Gwenhwyfar Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 San Francisco bans Happy Meals The San Francisco, California, Board of Supervisors on Tuesday banned most McDonald's Happy Meals with toys, as they're now served. something about this bugs me. do we (you! :laugh: nah, i mean 'we as a society') really need this sort of...babysitting? hand holding? Big Nanny Lawmaker lookin' after all the little people? i don't know...anyone else get what i'm trying (and prolly failing - it's 5:20am and i've only had one cup of coffeeeee) to say here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.... Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Oh, Geez... :svengo: Doesn't our country have much bigger problems than Happy Meals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In The Great White North Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Is that even legal? Something about Interstate Commerce jumps to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mytwomonkeys Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 yes, i've seen that. it ticks me off. why not just make food more affordable. it's ridiculous when a happy meal is cheaper than a head of broccoli. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqr Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Nanny State arriving.... (Is anyone shocked that San Francisco is leading this wave?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie12345 Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Stupid! My own kids rarely get fast food, but it does happen every now and then. When I do give in, we skip the kids meals anyway b/c I'm not paying more for a junk toy. So it isn't even an actual deterrent, imo, regardless of right or wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarcyB Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Nope - I think it's a stupid ban, especially since healthy alternatives are already available for the parents to choose from, and because you can just buy a toy anyway..nothing is being fixed here. Not that the government needs to be in there to fix it. why not just make food more affordable. it's ridiculous when a happy meal is cheaper than a head of broccoli. Broccoli IS affordable, it's just that we've been so brainwashed by the commercial food industry feeding us slop that's 'affordable' and getting us so used to those prices, that healthy food looks so expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwenhwyfar Posted November 10, 2010 Author Share Posted November 10, 2010 (Is anyone shocked that San Francisco is leading this wave?) isn't san francisco supposed to be all about love & art & hair flowers? ok so that's a bit of a stereotype (but it IS what comes to mind when i hear "san francisco" ~ that and those neat looking trolley things) but really.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwenhwyfar Posted November 10, 2010 Author Share Posted November 10, 2010 Broccoli IS affordable, it's just that we've been so brainwashed by the commercial food industry feeding us slop that's 'affordable' and getting us so used to those prices, that healthy food looks so expensive. depends where you live ~ i just bought a tiny (and sad looking) head of broccoli the other day and it was $3. :glare: (not glaring at YOU - glaring at the green thing) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katemary63 Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Something about thisbothers you? Well, the very thought infuriates me! It's positively unamerican! Where did these people grow up? Who the heck do they think they are? Why don't they care about freedom? I find it insulting and offensive that there is even one person on the planet that feels that they have the right to control in this way what another parent feeds their kids. Sick! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gwenhwyfar Posted November 10, 2010 Author Share Posted November 10, 2010 Something about this bothers you? Well, the very thought infuriates me! It's positively unamerican! i'm canadian. "bothered" is pretty riled up for us. :p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katemary63 Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 i'm canadian. "bothered" is pretty riled up for us. :p :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Wow! They couldn't think of anything better to do with their time as publicly funded employees than this??? Faith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melinda in VT Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Crazy. Now, if they'd banned those hideous signs, I would get behind that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudoMom Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 i'm canadian. "bothered" is pretty riled up for us. :p :smilielol5: Well, I'm :patriot:, and this kind of things makes me insane(-er, my boys would argue). Shouldn't San Fran being frying (or baking, if they're more comfortable with that) bigger fish? I really, really don't need their help deciding what to feed my kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mom31257 Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 I think the old saying "give them an inch, and they'll take a mile" is true. The more control we hand over to the government, the more it will take. I just hope that other cities WILL NOT follow San Francisco's lead. Yes, people should feed their kids a healthy diet, but it isn't the government's job to make them. I could see them controlling what is offered in the schools because that is run by the government. We eat out fast food about once a week. I let the kids get what they want. We don't keep soda in our house, so they can even drink soda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 i'm canadian. "bothered" is pretty riled up for us. :p :lol: We must look like lunatics down here at times then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lolly Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Stupid! My own kids rarely get fast food, but it does happen every now and then. When I do give in, we skip the kids meals anyway b/c I'm not paying more for a junk toy. So it isn't even an actual deterrent, imo, regardless of right or wrong. :DI often get the kids meal for myself because it is cheaper than getting the items without the toy! I wonder if they price things differently here? As far as the whole issue goes, it is all absolutely ridiculous. Unfortunately, I feel it is just a sign of things to come. I don't think it will be too far down the road before what we eat will be regulated in some way. After all, it will keep the healthcare costs down that the government is paying.:tongue_smilie: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Goldwater Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Nanny State arriving.... (Is anyone shocked that San Francisco is leading this wave?) NOPE, not surprised...(now watch me blow up the thread :tongue_smilie:) I think this all started with all the anti-smoking rhetoric some 10-20 yrs ago, leading to outright smoking bans in public places, and even some laws in some cities regulating your smoking in your own house. The same arguments have been used to justify the state intrusion into food choices, now. JMHO, standing back and ducking... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoPlaceLikeHome Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 (edited) NOPE, not surprised...(now watch me blow up the thread :tongue_smilie:) I think this all started with all the anti-smoking rhetoric some 10-20 yrs ago, leading to outright smoking bans in public places, and even some laws in some cities regulating your smoking in your own house. The same arguments have been used to justify the state intrusion into food choices, now. JMHO, standing back and ducking... Where do they ban smoking in your own home? I never heard of this. As for banning smoking in public places I think this a good idea since second hand smoke is harmful. As for the happy meal thing I do think it is silly even though, in general, I do not like marketing to children. The bottom line though is that parents need to parent:) Edited November 10, 2010 by priscilla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mytwomonkeys Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Broccoli IS affordable, it's just that we've been so brainwashed by the commercial food industry feeding us slop that's 'affordable' and getting us so used to those prices, that healthy food looks so expensive. no, produce is not affordable. but potato chips are. we eat organic & it is not cheap. meat & produce can be quite expensive. not sure where you live, but i have to drive an hour to charlotte to buy food that isn't crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 really? They have that much time on their hands, to make up these laws instead of anything else important? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 NOPE, not surprised...(now watch me blow up the thread :tongue_smilie:) I think this all started with all the anti-smoking rhetoric some 10-20 yrs ago, leading to outright smoking bans in public places, and even some laws in some cities regulating your smoking in your own house. The same arguments have been used to justify the state intrusion into food choices, now. JMHO, standing back and ducking... You're not wrong. That said, I know the president of a tobacco company and he said that all of the stuff that came out about them knowing how addictive it was before hand? Was all true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelanieM Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Reading this, it doesn't sound like a ban at all. It sounds like if they want to have toys, it has to be a more nutritionally complete meal so that the toys aren't enticing kids to buy complete junk. Though I have to say, I personally would prefer McDonald's never offered another toy again. Little plastic pieces of junk... environmentally, we could do so much better. So I guess I'm one of those people that would be in the 'down with the toys' camp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 What? Will there be underground running of Happy Meals? Will the Hamburglar be involved? :glare: ...just follow the trail of golden deep friend mcNuggets to the door in the alley. Seriously? when I'm sick, I love to eat a happy meal, weird I know, but it's my comfort food. I'm all for smoking bans in public because it affects others around you. If your toddler wants a toy with their meal, it's none of my business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoPlaceLikeHome Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Reading this, it doesn't sound like a ban at all. It sounds like if they want to have toys, it has to be a more nutritionally complete meal so that the toys aren't enticing kids to buy complete junk. Though I have to say, I personally would prefer McDonald's never offered another toy again. Little plastic pieces of junk... environmentally, we could do so much better. So I guess I'm one of those people that would be in the 'down with the toys' camp. :iagree: I agree that these toys just add to our garbage problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_l_e_0..Q_c Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 :lol: We must look like lunatics down here at times then. That's putting it mildly... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Goldwater Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Where do they ban smoking in your own home? I never heard of this. There are hundreds, here's an example... http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_16417771 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impish Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 :lol: We must look like lunatics down here at times then. Yes. Yes you do. :tongue_smilie::smilielol5::leaving: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Goldwater Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 You're not wrong. That said, I know the president of a tobacco company and he said that all of the stuff that came out about them knowing how addictive it was before hand? Was all true. I understand. But it's a LEGAL product and one of the only ones that is required to tell you that it is addictive and eventually lethal after a lifetime of use... My point is whether or not a FREE country needs LAWS to micro-manage our choices in life. And IMHO the zeal to virtually ban smoking (cause no-one likes it) from so many public places has paved the way for a continuation of intrusion in other areas of our lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXMomof4 Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 I think the old saying "give them an inch, and they'll take a mile" is true. The more control we hand over to the government, the more it will take. I just hope that other cities WILL NOT follow San Francisco's lead. Yes, people should feed their kids a healthy diet, but it isn't the government's job to make them. I could see them controlling what is offered in the schools because that is run by the government. We eat out fast food about once a week. I let the kids get what they want. We don't keep soda in our house, so they can even drink soda. Other cities are already controlling food - isn't it New York that limits trans-fats in foods? It's funny - a friend here just put her kids in school for the first time. Everyone at the school is offered free breakfast and her dd loves going up there. My friend has gone with her a few times and the choices are (get ready) honey bun biscuit with frosting fruit loops (generic) That's it. Seriously. It's just about enough to make a person cry some days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXMomof4 Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 I understand. But it's a LEGAL product and one of the only ones that is required to tell you that it is addictive and eventually lethal after a lifetime of use... My point is whether or not a FREE country needs LAWS to micro-manage our choices in life. And IMHO the zeal to virtually ban smoking (cause no-one likes it) from so many public places has paved the way for a continuation of intrusion in other areas of our lives. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leav97 Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 I understand. But it's a LEGAL product and one of the only ones that is required to tell you that it is addictive and eventually lethal after a lifetime of use... My point is whether or not a FREE country needs LAWS to micro-manage our choices in life. And IMHO the zeal to virtually ban smoking (cause no-one likes it) from so many public places has paved the way for a continuation of intrusion in other areas of our lives. I would argue that based on the current health of our population that yes, we do need LAWS to micro-manage peoples choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 I understand. But it's a LEGAL product and one of the only ones that is required to tell you that it is addictive and eventually lethal after a lifetime of use... My point is whether or not a FREE country needs LAWS to micro-manage our choices in life. And IMHO the zeal to virtually ban smoking (cause no-one likes it) from so many public places has paved the way for a continuation of intrusion in other areas of our lives. :iagree:The ban on smoking didn't do much but tick off smokers. What has had an effect on smoking is the public/societal norms changed. Everyone got healthy, from the rock stars to the politicians. The public awareness campaigner worked for a lot of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarcyB Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 depends where you live ~ i just bought a tiny (and sad looking) head of broccoli the other day and it was $3. :glare: (not glaring at YOU - glaring at the green thing) But, is that in season broccoli that hasn't been shipped in from Mexico or somewhere else round the world? That's the thing. And with more and more people eating non-food (i.e fast food), REAL food prices tend to increase, if they aren't subsidized, and farmers don't get paid enough, as it is, for growing real food. I have a BIG soapbox about this whole issue and have a hard time with not jumping up on it constantly shouting out to the world LOL. So..to me, if people would go back to eating real food and eating less processed food, eating seasonally so it's not shipped from around the world, food would end up costing less in the long run because it would cost less to produce and less to store and less to 'fake' it. :stepping off soapbox now (and there was great rejoicing) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Goldwater Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 I'm all for smoking bans in public because it affects others around you. If your toddler wants a toy with their meal, it's none of my business. That's my point, though...we allowed lawmakers to basicallyBAN smokers first, now we're allowing lawmakers to BAN certain kinds of food...slippery slope, see? What's next? Not to hijack, but if we end up with socialized/govt. paid medicine (we already have it with medicare/medicade/S-chip), where we all pay, it DOES affect me if someone else eats in an unhealthy fashion, since I'm a taxpayer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 (edited) I understand. But it's a LEGAL product and one of the only ones that is required to tell you that it is addictive and eventually lethal after a lifetime of use... My point is whether or not a FREE country needs LAWS to micro-manage our choices in life. And IMHO the zeal to virtually ban smoking (cause no-one likes it) from so many public places has paved the way for a continuation of intrusion in other areas of our lives. I don't like the laws, either, but I HATE walking through people's smoke. Three of my kids have asthma and I choke. I wouldn't eat near someone smoking, and the smoke traveled from the smoking side to the non smoking. Yes, you should have the freedom to smoke, and I should also have the freedom to not breathe your smoke. The difference is that a happy meal is directly ingested. I am not eating your grease when you buy one. :001_smile: BUT I am paying higher medical premiums because most of the people choose (or are unable) to eat non healthy foods. Personally, I think this was a flank attack on McDonalds. This is why true Liberatariaisim is pipe dream. No one would check the ginormous companies that could care less about the saftey/health of the people. A corporation doesn't have a conscious, they just want to make $ and they'll kill you to get it. Edited November 10, 2010 by justamouse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brigitte Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Nanny State arriving.... (Is anyone shocked that San Francisco is leading this wave?) :iagree: On the one hand, I am not the least bit surprised. On the other, I makes me worry about what is coming next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudoMom Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 That's putting it mildly... Yes. Yes you do.:tongue_smilie::smilielol5::leaving: :001_tt2: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Goldwater Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 I would argue that based on the current health of our population that yes, we do need LAWS to micro-manage peoples choices. It all comes down to 'who owns you.' If YOU own you, then you have a right to be healthy or unhealthy, etc. If the STATE owns you, then they WILL micromanage your choices to the betterment of the state, and your rights are secondary. It's the core issue, a deep philosophical question, and it's well-worth debating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoPlaceLikeHome Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 There are hundreds, here's an example... http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_16417771 The article refers to banning smoking in apartments, condos, and town homes which I do not think is unreasonable since there are other people in the building. I just went house hunting at some condos and some of them smelled like ashtrays in the hallways before I even saw the inside of any condos:ack2: I also think it is safer not to have people smoking in the same building IMO. They could always buy a single home IMO. Can you tell I hate smoking as an ex-smoker? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamee Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Reading this, it doesn't sound like a ban at all. It sounds like if they want to have toys, it has to be a more nutritionally complete meal so that the toys aren't enticing kids to buy complete junk. Though I have to say, I personally would prefer McDonald's never offered another toy again. Little plastic pieces of junk... environmentally, we could do so much better. So I guess I'm one of those people that would be in the 'down with the toys' camp. :iagree:My kids have been known to just give the toys back or not accept them at all if it's something they're not interested in--which is quite often since they're not into the whole Japanese anime/Pokemon thing and that seems to be the most common out here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 I would argue that based on the current health of our population that yes, we do need LAWS to micro-manage peoples choices. No, we don't need laws. We need education. We need quick and easy alternatives. What place does one drive-through on the way home from work to pick up quick healthy food? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mytwomonkeys Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 So..to me, if people would go back to eating real food and eating less processed food, eating seasonally so it's not shipped from around the world, food would end up costing less in the long run because it would cost less to produce and less to store and less to 'fake' it. yes, i totally and completely agree with you. amen & amen. but that is a very big IF, and unfortunately, processed food, produce, and meat (with the most horrid regulations) are still being consumed because it is the most affordable. families usually budget & only have X amount of dollars. they need to buy the most food for the least amount of money. it really stinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 No, we don't need laws. We need education. We need quick and easy alternatives. What place does one drive-through on the way home from work to pick up quick healthy food? No we don't need laws, but I don't think people care. Around here people KNOW about these things, they know about transfats, HFCS, about eating real food. We have SLOW movements here in our county and farmers markets in every town-not to mention farmers who will sell to you direct via CSA or a store in their barns. People know, they just don't want to change unless they're having a heart attack, obese, have diabetes and the Dr is looking at them telling them if they don't stop, they'll die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 i'm canadian. "bothered" is pretty riled up for us. :p that's cuz the alcohol content in your beer is higher. melllllllooooooowwwwww..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leav97 Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 It all comes down to 'who owns you.' If YOU own you, then you have a right to be healthy or unhealthy, etc. If the STATE owns you, then they WILL micromanage your choices to the betterment of the state, and your rights are secondary. It's the core issue, a deep philosophical question, and it's well-worth debating. But the problem is the decisions you make impact everyone around you. One of the reasons health care costs in this country are increasing is the overall health of the population is decreasing. When the costs of your health care is passed on to those around you (which already happens even without health care reform) and the national deficit is climbing the government should want a healthier population. The health of the population is getting bad enough that the military is starting to worry that there won't be enough people available to serve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 No we don't need laws, but I don't think people care. Around here people KNOW about these things, they know about transfats, HFCS, about eating real food. We have SLOW movements here in our county and farmers markets in every town-not to mention farmers who will sell to you direct via CSA or a store in their barns. People know, they just don't want to change unless they're having a heart attack, obese, have diabetes and the Dr is looking at them telling them if they don't stop, they'll die. DH is a tech in a cath lab. They have had patients DEAD on the table, brought them back and the patients say something like: "But that wasn't like a real heart attack, right?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcconnellboys Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Sure! We little peons are too incompetent as a society to look after ourselves. Certainly we need food police, toy police, school police.... No! Better: police to take our children from us at an early age, say right after birth, to raise them "properly" since we're incapable of doing it ourselves.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Goldwater Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 I don't like the laws, either, but I HATE walking through people's smoke. Three of my kids have asthma and I choke. I wouldn't eat near someone smoking, and the smoke traveled from the smoking side to the non smoking. Yes, you should have the freedom to smoke, and I should also have the freedom to not breathe your smoke. I personally hate it too, and understand completely with your children's health. The difference is that a happy meal is directly ingested. I am not eating your grease when you buy one. :001_smile: BUT I am paying higher medical premiums because most of the people choose (or are unable) to eat non healthy foods. You get it.:) And you are welcome to any left-over grease of mine if you like;) Personally, I think this was a flank attack on McDonalds. I suspect this is true, but have no proof (yet). This is why true Liberatariaisim is pipe dream. No one would check the ginormous companies that could care less about the saftey/health of the people. A corporation doesn't have a conscious, they just want to make $ and they'll kill you to get it. In fact, corporations BY LAW have a fiduciary duty to make money, ideally within the law, but not always in practice :001_huh: All excellent points... For me, it's a question of whether or not the force of law needs to be brought to bear on the life-style choices of free citizens. There are other lifestyle choices that bear considerably more risk to health (than fast food) as well, but are currently not subject to any regulation at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.