Illegal Happy Meals

[FireDancer]

I do believe the intent of this new law came from a good place.

Well, I guess if nothing else at least hell will get some new pavement for their southbound roads.

Now, if the government really wants to do something about the obesity epedemic (which I agree is horribly sad), then they need to regulate what people are allowed to get from foodstamps. In Wisconsin, chips, candy, soda and everything unhealthy is covered under the card. When I worked at a grocery store, the things people would buy was absurd. Carts would be full of Mountain Dew, chips, kool-aid, cookies, candy and steak and ribs. Would it really be that difficult to say, "This card will cover fresh fruit and vegtables and actual food". There a thing called WIC that offers struggling families with basic food needs, milk, protein, cereal, cheese, beans, fresh fruit and I don't remember what else (formula for babies) and people don't put up a fuss...why not do the same for state food stamps?

I think this would be a good step but it doesn't solve the underlying education problem. I know it is easy to say it is only the poor that make these choices but that isn't the case. There are plenty of well off families also making poor food choices.

To preempt the inevitable "the poor or less affluent don't know any better and are more adversely effected by blah blah blah" post that always comes up when food choices are discussed I don't buy into the notion that the poor have any less access to good choices or are any less able to educate themselves on the right choices. There is plenty of free information out there and there are also healthy choices that don't cost any more then those cases of pop or candy.

In the current world lack of information can not be an excuse for anyone or anything. There is information there just waiting to be found. They just don't know any better is no longer a justification for anything. And who is responsible for this education? Each individual is responsible for educating themselves and their children.

I've taught myself way more then anyone has ever taught me.

 

[KatelynnsAuntie]

I am a resident of CA and of the very county (Santa Clara) that voted on this. A few things I'd like to say: first I feel the need to defend my state and my county. This was a 3-2 vote by FIVE people so please stop bashing my state. I think the law is loony too but geesh it doesn't represent the feelings of everyone in our state or county so the "those crazy Californians" comments are really quite rude and uncalled for. Second, the ban is only taking place in unincorporated parts of our county. If you want the toy that bad, you can go to another McD's in the county that's "incorporated". Shoot with McD's on practically every other street corner that's not hard to do. A big deal is being made out of this but really it's only going to affect a mere handful of McD's. Just wanted to set the record straight. Okay, off my soap box now.

 

[PebblesMK]

I am a resident of CA and of the very county (Santa Clara) that voted on this. A few things I'd like to say: first I feel the need to defend my state and my county. This was a 3-2 vote by FIVE people so please stop bashing my state. I think the law is loony too but geesh it doesn't represent the feelings of everyone in our state or county so the "those crazy Californians" comments are really quite rude and uncalled for. Second, the ban is only taking place in unincorporated parts of our county. If you want the toy that bad, you can go to another McD's in the county that's "incorporated". Shoot with McD's on practically every other street corner that's not hard to do. A big deal is being made out of this but really it's only going to affect a mere handful of McD's. Just wanted to set the record straight. Okay, off my soap box now.

I don't think you're crazy. You're A-Okay in my book.

 

[PebblesMK]

Well, I guess if nothing else at least hell will get some new pavement for their southbound roads.



I think this would be a good step but it doesn't solve the underlying education problem. I know it is easy to say it is only the poor that make these choices but that isn't the case. There are plenty of well off families also making poor food choices.

I don't buy into the notion that the poor have any less access to good choices or are any less able to educate themselves on the right choices. There is plenty of free information out there and there are also healthy choices that don't cost any more then those cases of pop or candy.

In the current world lack of information can not be an excuse for anyone or anything. There is information there just waiting to be found. They just don't know any better is a choice.

You honestly believe that they don't know a better choice? If they went to elementary school, they learned that fruits and veggies are good for you and sugars are bad. All kids learn the food pyramid at an early age. People choose to eat crap because it tastes good. Not everybody views food as only fuel for a body they view as a temple. It takes a lot of will power to switch food habits. I do agree that education is a great thing but I don't think that most people would apply it to their lives. I was brought up on whole grains and whole wheat and homemade everything and vegetables and fruits and overall, a really healthy diet and love it, but guess what, Taco Bell is equally as delicious with my nacho bel grande made with chicken and gaucamole which sits in at about 900 calories and 53 grams of fat. You bet that I know it's not healthy, but I'm still going to eat it. Now if they took away something about it that I desired....perhaps the cheese (which is like my happy meal toy), chances are I wouldn't be willing to order it seperate and I would most likely go home and make myself a sandwich. And by fast food chains lowering the temptation even a little bit, then maybe it's one less battle that a parent will give into.

I also wanted to point out that in poorer cities, fast food is a lot more abundant. There are many burbs in Chicago that I can't find a McDonalds, Taco Bell or any fast food joint. They have Jimmy Johns and Subway and Qdoba and other places that are slightyly healthier (at least with first glances, those nutritional menus usually shed a different light upon things-but at least there are real vegetables)

 

[FireDancer]

You honestly believe that they don't know a better choice? If they went to elementary school, they learned that fruits and veggies are good for you and sugars are bad. All kids learn the food pyramid at an early age. People choose to eat crap because it tastes good. Not everybody views food as only fuel for a body they view as a temple. It takes a lot of will power to switch food habits. I do agree that education is a great thing but I don't think that most people would apply it to their lives. I was brought up on whole grains and whole wheat and homemade everything and vegetables and fruits and overall, a really healthy diet and love it, but guess what, Taco Bell is equally as delicious with my nacho bel grande made with chicken and gaucamole which sits in at about 900 calories and 53 grams of fat. You bet that I know it's not healthy, but I'm still going to eat it. Now if they took away something about it that I desired....perhaps the cheese (which is like my happy meal toy), chances are I wouldn't be willing to order it seperate and I would most likely go home and make myself a sandwich. And by fast food chains lowering the temptation even a little bit, then maybe it's one less battle that a parent will give into.

I also wanted to point out that in poorer cities, fast food is a lot more abundant. There are many burbs in Chicago that I can't find a McDonalds, Taco Bell or any fast food joint. They have Jimmy Johns and Subway and Qdoba and other places that are slightyly healthier (at least with first glances, those nutritional menus usually shed a different light upon things-but at least there are real vegetables)

If people know the options and ignore the information to make the worse choice they should be free to do so. I am not interested in telling other people how to live. If a toy ad is enough to make someone go against their better judgment then that is their problem, not the governments.

As for which restaurants are where, supply is dictated more by demand then the other way around. If people in any area stopped going to a McDonald's or Taco Bell and drove a distance to go to a Subway the that McDonald's would be replaced or at least joined by a Subway. The market will always step in to fill a demand provided it is free to do so. Better yet, making your own food is the best option so it really doesn't matter what fast food restaurants are around.

It isn't advertising that is causing our obesity epidemic so it isn't advertising that will cure it. If people know the poor choices are poor and still make them no legislation will stop the problem.

I am amazed at how many people need the government to take them by the hand and tell them what to do. It is not their job to make up for anyone's lack of willpower.

 

[Joe in VA]

This is another government intrusion into personal responsibility. The answer these days almost always seems to be legislation instead of education.

I'd much rather live in a free country where we all die early of heart disease and cancer than one where the government ensures we lead healthy lives. I value my freedom more than I value my life.

 

[EMom]

Government trying to fix the obesity problem has already crept into the schools. Our local schools have banned cupcakes for birthday parties and cut back on holiday parties - not in the name of lost instruction time, but in the name of childhood obesity.

What I can stand about these lifestyle laws is that the legislators have no idea that every bureaucratic layer they throw out makes it so much harder for people to do their jobs.

Or as I like to call it..."Sucking the joy out of school." Work them like slaves so they do well on the stupid TAKS test, but heaven forbid they experience the fun of a holiday party and an associated treat or two. If they'd take the greasy food out of the cafeteria (no way I'll let DD buy that stuff) they could easily allow a party for every stinking holiday of the year, complete with treats and no one would gain an ounce. Some of my fondest memories are of elementary school holiday parties. Too bad DD and her friends won't have the same memories.

Oh well, at least we can still bring a birthday goody to lunch. DD prefers Blue Bell ice cream cups on her birthday and the kids seem to love it. If I am corrupting them, so be it. Amazingly, some actually turn down the birthday treats the moms bring. Go figure. A kid that doesn't need to be forced to turn down a goody.

Geez.....Does anyone really think stopping Happy Meal toys from being free will make any impact on childhood obesity? If a parent was already prone to exercising some reasonable limits on Happy Meal consumption, the law will make no difference. If they were prone to allowing their kid to chomp down a Happy Meal whenever they pleased, they'll either fork over the cash for the toy or they'll buy some other fast food/unhealthy food substitute. This law will NOT make them grow a backbone. It will just hurt the bottom line of the McD's in the unincorporated areas. (Hey....Did the McDs in the INcorporated areas push for this law? )

 

[FireDancer]

Geez.....Does anyone really think stopping Happy Meal toys from being free will make any impact on childhood obesity? If a parent was already prone to exercising some reasonable limits on Happy Meal consumption, the law will make no difference. If they were prone to allowing their kid to chomp down a Happy Meal whenever they pleased, they'll either fork over the cash for the toy or they'll buy some other fast food/unhealthy food substitute. This law will NOT make them grow a backbone. It will just hurt the bottom line of the McD's in the unincorporated areas. (Hey....Did the McDs in the INcorporated areas push for this law? )

or develop will power.

Not to mention the toy isn't free now, it is included in the price. All they have to do is instead of saying you get a free toy with a $4.99 happy meal they can say for $4.99 you get a happy meal and a toy and the toy is .99 of that $4.00*

*I am only estimating the price. I haven't purchased anything at a McDonald's in about 8 years...even with all their advertising.

 

[Wall-E1]

This is another government intrusion into personal responsibility. The answer these days almost always seems to be legislation instead of education.

I'd much rather live in a free country where we all die early of heart disease and cancer than one where the government ensures we lead healthy lives. I value my freedom more than I value my life.

Wow... just wow.

I'd much rather live in a country where our children are healthier than we are... in a country where, if needed, the govt uses its resources to help prevent and assist in finding a cure for types of cancer or stopping heart disease. And I have no doubt that we can achieve these lofty goals while still retaining our free country. We don't need to choose between freedom or dying of cancer. We can have both.

 

[Mermaid02]

If that is the thought, then they would just have to ban fast food, chips cookies ice cream. And here is a shocker, I happen to think milk is pure evil. I think they should ban that. Ok off topic but I had to say it.

I think it is pure evil as well. Mostly b/c I can't stand milk.

When I learned that...it isn't a good thing to drink, I felt like telling my parents....See??? It really wasn't good for me.

Milk is the perfect food- if you are a CALF! I hate the stuff too!

If they want to cut down on McDonald's purchases- they should NEVER do the Disney Glass thing again. I ate SO MUCH crap during that promotion. I also threw a lot of it away. I have 2 sets of those glasses though- use them every day.

I was eating Happy meals in the early 70's- No toy in sight- hamburger, french fries and coke. The coke was the small which is now "child size" and the fries were the little ones in the paper holder. Portions are out of control. Huge sodas and jumbo fries

Leave the toy in the Happy Meal- my son was always preoccupied with the toy and I ended up throwing half his food away.

 

[luvmy3]

Right there - where you said "are not conspiracies". You immediately followed it up with a conspiracy theory - "its the first step toward government control of what you put in your mouth, maybe someday including Doritos and Oreos."

And the only way the govt will get my double stuff oreos from me is if they pry them from my cold dead hands.

Banning ingredients and banning the way unhealthy meals are adveritsed IS control, it IS happeing therefore it is not a conspiracy theory

There are many levels of control, I'm not talking about an all out ban on your oreos or doritos, I'm talking about these "small steps" that are happening right now. We all know how the gov't works, its naive to think they aren't going to be taking (or at the very least trying to) more of these small steps for the good of the people. I don't believe its their place, YMMV

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

My un-happy meal story...

My parents were transferred to Willow Grove NAS in the early 80s...

One fine chilly afternoon, we stop at Mickey d's to order a happy meal.

And they didn't have any. (drive through window and that is what they said--it didn't appear on the menu either).

Not sure the reason for that decision, but it was very disappointing.

It didn't cut down on the "crap" portion of our meals though just b/c the local McD's had decided to no longer sell the happy meal.

Nor did it have a long term impact to teach me that McD's food is "unhealthy".


****

As for all the food stuff--

Unless they do a quota/rationing system (which probably would be unconstitutional)--you can't stop people from eating stuff.

Education is key--forcing limitations is not the answer.

This does remind me of the salt ban in NYC thread--that some official wanted to have take place. The problem with that--banning a substance the body needs for its basic chemistry. It didn't make sense.

Reducing sodium content--okay--do that. But banning it? That's non-sensical.

Heck--requiring a restaurant to offer healthy options like Subway or Applebee's might even be better.

But as it stands--Wendy's had those yummy yogurts as an option and it was dropped. Likely b/c noone bought them.

Banning a free toy--doesn't really accomplish much. But since McD's began offering healthier choices to go with the kids meals, I have modified how I purchase them. Same deal with Wendy's.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Milk is the perfect food- if you are a CALF! I hate the stuff too!

When I came across that tidbit....I was doing the .

My kids love milk--they also love soy milk (no issues in my family to warrant not offering that). But I don't worry if they were to not like it.

 

[Toad_Passenger]

This is another government intrusion into personal responsibility. The answer these days almost always seems to be legislation instead of education.

I'd much rather live in a free country where we all die early of heart disease and cancer than one where the government ensures we lead healthy lives. I value my freedom more than I value my life.

It's a shame that the opposite seems to be happening. The government continues to subsidize cheaper, and unhealthier foods, as well as cutting back on inspections of slaughterhouses.

Also, consumers would love the freedom of choice, but when companies aren't made to properly label their ingredients, how can someone make an educated choice?

I wish the government would step up and take a more active role in improving the food supply, but it's just not feasible when companies can put money in the pockets of legislators to get their way.

 

[Wall-E1]

"its the first step toward government control of what you put in your mouth, maybe someday including Doritos and Oreos."

Banning ingredients and banning the way unhealthy meals are adveritsed IS control, it IS happeing therefore it is not a conspiracy theory

There are many levels of control, I'm not talking about an all out ban on your oreos or doritos, I'm talking about these "small steps" that are happening right now. We all know how the gov't works, its naive to think they aren't going to be taking (or at the very least trying to) more of these small steps for the good of the people. I don't believe its their place, YMMV

Thank you for expanding on your original conspiracy theory.

How does the govt work? Please expand on this fascinating theory. Please connect all the dots for me, so that I may fully understand your theory on how this is the first of many steps that one day may or may not result in a ban on junk food.

 

[SAHDad]

Thank you for expanding on your original conspiracy theory.

How does the govt work? Please expand on this fascinating theory. Please connect all the dots for me, so that I may fully understand your theory on how this is the first of many steps that one day may or may not result in a ban on junk food.

It's actually pretty simple. It is virtually axiomatic that any gov't program, once implimented, exists into perpetuity, and its efficacy is never actually examined. It is also axoimatic that any gov't program serves as a basic for creating other, similar programs, regardless of whether or not the original program actually achieved its stated goals.

So, some gov't entity (local, state, federal) bans free toys with happy meals/imposes a tax on soda/bans trans-fats/bans salt in the preparation of food. There is virtually no chance that the ban will be examined in two, five, ten or even twenty years, to see if it actually generated the revenues stated/achieved the goal of reducing obesity/whatever.

Sometimes, a program will achieve one goal, but in so doing, create another. IIRC, the S-CHIP expansion, for example, was funded in part by a fairly significant tax increase on tobacco products. The fact that such taxes are regressive aside, the tax increase will have the (unexpected, but happy) benefit of reducing smoking. Of course, that means that the S-CHIP expansion is underfunded (fewer smokers, people smoking less both mean less tax revenue, therefore less funding), so the solution will be a tax on something (either more on tobacco, or possibly some other sin tax - soda, HFCS, whatever).

 

[Darsa]

(Have not read all prior posts)

I love milk... skim. And I'm told it's good for me, even.

Not exactly sure why that is really being discussed here, but just wanted to put my 2 cents in

 

[mjkacmom]

I'd rather a child order a happy meal, with a regular hamburger and fries, to get the toy, rather than a bacon double cheeseburger value meal! At least having a happy meal limits the fat and calories. I don't eat fast food, but my kids eat it about 4 times a year.

 

[shellybaxter]

IMO, CA is pretty darn close to that. They have a big push for MANDATORY preschool. Heaven forbid we choose to parent our children the way we see fit.

Actually the push in California is for Universal Preschool - as in the opportunity for every four year old to go to preschool on the state's dime. This would not be manditory, just available. BTW - California is not the first state to have a universal preschool program, many other states already have this option available for their citizens.

Love it. They want to make pre-K mandatory but they are firing all their teachers?? Heck, here kindergarten isn't even mandatory!
And DH wanted to move to CA.

Come on out - Kindergarten isn't mandatory here either.

California is a BIG state (like driving from New York to the Florida boarder) with a LOT of different ideas. I don't support this law in Santa Clara, but suggesting that it is a "california" law is just plain wrong (as in inaccurate)

 

[OceanAnnie]

I think it's silly. I also don't agree with taking salt off of restaurant tables or having a penalty for ordering a coke.