San Francisco trying to ban Happy Meals

[LiberalPrincess]

YOu don't need any tobacco or alcohol to survive, and true you don't need happy meals to survive, but you do need food. Ok, how about this, diabetes, maybe we should regulate sugar and hey how about carbs, because they are finding that too many carbs can cause diabetes, so everyone give up that cereal, truth is you don't need it, or that bread for your sandwiches, forget rice and pasta. Again, where do you stop? Oh and by the way those carbs are very much so contributing to being over weight. I guess we should ban those.

And again, your line of where to stop regulating seems to be with food. For others (particularly in Europe) they found no need to regulate the drinking age so severely, so their line is different. And, as a previous poster mentioned, it is not food that is being restricted, it is the marketing of it. So, even less of an infringement on rights than the drinking age is.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

Sure...might make it more entertaining.

Only if hey share

Finally, some good ideas!

 

[C.Ann]

It is illegal for kids to smoke and drink in the US because of laws passed by legislators, it is not like it was in the Constitution (although Prohibition was added for a while which is interesting to add to this discussion). Again, what's the difference? Do you think that obesity is less of a problem than people dying of alcohol related diseases? The fact is, all of those things are bad for people. Yet, you are saying you have no issue with the laws about tobacco and liquor yet you do about food that is bad for you. That is your personal line, but they are absolutely comparable. Some people have a different line which is that obesity is such an issue that it is time to legislate solutions. Do I agree? Nope, but I don't see it as any different than Prohibition and the tobacco advertising rules.

Nice to see someone who is able to look at the "big picture".. It's all about control - regardless of the product involved (or in some cases, behavior/conduct - think HOA's; pat downs at the airports; or any other number of things).. People don't get upset until something has a direct impact on them - that they don't think is "fair"..

 

[mhsjax]

And again, your line of where to stop regulating seems to be with food. For others (particularly in Europe) they found no need to regulate the drinking age so severely, so their line is different. And, as a previous poster mentioned, it is not food that is being restricted, it is the marketing of it. So, even less of an infringement on rights than the drinking age is.

deleted

 

[mhsjax]

Nice to see someone who is able to look at the "big picture".. It's all about control - regardless of the product involved (or in some cases, behavior/conduct - think HOA's; pat downs at the airports; or any other number of things).. People don't get upset until something has a direct impact on them - that they don't think is "fair"..

REally, she is seeing the big picture. It is ok for a body of gov't to tell a business that they can't include a toy in a meal. Really? And it doesn't have an impact on me. I hate fast food and think it is evil, I still think it is wrong, always have and always will.

My point is that yes, we have an obesity problem, do you really think that banning a toy will help that? And where do they stop after that, banning cookies at WDW in the kids meals. Or buying french fried at the grocery store, and cereal with a toy in the box. That is my point.

 

[Geoff_M]

And there is nothing inherently wrong with alcohol in moderation. So, shall we start serving kids liquor at their 6th birthday party?

I'm not the one equating cheeseburgers with whiskey, so why would I be implying that?

 

[Magic Mom]

Just to look at it another way, why is it different than banning cigarette and liquor ads on network tv, or even establishing age restrictions for the purchase of tobacco and liquor? Or even the Mangini suit against RJ Reynolds Joe Camel ads supposedly targeting kids. The justification is that these things are bad for you, well, so are most fast food selections. What's the difference?

The difference is, they didn't target just one liquor company or one cigarette company.

SF targeted only MCDonalds. Are Burger King, Wendys and Taco Bell meals suddenly healthy for kids?

The bottom line is I should be able to choose what my child gets to eat, not the government.

 

[mhsjax]

The difference is, they didn't target just one liquor company or one cigarette company.

SF targeted only MCDonalds. Are Burger King, Wendys and Taco Bell meals suddenly healthy for kids?

The bottom line is I should be able to choose what my child gets to eat, not the government.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

I'm not the one equating cheeseburgers with whiskey, so why would I be implying that?

If your determination of whether something is bad for you is based on use in moderation, then why would we need a drinking age? After all, going on arguments here, parents should be able to make the decision about what is okay for their kids, not the government. Why does that only apply to food and not drink? Why should the government be allowed to legislate about one thing that is bad for you if abused and not another?

 

[Geoff_M]

And, as a previous poster mentioned, it is not food that is being restricted, it is the marketing of it.

So you really think that kid's need to be bribed with a small cheap toy to want to eat fast food?

 

[LiberalPrincess]

The difference is, they didn't target just one liquor company or one cigarette company.

SF targeted only MCDonalds. Are Burger King, Wendys and Taco Bell meals suddenly healthy for kids?

The bottom line is I should be able to choose what my child gets to eat, not the government.

This is incorrect. The ordinance is directed at any fast food restaurant that violates the rule. The ordinance prohibits toy giveaways in fast food children's meals that have more than 640 milligrams of sodium, 600 calories or 35 percent of their calories from fat.

 

[hambirg]

I think they should encourage happy meals - good portion control. Now, if they would only discourage extra value meals, and their 100 grams of fat!

Seriously, that's what I was thinking.

Does this mean no more crayons and children's menus at places like Red Robin? If that's their logic, than it should. How about no more pizza, burger's and chicken nuggets at places geared towards kids. . .the zoo. . .amusement parks. . Chuck E Cheese.

Of course, I think this is stupid. Parent's are free and unencumbered to say no. But I guess they think parents are too stupid to decide what their kids can eat.

 

[Geoff_M]

If your determination of whether something is bad for you is based on use in moderation, then why would we need a drinking age?

Who said that the legality of a product was based solely on it being inherently bad for you?

 

[Geoff_M]

This is incorrect. The ordinance is directed at any fast food restaurant that violates the rule. The ordinance prohibits toy giveaways in fast food children's meals that have more than 640 milligrams of sodium, 600 calories or 35 percent of their calories from fat.

So why was the practice of putting toys in boxes of Chocolate Coated Sugar Bomb cereal left unscathed? How about putting cartoon characters on boxes of Mac & Cheese? Anthropomorphic drink pitchers on packages of high-sugar artificially colored drink mixes? Should the Hamburglar be banned? No more talking colored candy coated chocolates with arms and legs?

The bottom line for me is that the last time I checked, I still control what my kids eat when we go to a restaurant or what we buy at the grocery. I do say "no", and quite often if you ask my 11 year old.

 

[hambirg]

This is incorrect. The ordinance is directed at any fast food restaurant that violates the rule. The ordinance prohibits toy giveaways in fast food children's meals that have more than 640 milligrams of sodium, 600 calories or 35 percent of their calories from fat.

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?

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?

 

[LiberalPrincess]

It's a fallacy to try and equate a McDonald's cheeseburger with a Marlboro. There's nothing inherently bad about eating fast food in moderation.

Who said that the legality of a product was based solely on it being inherently bad for you?

Actually, you were the one that brought up there being nothing inherently bad about eating fast food in moderation. My point is that the same holds true for alcohol. Yet the government felt the need to age restrict one and not the other.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

And actually, the nutritional value of some of these meals isn't that horrendous, especially if you replace the fries with apples (no dipping sauce) and go with water (or skim milk) instead of the empty calories in a soft drink.

 

[brerrabbit]

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.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

So why was the practice of putting toys in boxes of Chocolate Coated Sugar Bomb cereal left unscathed? How about putting cartoon characters on boxes of Mac & Cheese? Anthropomorphic drink pitchers on packages of high-sugar artificially colored drink mixes? Should the Hamburglar be banned?

You are trying to argue with me about how far these laws can go. That is my point, they have already gone too far in my opinion. You are making my argument for me. The difference is, I think the government crossed the line by age restricting alcohol and you don't seem to. People here are outraged about restricting marketing campaigns, but it has been done for years, just not for products that bother you. So, it is not the practice of the government regulating things that offends you, it is the specific products they are focusing on.

 

[Geoff_M]

The difference is, I think the government crossed the line by age restricting alcohol and you don't seem to.

When you can show me kids that have wrapped a car around a tree due to Happy Meal consumption, then I may see it your way.