isn't it the responsibility of the parent to say "hey, I'm not gonna let my kid eat this three times a day."

I know my folks did.

[panel]

Who is to say what is healthy and what is not? Who is to say that toys are bad? Who is to say what qualifies as a toy? Is a beanie baby a toy? Why? Prove it? What if happy meal came with pedometers? What if there was a sticker of Hello Kitty on the Pedometer, would it be a toy then? What if they wanted to give away American flags in happy meals, would that be against the law?

Why should we not have the choice to decide weather we think it is worth getting a happy meal as it is? You can ask to remove the toy yourself. You can pull the toy out of the box yourself.

This is just another example of people that think they are smarter than everyone else, thinking they are doing good by eliminating choice.

[generaltso]

Rousseau would be proud.


ugh. my "history of the french revolution" prof was a dick.

[Duncan]

I think they should also let them have the standard happy meal if kid does 5 minutes of jumping jacks while waiting in line. Perhaps they could have a nurse to check blood pressure and cholesterol. It's not hard to see where this is heading.

[Bang]

Who is to say what is healthy and what is not? Who is to say that toys are bad? Who is to say what qualifies as a toy? Is a beanie baby a toy? Why? Prove it? What if happy meal came with pedometers? What if there was a sticker of Hello Kitty on the Pedometer, would it be a toy then? What if they wanted to give away American flags in happy meals, would that be against the law?

Why should we not have the choice to decide weather we think it is worth getting a happy meal as it is? You can ask to remove the toy yourself. You can pull the toy out of the box yourself.

This is just another example of people that think they are smarter than everyone else, thinking they are doing good by eliminating choice.

Fair enough. Then I'm all for everyone not falling within the BMI to uninsurable. Stupidity and poor decisions are definitely a pre-existing condition.
Damn if i want to pay for that.

~Bang

[Madison Redskin]

I don't particularly care for the ban, but, hey, it's a product of democracy. Why do so many people hate democracy and America? ;)

[sacase]

Fair enough. Then I'm all for everyone not falling within the BMI to uninsurable. Stupidity and poor decisions are definitely a pre-existing condition.
Damn if i want to pay for that.

~Bang

Slippery slope...Do you drink? Do you smoke? Do you do drugs? Do you drive over the speed limit? Do you engage in any high risk behavior? Do you play sports? Do you eat sweets? Do you go to bars? Night Clubs? Strip clubs? Do you live in a low income neighborhood with high violence? If you answer yes to any of these then you should be uninsurable. :doh:

[sacase]

Fine, then when your kid develops a heart murmur, make sure you pay for it yourself so my insurance rates don't go up.
I'll be damned if I want to pay for your stupid choices.


Sound familar?

All I hear is bitching about wanting the cake and also eating it,, after it's been topped with bacon and cheese sauce.

Besides, who ever taught you that you always get what you want?

~Bang

Well considering my son is in excellent shape, a four sport athelete and an honors student, I don't mind him enjoying McDonalds in moderation. If he has any medical problems, MY health insurance covers it, I don't depend on other people to take care of my own.

I don't get what I want, I get what I have earned. So kindly keep your lofty opinions of what I should and shouldn't do to yourself. If you want to feed your kids apples and carrots all day, cool, do you. But if I want to let my kid enjoy McDonalds then I have every right to do so as well.

[Bang]

Slippery slope...Do you drink? Do you smoke? Do you do drugs? Do you drive over the speed limit? Do you engage in any high risk behavior? Do you play sports? Do you eat sweets? Do you go to bars? Night Clubs? Strip clubs? Do you live in a low income neighborhood with high violence? If you answer yes to any of these then you should be uninsurable. :doh:

I don't get the change of heart here.
In reading thru, the ones bitching the most about this are the ones who always complain that they don't want their money going out to pay for other people's poor decisions in the form of taxes, etc..
And yet the obesity levels of this country and the health problems it causes does exactly that in the form of higher premiums, higher drug costs, and higher medical bills.
Exactly that. Not even any middleman. Costs go up due to more people being sick, everyone's premiums go up across the board. Everyone.

Some people are uninsurable because they smoke. Some people pay much higher rates because they drink. People who snort cocaine don't get insurance. It's not that slippery, and it's been that way for years. When it became known the problems cigarettes caused, health insurance companies acted. they either stopped insuring smokers, or charged them higher for it. In fact, the slope has been pretty well defined by the insurance industry for a long time. And even though Billy Beergut pays higher premiums, when his liver fails and he needs emergency surgery and costs the insurance company more, they pass that cost directly to you and every other policy holder. The drinker doesn't have to pay for it alone.
Same goes for Johnny Chainsmoker and his oxygen tanks. You pay for it. I pay for it. Everyone here pays for it. And smoking themselves into emphysema is definitely a choice, in fact a choice that smokers defend vigorously (between hacking spells).

But obese people put just as much if not more strain on the system with the overwhelming number of health issues it causes. And people aren't getting the message. Kids are fatter than ever, parents are as inclined as ever to shove greasy trash in their kids' mouth and call it dinner.

And you definitely pay for it. Directly. No doubt about it.

~Bang

[panel]

Slippery slope...Do you drink? Do you smoke? Do you do drugs? Do you drive over the speed limit? Do you engage in any high risk behavior? Do you play sports? Do you eat sweets? Do you go to bars? Night Clubs? Strip clubs? Do you live in a low income neighborhood with high violence? If you answer yes to any of these then you should be uninsurable. :doh:

This is why universal health care is crap. Not only is it not as efficient, and have a whole mess of problems on it's own, but it gives people a legitimate right to have a say in things that they should have no say in. Health Care will be the justification will take away more freedoms than any war has ever done.

When you have a system where you pull your own weight, people don't care what you do.

[Prosperity]

Slippery slope...Do you drink? Do you smoke? Do you do drugs? Do you drive over the speed limit? Do you engage in any high risk behavior? Do you play sports? Do you eat sweets? Do you go to bars? Night Clubs? Strip clubs? Do you live in a low income neighborhood with high violence? If you answer yes to any of these then you should be uninsurable. :doh:

we don't allow kids to do most of that stuff either

alcohol+tobacco pretty much pay for themselves through sin taxes

you are making a pretty good argument for regulating fast food to children and adding a sin tax to it as well

[rictus58]

I'm curious how many of the obese kids out there eat fast food in such a quantity that makes fast food the problem.

[Special K]

As a public health professional with a pretty good understanding of the nation's obesity issue, particularly as it relates to children...and as someone who as spoken out about stricter standards needing to be placed on soda, "blackout in a can," and junk food...I think this law is preposterous. Banning Happy meals in no way addresses the core issues that must be addressed in order to fight the childhood obesity epidemic in this country. The whole thing is just stupid. Just like the idiots who passed this law.

[twa]

you are making a pretty good argument for regulating fast food to children and adding a sin tax to it as well

Cali can go ahead...they obviously need the money anyway.

Care to guess why they don't?

[#98QBKiller]

98QB, I don't understand why you keep saying other things could do more and then conclude that this doesn't do anything. There's no logic in that argument.

I'm saying that if lawmakers want to really do something about childhood obesity, they would start by attacking the root of the problem, not waste time and money on ineffective, band-aid fixes that make it appear that they're doing something.

Someone else said it already but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I suppose you could look at this as the beginning of a big push to change things, which is entirely possible, but not very likely IMO.

[Madison Redskin]

Slippery slope...Do you drink? Do you smoke? Do you do drugs? Do you drive over the speed limit? Do you engage in any high risk behavior? Do you play sports? Do you eat sweets? Do you go to bars? Night Clubs? Strip clubs? Do you live in a low income neighborhood with high violence? If you answer yes to any of these then you should be uninsurable. :doh:

So, in other words, we should subsidize the bad behaviors of others because we can't differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable choices? Communist. ;)

[Madison Redskin]

When you have a system where you pull your own weight, people don't care what you do.

Our current system doesn't require to people to pull their own weight. I am healthy, I eat right and exercise, and I own an insurance policy. I am pretty confident that my premiums are subsidizing the poor eating habits of others.

[twa]

So, in other words, we should subsidize the bad behaviors of others because we can't differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable choices? Communist. ;)

Isn't that precisely what we do with providing govt ins?

Why don't insurance companies treat it like smoking?

[mardi gras skin]

you can already find that information if you're a responsible parent. putting it on the menu next to the item is pointless. people already have the means and ability to make responsible choices for their children, and they don't do it. if you really think this will lead to parents making more responsible choices....well, that's a foolish line of thought my friend.

Of course I can find that information. But I would prefer to have it posted on the menu just as I prefer to have the price posted on the menu. I guess I could go find that information too if McDonalds decided I didn't need the price on the menu. But that would be irritating, just as it is irritating that I have to go "find" caloric content. Panera Bread now posts calories right next to their prices for each menu item and its very helpful. Panera could tell me to go find the caloric content elsewhere but I appreciate their help in making me an informed consumer. I have made better decisions as a result of the information they provide.

And I have no idea what choices other parents would make for their children if nutrition facts were displayed more prominently. I do know that I don't want MY choices for MY children restricted because other parents make different choices which seems to be the direction San Francisco has gone.

[Predicto]

This is the perfect storm of conservative outrage. San Francisco regulating the marketing of fast food to little kids. Oh the humanity.

There are more "slippery slopes" in this thread than at Six Flags Hurricaine Harbor, and all of them are ridiculous.

ps - I think this ordinance is a waste of time, but cmon, what are you really so outraged about? This is about marketing crap to kids. Kids can't buy cigarettes, kids can't buy pornography, we don't let kids do what they want whenever they want. So they have to get the apple slices to get the stupid Happy Meal toy, or you have to pay 85 cents extra for the toy, what the hell is the big deal about that? MAH FREEEDOM!!!

[Bang]

So Predicto, as you're actually in San Francisco.. did the city council do this on their own, or did they have voter support ?

the eyes of the Bumble are upon theee.. or at least your sig anyway

~Bang

[Larry]

Really hoping that The Daily Show covers this story.

BTW, is this a coincidence, or did they intentionally wait to vote on this until one day after elections?

[Predicto]

So Predicto, as you're actually in San Francisco.. did the city council do this on their own, or did they have voter support ?

the eyes of the Bumble are upon theee.. or at least your sig anyway

~Bang


The voters could not care less about this either way. A handful of activists care about it, and the City Council passes symbolic stuff like this every once in a while to keep them happy. And the rest of us say: "ok well, that's a waste of time" and shrug our shoulders because it doesn't actually change anyone's life one bit. There are probably less than 20 McDonalds in San Francisco, and so a couple dozen more kids are going to get apple slices. BFD.

Besides all San Francisco cares about right now is the Giants. :)

[Califan007]

This is the perfect storm of conservative outrage. San Francisco regulating the marketing of fast food to little kids. Oh the humanity.

There are more "slippery slopes" in this thread than at Six Flags Hurricaine Harbor, and all of them are ridiculous.

ps - I think this ordinance is a waste of time, but cmon, what are you really so outraged about? This is about marketing crap to kids. Kids can't buy cigarettes, kids can't buy pornography, we don't let kids do what they want whenever they want. So they have to get the apple slices to get the stupid Happy Meal toy, or you have to pay 85 cents extra for the toy, what the hell is the big deal about that? MAH FREEEDOM!!!

So you agree with punishing the kid who--once a month--might want to eat french fries with his hamburger? lol :D...

Why not take ALL the toys out of ALL the Happy Meals? Then, give tax breaks/incentives to those companies who spend resources trying to provide and promote healthier foods in their childrens menus? Or, keep all the toys in all the Happy Meals and still do the same thing? I just feel like I have irritable bowel syndrome when I hear any politicans--small and local or big and federal--passing laws and ordinances that either accomplish abso-stinkin-lutely nothing or make things worse. It's like only 10% of the politicians seem capable of thinking down the road or maybe even want to. And if I see people nodding their heads in approval for a useless intiative and patting the pols on their collective backs, I gotta say something lol :ols: (not that this thread actually had much of that last part, I'm just talking in general)...

[Predicto]

Really hoping that The Daily Show covers this story.

BTW, is this a coincidence, or did they intentionally wait to vote on this until one day after elections?

Actually a coincidence. This has been in the works for a while, but it got send back to committee a couple times to get enough votes to make it veto proof.

[Predicto]

So you agree with punishing the kid who--once a month--might want to eat french fries with his hamburger? lol :D...

Why not take ALL the toys out of ALL the Happy Meals? Then, give tax breaks/incentives to those companies who spend resources trying to provide and promote healthier foods in their childrens menus? Or, keep all the toys in all the Happy Meals and still do the same thing? I just feel like I have irritable bowel syndrome when I hear any politicans--small and local or big and federal--passing laws and ordinances that either accomplish abso-stinkin-lutely nothing or make things worse. It's like only 10% of the politicians seem capable of thinking down the road or maybe even want to. And if I see people nodding their heads in approval for a useless intiative and patting the pols on their collective backs, I gotta say something lol :ols: (not that this thread actually had much of that last part, I'm just talking in general)...

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/2908/manatee.jpg (http://img577.imageshack.us/i/manatee.jpg/)

:silly:

You are right - this is a meaningless gesture local government response to a genuine, nationwide problem. So what? Not the first time that has ever happened in local politics in America.

I'm just amazed how much this meaningless gesture pisses off some people.

[SnyderShrugged]

I think it's a silly way to address obesity but if the local govt. in San Fran believes it's the best method for THEIR local obesity problem then who are we to complain? This is how government was intended to work. Local laws for local issues. I wish this approach would be taken in all legislation

[Larry]

I think if I'm McDonald's, I immediately replace the Happy Meal toy with a business card with the phone numbers of the city council members.

[China]

There are probably less than 20 McDonalds in San Francisco, and so a couple dozen more kids are going to get apple slices. BFD.


Scary how close to being right on the nose you were. Apparently there are 21 (http://www.insiderpages.com/store_finder/results/mcdonalds/SanFrancisco/CA?order=distance&page=1&query=McDonalds&radius=50).

[Predicto]

I think if I'm McDonald's, I immediately replace the Happy Meal toy with a business card with the phone numbers of the city council members.

You really think anyone in any actual McDonalds is going to care about this? You really think that any KID even cares about this? It's not like Happy Meal toys were actually banned. You just have to order the apple slices, or pay an extra buck - you still get the toy.

The only people who give a damn about this are 50 holier than thou activists in San Francisco and 50 million conservative guys on message boards with their collective panties in a bunch. :ols:

[Sticksboi05]

Blaming food instead of the parents that feed it to them?

[Predicto]

Scary how close to being right on the nose you were. Apparently there are 21 (http://www.insiderpages.com/store_finder/results/mcdonalds/SanFrancisco/CA?order=distance&page=1&query=McDonalds&radius=50).

Yeah, fast food chains don't do that well here. Too many good cheap take out restaurants. Most people looking for a quick bite get a burrito or some asian noodles or something.

[Predicto]

Blaming food instead of the parents that feed it to them?

I don't think its about "blame." It's not a criminal law. It's about looking for solutions.

(not that this is a real solution - it isn't - but the fat kid problem is certainly real)

[Dan T.]

The only people who give a damn about this are 50 holier than thou activists in San Francisco and 50 million conservative guys on message boards with their collective panties in a bunch. :ols:



From my COLD, DEAD HANDS
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/11/13/article-0-03EEE8920000044D-277_468x343.jpg

[Madison Redskin]

Isn't that precisely what we do with providing govt ins?

Yup. And it's precisely what private insurers do.

[twa]

:ols:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-3-2011/san-francisco-s-happy-meal-ban

Duh

@3:30 :pfft:

[#98QBKiller]

:ols:

Awesome clip.

[Predicto]

Eric Mar is one of the most irritating people on the planet.

That clip was great.

[RVAbrendan]

I see two sides to this. McD should have the right to serve whatever they wish.

But on the other hand, Americans are obviously clueless when it comes to diet & health. We (including kids) are huge! But it's not like banning a happy meal with curve the problem...

[deejaydana]

Once again SF leads the pack in loons per square inch. Love the city despite the people there.

[elkabong82]

I'd say the same concern for kids with McFatty meals is the same concern that put Joe Camel in the grave.

[DieselPwr44]

I have a 3 yr old, almost 4.

I have yet to see him come up with enough money to buy a Happy Meal.

Bobby Knight said something one time that,in alot of cases, rings true: Parents today worry more about being a kid's best friend then they do being parents.

[Henry]

:ols:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-3-2011/san-francisco-s-happy-meal-ban

Duh

@3:30 :pfft:

Aasif Mandvi is probably my favorite reporter over there.

I love the crappy meal action figure. :)

[Predicto]

Once again SF leads the pack in loons per square inch. Love the city despite the people there.

Thaks. We love it too, and we are proud of our lunacy err freespirited nature (well, most of it).

[twa]

I have a 3 yr old, almost 4.

I have yet to see him come up with enough money to buy a Happy Meal.

Bobby Knight said something one time that,in alot of cases, rings true: Parents today worry more about being a kid's best friend then they do being parents.

Yep, and too many worry over giving them their wants rather than their needs

[Predicto]

Frisco helps you appreciate normal places more.

NavyDave helps you appreciate normal posters more.

[Boss_Hogg]

Obviously, the issue lies with McDonalds marketing toys with fatty foods. However what those bureaucrats don't know is that you may substitute fries for apple slices and soda with milk or juice.

This ban is absurd.

[Predicto]

Obviously, the issue lies with McDonalds marketing toys with fatty foods. However what those bureaucrats don't know is that you may substitute fries for apple slices and soda with milk or juice.

This ban is absurd.

Technically, there is no ban. All there is is a requirement that if the meal is marketed to kids with a toy, it contain those apple slices and milk or juice as the default so that it has a certain level of healthy nutrition. You can always pay a buck more to buy Junior some fries.

I don't agree with the ordinance, but it isn't a ban.

[karmacop]

New development - San Francisco just got served.

So the ban is you can't include a toy with a meal if it's over 600 calories and has more than 35% of calories from fat. To comply, McD would have had to radically change the Happy Meal, or get rid of the toy.

However, in the past, anyone could just buy the toy separately for $2.18 without getting the Happy Meal, or any other food. So Ronald and his gang came up with this ingenious way around the ordinance:


Instead of giving away a toy with a Happy Meal, San Francisco McDonald's restaurants will now require Happy Meal purchasers to make a 10-cent charitable donation to Ronald McDonald House in order to receive their coveted trinket. Ironically, a law intending to prevent fast food outlets from using the allure of toys to push unhealthy food may now be accentuating that practice. Prior to the city's "Healthy Meal Incentive Ordinance," buyers could simply purchase a McDonald's toy for $2.18. Now, however, only those who buy the Happy Meals are allowed to obtain the toys.

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/11/happy_meal_ban_city_health_act.php



Your move, San Francisco!

[ACW]

:rotflmao:
:owned:

[Symbol]

I honestly don't see a problem with this ordinance. They are not saying that they can't serve Happy Meals with the IMO horrible foods they always have had in it, they are saying that they can't add a toy to them. When I was a kid it wasn't the food that made me want a happy meal it was the toy. If this teaches the kids to eat healthier, more power to it, if not, then no toys for them, big deal, they're cheap plastic toys anyway. lol

[ACW]

Here's the problem: Nanny-statism.

[Hubbs]

I honestly don't see a problem with this ordinance. They are not saying that they can't serve Happy Meals with the IMO horrible foods they always have had in it, they are saying that they can't add a toy to them. When I was a kid it wasn't the food that made me want a happy meal it was the toy. If this teaches the kids to eat healthier, more power to it, if not, then no toys for them, big deal, they're cheap plastic toys anyway. lol

Oh man, when I was a kid I didn't give a rat's ass about the toy (unless it was a car). French fries, chicken nuggets, and way too much ketchup? Sign my six-year-old ass up! (And occasionally my current ass, too. :ols:)

---------- Post added November-30th-2011 at 07:56 PM ----------


Here's the problem: Nanny-statism.

What do you mean? Are you saying that we should actually expect parents to sometimes act like parents and care about how often they buy junk food for their kids?

[thebluefood]

What do you mean? Are you saying that we should actually expect parents to sometimes act like parents and care about how often they buy junk food for their kids?

"You expect me to be personally responsible for my children?! FASCIST!"

[Prosperity]

What do you mean? Are you saying that we should actually expect parents to sometimes act like parents and care about how often they buy junk food for their kids?

expect in one hand and **** in the other

see which one fills up faster

[PeterMP]

What do you mean? Are you saying that we should actually expect parents to sometimes act like parents and care about how often they buy junk food for their kids?
Did I miss something where the parents in San Fransisco no longer voted for the local government?

[#98QBKiller]

New development - San Francisco just got served.

So the ban is you can't include a toy with a meal if it's over 600 calories and has more than 35% of calories from fat. To comply, McD would have had to radically change the Happy Meal, or get rid of the toy.

However, in the past, anyone could just buy the toy separately for $2.18 without getting the Happy Meal, or any other food. So Ronald and his gang came up with this ingenious way around the ordinance:



http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/11/happy_meal_ban_city_health_act.php



Your move, San Francisco!


:applause:

[Hubbs]

Did I miss something where the parents in San Fransisco no longer voted for the local government?

Damnit, you're right. It's quite obvious that SF parents exercised perfect control over all levels of government, yet simultaneously concluded that the only solution to the Happy Meal "problem" was an outright ban on all Happy Meals. Thank God we have people who can make these decisions for us, so we won't have to make them for ourselves.

[zskins]

My girls wanted the Strawberry Short Cake dolls. I walked into McDonald's and bought all 6 of them for them. How hard is it to be a responsible parent? Ok, I eat the burgers and the fries. :D

[Symbol]

Oh man, when I was a kid I didn't give a rat's ass about the toy (unless it was a car). French fries, chicken nuggets, and way too much ketchup? Sign my six-year-old ass up! (And occasionally my current ass, too. :ols:)

I was the direct opposite when I was a kid. My mom had to take the toy away from me and tell me to eat the crappy food before I could play with the toy.

[DCSaints_fan]

I was the direct opposite when I was a kid. My mom had to take the toy away from me and tell me to eat the crappy food before I could play with the toy.

Yeah I loved the toy ... can't remember really liking the food that much ... maybe there is something to this pavlovian-like psychological association.

[Symbol]

Yeah I loved the toy ... can't remember really liking the food that much ... maybe there is something to this pavlovian-like psychological association.

I agree. Kid want toy, kid eat healthy food. Later, kid prefer healthy snack. Best of all, maybe McDonald's closes... Or is that last part just one of my wishes?

[mcsluggo]

And San Fran stays permanently on the list of places I never want to live.

Bunch a tree hugging hippie crap......

I am sure that the city elders are all misting up and verclumpt about this revelation.
(but i am also sure that they will eventually get over it... )

[GibbsFactor]

Technically, there is no ban. All there is is a requirement that if the meal is marketed to kids with a toy, it contain those apple slices and milk or juice as the default so that it has a certain level of healthy nutrition. You can always pay a buck more to buy Junior some fries.

I don't agree with the ordinance, but it isn't a ban.

Arsenic? Is that really healthier?

[The Evil Genius]

Timmy,

McD's has a new thing they are doing - "Commitments to Offer Improved Nutrition Choices". Part of that is that happy meals have gone under a revision in the past year.

Out with the caramel dipping sauce and larger fries. The meals are now served with fewer French fries, a helping of apple slices (without caramel) and fat-free chocolate or one percent white milk. People now have to ask for more fries or soda (and caramel sauce).

As for the recent development, I don't see a problem with what either side has done.

[Park City Skins]

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/04/happy_meal_lawsuit_dismissed.php

[Teller]

So California parents still have to parent?

That's tough.

[Prosperity]

that's too bad, shady ass marketing like that should be curtailed

[#98QBKiller]

So California parents still have to parent?

That's tough.


And it only took a year and half to make the decision.

[Thiebear]

Both my children do 6nugget/slices/milkshake .
You couldn't get them to eat anything on the rest of the menu.. they would rather starve..

[SnyderShrugged]

Good, another lame attempt at an attention grab and over intrusion of people's personal choices shot down as it should be.

[Dan T.]

Good, another lame attempt at an attention grab and over intrusion of people's personal choices shot down as it should be.

What was shot down?

[SnyderShrugged]

What was shot down?

The Happy Meal ban?

[Dan T.]

The Happy Meal ban?

I saw where McDonald's worked an end-around on it, but I didn't see where the ban itself was overturned...

[Koolblue13]

There's a lot of crap in those nuggets that if you fed it to your children, you'd be arrested.

[Rocky21]

I'd rather parents make this decision than governments.

[SnyderShrugged]

I saw where McDonald's worked an end-around on it, but I didn't see where the ban itself was overturned...


whatever, semantics

---------- Post added April-6th-2012 at 08:40 AM ----------


There's a lot of crap in those nuggets that if you fed it to your children, you'd be arrested.

I agree, and its 100% my call if I allow my kids to eat it. which I dont, btw. My call, not my local,state or federal governments

[hunterx]

Due to how obese/fat/whatever our children are, it is becoming more apparent that the Parent's can't be trusted to control their childrens intake. It is no good for the whole of the country if the # of those obese children continues to grow.

I think it's ridiculous that a town, city or state would have to have a law about this...but what does that say about the Parents?

[Dan T.]

whatever, semantics


:ols: Not "semantics" at all. The big bad intrusive goverment law is still on the books. Admit it Snyder, for once in your ES life. You didn't read something closely and you made a mistake. It's not that hard to do.

[SnyderShrugged]

:ols: Not "semantics" at all. The big bad intrusive goverment law is still on the books. Admit it Snyder, for once in your ES life. You didn't read something closely and you made a mistake. It's not that hard to do.

OK, the law is on the books. and the law suit was dismissed. I consider that semantics within the topic discussed. But it is obviously very important to you to "win" so please feel great about your great day.

[Dan T.]

OK, the law is on the books. and the law suit was dismissed. I consider that semantics within the topic discussed. But it is obviously very important to you to "win" so please feel great about your great day.

Actually, becasue the law is still on the books, you win. Or the Libertarian point of view wins...because it shows the ineffectiveness of government to foment change in commerce and personal habit: S.F. writes and enacts a law. Commerce quickly finds a way around it. Consumers keep doing what they always do, only for 10 cents more. Government is exposed as overreaching and ineffective. Libertarians can point and say I told you so.


You're welcome.
(It's all good SS. Just playing.)

[SnyderShrugged]

Actually, becasue the law is still on the books, you win. Or the Libertarian point of view wins...because it shows the ineffectiveness of government to foment change in commerce and personal habit: S.F. writes and enacts a law. Commerce quickly finds a way around it. Consumers keep doing what they always do, only for 10 cents more. Government is exposed as overreaching and ineffective. Libertarians can point and say I told you so.


You're welcome.
(It's all good SS. Just playing.)

I actually agree with you on the local government empowerment. Tough, I also think it's an intrusion of individual liberty in many respects. I'm extremely glad that the silly law suit was dismissed

[Dan T.]

I actually agree with you on the local government empowerment. Tough, I also think it's an intrusion of individual liberty in many respects. I'm extremely glad that the silly law suit was dismissed

Agree on the lawsuit being dismissed... a small victory for personal responsibility.

[Predicto]

They actually make Happy Meals with apple slices and other healthier options.

That is the whole point of the ordinance. If the fast food restaurants do that, they can include the toy. If not, they have to charge a little extra for the toy.

It's an ineffective ordinance, but it is hardly the end of our civil liberties either.

[Predicto]

But they have those HMs here and there was no ordinance that I'm aware of. Just the one in San Fransisco.

I know. Did you notice when those healthier Happy Meals started appearing in your town? I suspect it was within the last two years, after San Francisco began making a fuss about unhealthy kids meals and brought attention to the issue.

That was the real point of the ordinance, of course. To prod McDonalds publicly. I doubt that the Board of Supervisors really thought that the 20 or so McDonalds in San Francisco were really a big health threat.

[Koolblue13]

I'd rather parents make this decision than governments.

You can feed ammonia and bleach and glue to kids, than drugs should be legal for adults.