San Francisco trying to ban Happy Meals

[Magic Mom]

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!! ).

I think the toy might keep the older kids from ordering a bigger even less healthy meal. When my son was a preteen, he could have eaten a regular size meal but he liked getting the toy (even the ones geared towards kids younger than him.)
DD has never been too interested in the toy unless it was connected to a movie she really loved. But she never asked for fast food just because of the toy.

 

[WeLoveLilo05]

But why stop at fast food? I don't think that's where most kids are eating the majority of their meals. How about other restaurants? Grocery stores? Your kitchen at home? And the one place where government should be involved. . .school lunches? :confused3

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?

Did you watch supersize me? When Morgan Spurlock went to school cafeterias and the one cafeteria was getting the food from the government and the amount of calories, sugar, sodium was INSANE!

I'm sorry, I think this is stupid. I don't serve my daughter McDonalds everyday, or once a week for that matter, but we do have it maybe 2 times a month, we don't overindulge in it. She is not obese, or even a little over weight. The government should not be dictating to me what I could put in my child's body PERIOD (this goes for vaccines too!).

And...have you SEEN MCdonald's toys lately?!?!? Its crap compared to when I was little, I remember my mom pulling up to the drive thru every friday asking "what snow white toy did you get in today?" LOL and we didn't always get the happy meal, my mom would JUST BUY THE TOY.

 

[C.Ann]

It's shocking that the intelligence level of whoever is pushing for this out there in CA is so low that they actually believe people will no longer buy any of these food items (or from any of these vendors) simply because they have taken the "toy" away..

Sounds like a scary place to live.. I can only imagine what other brilliant ideas they have waiting in the wings.. Bag searches as people leave the grocery stores?

 

[GoldenGate2]

It's shocking that the intelligence level of whoever is pushing for this out there in CA is so low that they actually believe people will no longer buy any of these food items (or from any of these vendors) simply because they have taken the "toy" away..

Sounds like a scary place to live.. I can only imagine what other brilliant ideas they have waiting in the wings.. Bag searches as people leave the grocery stores?

No not scary, as a native San Franciscan, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. In fact, there are so many wonderful and diverse places to eat here who cares about eating at McDonalds anyway.

 

[C.Ann]

No not scary, as a native San Franciscan, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. In fact, there are so many wonderful and diverse places to eat here who cares about eating at McDonalds anyway. San Franciscan kids don't need strip mall food.

I'm sorry - my comments are not directed at you - or anyone else not directly involved with this - ummmmm - "not-very-well-thought-out" plan..

While it's true that kids don't "need" strip mall food - I think it's a parents decision and simply removing the toy from a Happy Meal (or any of the other places mentioned) is a waste of time, money, and effort on the part of those proposing this idea..

No disrespect to you, but if this thing passes, I would really be concerned about what's "down the pike.."

 

[GoldenGate2]

I'm sorry - my comments are not directed at you - or anyone else not directly involved with this - ummmmm - "not-very-well-thought-out" plan..

While it's true that kids don't "need" strip mall food - I think it's a parents decision and simply removing the toy from a Happy Meal (or any of the other places mentioned) is a waste of time, money, and effort on the part of those proposing this idea..

No disrespect to you, but if this thing passes, I would really be concerned about what's "down the pike.."

OMG! What's next? Socialism!!!!!!

 

[diznygirl]

It's shocking that the intelligence level of whoever is pushing for this out there in CA is so low that they actually believe people will no longer buy any of these food items (or from any of these vendors) simply because they have taken the "toy" away..

Sounds like a scary place to live.. I can only imagine what other brilliant ideas they have waiting in the wings.. Bag searches as people leave the grocery stores?

I go for the Big Mac or the hamburgers. The toy is just gravy.

No not scary, as a native San Franciscan, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. In fact, there are so many wonderful and diverse places to eat here who cares about eating at McDonalds anyway.

Poor college students who visit your beautiful city but can't afford the fine dining. We spent the weekend eating the little burgers while enjoying the wonderful sights of your fair city.

Choice is good - especially inexpensive choices.

 

[hambirg]

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.

Yes, and there are still NO factual statistics as to why that is. It might be the inundation of chemicals. . maybe the introduction of technology and the fact that kids can sit for hours in front of the computer or tv without barely moving. My mom grew up on a farm. .. they drank whole milk, ate butter, red meat, fried chicken. .. it certainly wasn't a low fat diet. . but yet they weren't fat. . .SO???? I'm not willing lay all the blame at the feet of the occasional fast food meal without some hard evidence. . and so far. . eh. . there's not much.

Bottom line. .. you have to burn more calories than you consume to lose weight. . .less to gain weight. . and a happy medium to maintain. I think this recent Twinkie diet thing is a prime example. . .the guy lost weight and therefore made his numbers move in a healthy direction. . .all while eating Twinkies and Doritos. It's not always what you eat. . .hell. . you can gain weight on healthy foods!

I think this is probably a touchy subject with me. I just had a 29 year old friend die. . and it's the second one in a year. I can guarantee you both of them lived on egg whites, oatmeal, chicken breasts and green beans. . .so. The fact that they only ate clean, healthy food didn't have anything to do with health. BUT. . .the overall amount of calories sure did.

 

[C.Ann]

OMG! What's next? Socialism!!!!!!

I was trying to be polite in my response to you - I apologized - and basically voiced my opinion in a "kinder" way.. I'm sorry if that is not sufficient for you..

I will assume you are simply having a bad day/evening and leave you with my wishes that it improves..

 

[hambirg]

OMG! What's next? Socialism!!!!!!

No. . but have you seen the calorie counts of Starbucks drinks? I don't think all those obese San Franciscans have enough sense to not drink them. . .seeing as how they offer free wi-fi. No more free wi-fi at Starbucks!!!! That will keep those fatties away.


ETA-See how utterly stupid that logic is?

 

[minniecarousel]

Well, so glad that the SF Board of Supes is entertaining all of you across the country. It's such a non-issue out here, I had to read about it on the DIS.

You realize that we're talking about a "toy", right? I think a lot of people are either misreading or misinterpreting the ordinance.

I'll stay here. The 'burbs are OK. When I want wierd, I go into the Big City....works for me.

I still think my favorite California nanny-ism is the law that requires me to be told that touching almost anything made of flexible plastic may give me cancer!

Huh? Never heard of this. Can you explain?

 

[Geoff_M]

Huh? Never heard of this. Can you explain?

It's known as California Proposition 65. If you buy a computer with a power cord (due to the chemicals used to soften the plastic), it likely will have attached to it the following warning: "WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm." Check out the product description of this Disney DVD player.. The labels seem to be all over the place and imply that most things will give you cancer. The best ones are the versions that warn you to wash your hands after touching the product. The city of Palo Alto notes that even Christmas lights are deemed toxic per California law.

 

[Planogirl]

It's a silly law and won't change a thing. Kids will still eat happy meals.

I wonder about the play areas at the fast food restaurants though. Don't those also lure kids?

 

[diznygirl]

No. . but have you seen the calorie counts of Starbucks drinks? I don't think all those obese San Franciscans have enough sense to not drink them. . .seeing as how they offer free wi-fi. No more free wi-fi at Starbucks!!!! That will keep those fatties away.


ETA-See how utterly stupid that logic is?

LOL! That is so funny! The Supreme Government of the Mighty City of San Francisco couldn't do that - where would they have their meetings?

Well, so glad that the SF Board of Supes is entertaining all of you across the country. It's such a non-issue out here, I had to read about it on the DIS.

You realize that we're talking about a "toy", right? I think a lot of people are either misreading or misinterpreting the ordinance.

I'll stay here. The 'burbs are OK. When I want wierd, I go into the Big City....works for me.

Exactly, it's just a toy. It's a kid-sized meal with free entertainment. Parents all over this fine country love them for the few minutes of joy it brings to our kids while they eat their lunch.

And we curse the toys as they accumulate in our homes never to be played with again!

But seriously - the government has no business in this business.

 

[C.Ann]

It's a silly law and won't change a thing. Kids will still eat happy meals.

I wonder about the play areas at the fast food restaurants though. Don't those also lure kids?

Good point..

Exactly, it's just a toy. It's a kid-sized meal with free entertainment. Parents all over this fine country love them for the few minutes of joy it brings to our kids while they eat their lunch.

But seriously - the government has no business in this business.

And if people roll over on this, what will they come out with next?

 

[PaulaSB12]

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.

If the problem is being sedentary then surely homework must be cut back on. I have seen threads here where parents are complaining about the number of hours of homework their children have to do even in first grade. How on earth is a teenager supposed to be active if they have up to 6 hours of homework to do?

 

[mhsjax]

OMG! What's next? Socialism!!!!!!

deleted. not in the mood this am

 

[The Mystery Machine]

I think San Francisco is a rare bird with all the rules and laws anyway.

If you do some digging you may find that you wish that your community could get off their butts and do something.

Rather than put down everything, I tend to look at the whole picture.

Since when does giving a crap equate to socialism? I think what we have now is socialism if you want to be honest.

Heck we have to lay down and put up with all the crap esp. for public school. I mean whether his idea is crazy or not at least he is getting out there and doing something. I wish more of the public would actually get involved in their community.

 

[happygirl]

this is the most beyond dumb.

 

[Geoff_M]

I think San Francisco is a rare bird with all the rules and laws anyway.

If you do some digging you may find that you wish that your community could get off their butts and do something.

Here's the thing... I'm not a Libertarian and I believe that it can be a good thing when governments pass laws that are for the protection of the "greater good" (seat belt laws for example). But.... I think that such laws have to be based on a reasonable or demonstrable belief that they will actually "do something" to address a real problem. What I don't like are laws that are nothing more than mental ************ (they "feel good" but don't really accomplish much, if anything). I put things like SF's "Happy Meal Law", restaurant trans-fat bans, and California's Prop 65 in that category. There's no rational reason or empirical data to think that the dietary habit of people will measurably improve at all if you try and make a kid eat carrots and a low-fat grilled chicken salad in order to get a cheap toy or switch cooking oils in your restaurant's fryers. Likewise, it's absurd to think that cancers or birth defects will go down if people (as the City of Palo Alto, CA advises) only touch their Christmas lights where they've wrapped duct tape around the cords and wash their hands immediately afterward. You say "What's the harm? Better safe than sorry!" Well, there also often is a "cost of compliance" issue with such laws, so I'd rather that the law makers at the minimum look at things like relative risks and benefits before leaping.

Since when does giving a crap equate to socialism? I think what we have now is socialism if you want to be honest.

I agree that the it's a bit premature to cry "Socialism". It's nothing more than "Nanny State-ism".