San Francisco trying to ban Happy Meals

[usnuzuloose]

Gotta love CA don't ya? I swear, does anything normal come out of there?

I live in Ca and I hate it very much. I wish I could move, but it isnt that simple. Sigh.....

 

[hambirg]

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.

Not really. . .food won't impair your judgement. Even if we say that fast food is unhealthy. . .if a 7 year old sat down and ate as many Happy Meals as he could. . .he won't become intoxicated and eventually he will be full and stop. He might end up with a tummy ache, but he won't die. The same is not true is you gave that same 7yr old a couple bottles of Jim Beam. . .intoxicated, impaired judgement and possible alcohol poisoning. They're not really comparable. . .one is a poison and the other is simply a poor food choice with no immediate consequence.

 

[Geoff_M]

I live in Ca and I hate it very much. I wish I could move, but it isnt that simple. Sigh.....

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!

 

[mhsjax]

I live in Ca and I hate it very much. I wish I could move, but it isnt that simple. Sigh.....

I actually think it is very beautiful and secretly want to move out there, but I just have a hard time with some of the things that they try and do. And mostly my comments like this are pretty much related to the other end, the entertainment biz and the celebs out there. Just to me some strange ways of thinking. Seems to me that they have more important things to worry about.

 

[Geoff_M]

Actually, you were the one that brought up there being nothing inherently bad about eating fast food in moderation.

But that has nothing to do with the basis for legality, which was my question to you. My initial comment was in reference to equating a cheese burger to a cigarette.

Look, you're free to feel that minors should be allowed to buy liquor... and I'm free to assert that SF's new ordinance is nothing but more "feel-good" nanny-ism that will have zero effect on the dietary habits of minors within the city limits of that city. I'll also add that it's a logical "bridge too far" to try and equate the prohibition against minor sales of alcohol to Happy Meal toy prohibition.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

Not really. . .food won't impair your judgement. Even if we say that fast food is unhealthy. . .if a 7 year old sat down and ate as many Happy Meals as he could. . .he won't become intoxicated and eventually he will be full and stop. He might end up with a tummy ache, but he won't die. The same is not true is you gave that same 7yr old a couple bottles of Jim Beam. . .intoxicated, impaired judgement and possible alcohol poisoning. They're not really comparable. . .one is a poison and the other is simply a poor food choice with no immediate consequence.

The argument here by many is that parents should make the decisions for their children, not the government. So, the argument about giving a child bottles of Jim Beam doesn't make sense or address the point. And I can certainly find more evidence about the benefits of red wine in moderation than I can for fries in moderation.

 

[DisneyScraps]

ohhh thank you San Fransisco, I mean how on earth could I make the correct dietary choices for my child? Sheesh!

What is next? Telling us what kind of diapers we need for our kids?

Lisa

 

[LiberalPrincess]

But that has nothing to do with the basis for legality, which was my question to you. My initial comment was in reference to equating a cheese burger to a cigarette.

Because you skipped the alcohol part of my post and only focused in cigarettes. If your point is that the government should not legislate against things that could be bad for you, that argument should apply across the board. But, for most of you it doesn't. Because you have no issue with liquor and cigarettes being regulated both with age restrictions and marketing restrictions, just food. If the argument is that parents should decide for their children what is best, where does that argument go with alcohol? Suddenly, parents don't know what is best for their kids? Parents can be trusted to make nutritional choices (although childhood obesity has tripled in the past 30 years), but can't be trusted not to give their children pints of Jack Daniels? Again, many are arguing against regulation only for some things. That is just not consistent.

 

[hambirg]

The argument here by many is that parents should make the decisions for their children, not the government. So, the argument about giving a child bottles of Jim Beam doesn't make sense or address the point. And I can certainly find more evidence about the benefits of red wine in moderation than I can for fries in moderation.

That wasn't my point. The point was that you can't compare alcohol and food. Just like you can't compare prescription drugs and food. I think parent's are perfectly capable of making those decisions. However, the argument as to why the government would possibly want to have some regulations regarding things like alcohol. . .or prescription drugs is because they can be poisonous. Some food choices, while not healthy, don't have those kinds of immediate consequences.

 

[Geoff_M]

The argument here by many is that parents should make the decisions for their children, not the government.

However, lowering or removing the drinking age (as you suggest) would effectively remove parental involvement. Again, apples meet oranges!

 

[Geoff_M]

If your point is that the government should not legislate against things that could be bad for you, that argument should apply across the board.

Sorry, I don't buy straw man absolute-isms. And that wasn't my point to boot. Again... I was arguing against equivocation, not the basis for legality.

 

[Magic Mom]

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.

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.

 

[SAHDad]

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.

The meal also has to have at least .5 cups of fruit and .75 cups of vegetables.

My guess is that either the toys go away, or they get charged a token fee - $2 for the toy if sold on its own, or $.01 if part of the happy meal. It won't do a blasted thing, so another law will be passed to try and deal with the problem. And, when that doesn't work, they'll pass something else.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

However, lowering or removing the drinking age (as you suggest) would effectively remove parental involvement. Again, apples meet oranges!

How would it remove parental involvement? What involvement do parents have now? The government made the law. It is interesting to note that the US has one of the highest drinking ages in the world, yet also one of the worst problems with drunk driving. Some believe that is because the government has put such a taboo on drinking that it actually encourages abuse with the young.

 

[LukenDC]

People make choices about what to eat and drink and parents make those choices for their kids. I have yet to see a McDonald's commercial that suggests that eating McDonald's every day is good for you. Usually their commercials portray the family trip to McDonald's as a special treat. An occasional fast food meal is not a health hazard.

The tobacco companies were deliberately seeking to increase the level of addiction to their products and denying the health hazards associated with tobacco. They were being dishonest to consumers and deliberately endangering their health for profit. That is why the government took action against them and rightfully so in my opinion.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

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.

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.

 

[Geoff_M]

How would it remove parental involvement?

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.

 

[Geoff_M]

And there are people that believe that Happy Meals do harm children.

Vacuous argument... there are people that "believe" lots of things. That's not proof of anything.

 

[hambirg]

How would it remove parental involvement? What involvement do parents have now? The government made the law. It is interesting to note that the US has one of the highest drinking ages in the world, yet also one of the worst problems with drunk driving. Some believe that is because the government has put such a taboo on drinking that it actually encourages abuse with the young.

I have an answer for that one. My ex is German. . .very liberal drinking laws, but extremely stiff penalties for drunk driving. They revoke your driver's license for life. . .period. That coupled with the fact that not many youngsters have driver's licenses. They are expensive to get. . .over 2000 Euros I believe, and they have excellent public transportation. Most kids don't have cars for that reason. When he was a teen, they simply didn't drink and drive. . .they went out, got snockered and stumbled home on the S-Bahn.

I think all the circumstances here are different unless you live somewhere like NYC. Most teens here have licenses and cars. And if you live in say, Montana, you don't have that public transportation option.

ETA-And German youth. . .and pretty much anywhere else in Europe have just as many problems with youth drinking. . .except the drunk driving piece that I mentioned, and like I said. . that's more circumstantial than anything else.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

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.

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?