San Francisco trying to ban Happy Meals

[LiberalPrincess]

Uhh, because if the drinking age were lowered to, say, 16, then I (as a parent) am not needed for my son to walk into a liquor store to purchase a fifth of Jack.

You are also not needed for your son to get ten happy meals a day, which would obviously be bad for him. Yet the argument on this thread is that parents should decide their children's food choices, not the government. Well, why do parents only have that power when it comes to food and not liquor choices? Why do we need the government to legislate that, yet there is outrage that they will regulate something else?

 

[Magic Mom]

And there are people that believe that Happy Meals do harm children. Since it is not an immediate harm does that make it less of a problem? Some feel it does not. It is great that you make good choices for your kids. But, the statistics are showing that a large percentage of Americans are not making the same good choices. And while not banning the food, they think regulating the marketing will help. Again, I don't agree with the decision, but I certainly understand the rationale.

Happy meals don't harm kids, high fat food does. There is high fat/sodium/calorie food everywhere. Just about any sit down chain restaurant you go to has pizza, burgers, fried chicken tenders or mac and cheese on the kids menu. There are doughnuts and cookies and high sugar cereals on the end caps at every large grocery store. Should the next step be to ban all that food? I bet the parents that overfeed happy meals also feed those kinds of foods. SF should get on the ball and make sure kids don't get any of those foods either.

 

[mamacatnv]

This whole arguement is endemic of what is wrong with our society as a whole. We have a government (and apparently a large percentage of the population) that is too stupid, to manage and control aspects of their lives. I don't need the government to tell me what is healthy and unhealthy. As a parent the easiest way to control what my children thought about wanting the toys included in Happy Meals was to just say no! People that honestly cannot control their children and say no to them are a much bigger problem than McDonald's or any other fast food place for that matter. I for one wish the government would just back off from the whole regulate everything mentality and force each and every American to become responsible for their own actions. It is too easy to blame childhood obiesity on fast food chains rather than actually pointing a finger at the true cause which is the parents that allow it.

As long as we are able to whine about all the problems we as a society have and demand the government fix the problem for us rather that growing a set and dealing with it ourselves we will continue to a point where we don't even have to think for ourselves anymore. We'll just let the government tell us exactly how to lead our lives.

This.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

Herein lies the problem. Does the government have a responsibility to protect its youth? Does that include from their own parents' bad choices? While one Happy Meal won't kill a child, installing bad eating habits can lead to various health issues later in life.

Same with seat belts. Should parents be allowed to not buckle their kids in seatbelts? Or put them in car seats?

Where do you draw the line?

That is exactly the point I was heading towards. Why is it ok to regulate some things and not others? I don't get the level of outrage over the San Fran ordinance. The government has been making legislation for years that is, at its root, intended to lead people from things that could be potentially harmful. If I ride in a car without a seat belt, am I harming myself? Is there immediate harm that can be pointed to? How is that different than the long-term affects of bad eating? Different people have different lines. Some have no issue with seat belt laws, alcohol age-restrictions, etc., yet they are going ape over the food marketing restrictions. And that was my initial question, what is the ultimate difference?

 

[Geoff_M]

You are also not needed for your son to get ten happy meals a day,...

At some point rationality needs to be brought into consideration. I have a hard time envisioning lots of 5 year-olds, or 10 year-olds for that matter, (the toys aren't aimed at my 16 year old) tottering into McD's unaccompanied and dropping $25 of their own money on Happy Meals on a regular basis. It can also easily only take one purchase of alcohol to permanently affect my son's life.

 

[Geoff_M]

Why is it ok to regulate some things and not others?

Are you honestly suggesting that the world should be that black and white and that simplistic? Really???

 

[FlightlessDuck]

I think most people's feelings about laws protecting kids may have to do with the amount of time between an activity and its effects. Kids can't drink alcohol because they can easily give themselves alcohol poisoning and it is addictive. Kids must wear seatbelts because they can die in a car crash. Cigarettes are addictive.

But giving a kid bad food may, in 30 years, cause health problems.

 

[Geoff_M]

But giving a kid bad food may, in 30 years, cause health problems.

It's not Happy Meals that are the issue. It's too much consumption of the wrong types of foods.... along with a sedentary life style, that's the problem for a vast majority of our kids. And for the record, the major health risks of cigarettes also don't normally show up until later in life.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

I think most people's feelings about laws protecting kids may have to do with the amount of time between an activity and its effects. Kids can't drink alcohol because they can easily give themselves alcohol poisoning and it is addictive. Kids must wear seatbelts because they can die in a car crash. Cigarettes are addictive.

But giving a kid bad food may, in 30 years, cause health problems.

Except that the childhood obesity problem is happening now. I would say that a tripling of the problem in the past 30 years is a pretty tangible statistic.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

It's not Happy Meals that are the issue. It's too much consumption of the wrong types of foods

Yeah, I get that. Blaming it on meals with toys specifically is a little ridiculous.

And come to think of it, the law isn't actually banning parents from feeding kids whatever, it is specifically trying to prevent fast food restaurants from rewarding children.

 

[Bilberry]

It really is the nanny state run amuck.

It's older, but got a laugh over Tom Naughton's article about CSPI's war on McDonald's.

http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/06/24/the-guy-from-cspi-isnt-toying-with-mcdonalds/

 

[mnrose]

Thank you for the correction. It is still wrong though. The government should not be involved in the food choices for our children. There is no comparison with alcohol, because a bottle of liqour can kill or harm a child, but three happy meals can't. If I choose to feed my 11 YO (who runs about 14 miles a week, plays outside, and does physical labor on a farm) a happy meal, it's none of your business or the governments business. I don't make bad choices for my children. If someone else does, then the appropriate authorities should intervene and help THAT family specifically.

You can still buy a Happy Meal. It just can't have a toy. Really, I don't get the sentiment against this law. The food hasn't been made illegal...just a certain type of marketing. That's it. And, as a society, we've ALWAYS had restrictions on marketing speech. Nothing new there.

 

[allison443]

Thank you for the correction. It is still wrong though. The government should not be involved in the food choices for our children. There is no comparison with alcohol, because a bottle of liqour can kill or harm a child, but three happy meals can't. If I choose to feed my 11 YO (who runs about 14 miles a week, plays outside, and does physical labor on a farm) a happy meal, it's none of your business or the governments business. I don't make bad choices for my children. If someone else does, then the appropriate authorities should intervene and help THAT family specifically.

I agree with you, however I have seen a lot of threads here on the disboards about how food stamp recipients should be prevented from buying "unhealthy" food with food stamps. Currently there is a suggestion in NYC that would prevent food stamp use for soda/sports drinks.

Isn't that also the government getting involved in parental choices for children, as well as an individual's choice for themselves?

(not directing the question specifically at you, Magic Mom!)

 

[Magic Mom]

I agree with you, however I have seen a lot of threads here on the disboards about how food stamp recipients should be prevented from buying "unhealthy" food with food stamps. Currently there is a suggestion in NYC that would prevent food stamp use for soda/sports drinks.

Isn't that also the government getting involved in parental choices for children, as well as an individual's choice for themselves?

(not directing the question specifically at you, Magic Mom!)

In that case, the government isn't preventing those families from buying anything. They would be preventing them from spending their food stamps on those foods. They can still buy cart loads of Twinkies if they want, the government just wouldn't subsidise it.

 

[HelenePA]

Finally, some good ideas!

Think of the goodie bags

 

[PixieDustandEeyore]

I lost 30 lbs on a fast food diet i tried like 5 different diets over the course of a year and the fast food one was my second best! I just ate 1200 calories a day of fast food it was easy and yes I had happy meals hahahaha oh well San Francisco is weird this summer they didnt even honor the 1 dollar McD's drink thing (me and DFi went to SF alot this summer but mostly ate at the more cultural places ) ei yi yi San Francisco can be different its okay to have prosciutto flavored ice cream but heaven forbid a happy meal lol

 

[allison443]

Happy meals don't harm kids, high fat food does. There is high fat/sodium/calorie food everywhere. Just about any sit down chain restaurant you go to has pizza, burgers, fried chicken tenders or mac and cheese on the kids menu. There are doughnuts and cookies and high sugar cereals on the end caps at every large grocery store. Should the next step be to ban all that food? I bet the parents that overfeed happy meals also feed those kinds of foods. SF should get on the ball and make sure kids don't get any of those foods either.

You read the article right? The regulation wouldn't ban the food that's in a happy meal. It would prevent McDonalds and other food places from giving a toy away with a meal unless the food meets certain nutritional standards. So they could still sell burgers, fries, etc. Just not packaged as a happy meal with a toy.

Maybe the article wasn't clear?

 

[Becky2005]

ETA- And what if your kid isn't fat? Why should my underweight kids be denied a toy because somebody else's kids are fat?

That's my biggest issue. My poor kids come in the underweight category & you do not know how many times I had to conteract the "all kids are obese so we are changing the food/toy/whatever" message. I'm not really sure they say that or it's "healthy" but it's always added with the "obese epedimic in children"...my daughter is under 100 pounds @ 16 years old. She HATES it and feels that there is so much harrassment with being on the skinnier side (people pretty much try to force feed her and ask her if she is anorexic all the time). SHE would be the one to come home and tell me "they are changing the food once again because we are FAT" -- so they got rid of all the regular pop (or soda if you prefer) in the High School but still have the diet stuff which in my opinion is worse for you with more chemicals in it than the regular stuff BUT it does have lower calories I guess so it passes.

Then you have my older son who is in the 10% for weight & got the underweight category with the wonderful new BMI stuff the school is doing.

My youngest does go for the toy but he would want the fast food regardless of the toy (my DH is the one that usually gets the kid's meals for lunch & then brings the toys home for the kids!! ).

 

[Magic Mom]

Thanks for being condescending. The article was clear. The bottom line is that this is about unhealthy food. Why stop at meals with toys. Why not make sure kids aren't exposed to unhealthy food at any restaurant?

 

[allison443]

Thanks for being condescending. The article was clear. The bottom line is that this is about unhealthy food. Why stop at meals with toys. Why not make sure kids aren't exposed to unhealthy food at any restaurant?

Sorry it came across as condescending...wasn't meant that way. I wasn't sure if you had read the article because earlier you asked why they were only targeting McDonalds, and not burger king/other fast food places, when the article clearly said they were targeting all places that gave away toys with fast food meals, including burger king, subway, etc.
That's all.