city "bans" fast food meals w/toys

[TXMary2]

Yes but don't you think marketing to children is exploiting them?

 

No, because generally children don't have money. Someone else already said it, the parents are the ones making the purchases. Marketing to children is nothing new. When I was a kid all the gum and candy was at my eye level at the grocery checkout line - still is in the same spot and now my 6 year old does the same thing I did. He asks for gum and candy and guess what? I say NO 9 time out of 10.

[wapiti]

Yes but don't you think marketing to children is exploiting them?

 

Do you think that all marketing to children should be banned? And how would that even be determined? Just thinking out loud...

[HRAAB]

Oh good grief! That's all I can think to say right now.

[unsinkable]

Now that I can agree with. Cajones for everyone! :D

 

no thanks. I wouldn't be able to walk. Can you make mine retractable? :D

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

No, because generally children don't have money. Someone else already said it, the parents are the ones making the purchases. Marketing to children is nothing new. When I was a kid all the gum and candy was at my eye level at the grocery checkout line - still is in the same spot and now my 6 year old does the same thing I did. He asks for gum and candy and guess what? I say NO 9 time out of 10.

 

yes, I did say that in a previous post that I do not necessarily agree with this and that parents need to parent their children. OTOH I am a little uneasy with marketing to children.

[Spy Car]

no thanks. I wouldn't be able to walk. Can you make mine retractable? :D

 

There is a technique :D

 

Bill

[katemary63]

Do those come for free with the broccoli?

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[MBM]

Now I'm wondering what compelled me to buy that delicious apple fritter from Starbucks that I just wolfed down? I didn't get a toy, but perhaps it was the jazz.

 

Besides, everyone knows it's impossible to surpass the era of Happy Meal Toy Perfection that Inspector Gadget created. After that, none of my kids were interested in them anymore.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Do you think that all marketing to children should be banned? And how would that even be determined? Just thinking out loud...

 

I am unsure what the answer is but there millions and millions being spent to market to and influence children.

 

Someone recently posted a pbs show on all of the marketing towards children and it was an eye opener to say the least. I will try to find and post it.

 

That said, I still think parents need to parent and lay down the law within reason so to speak:)

[Spy Car]

yes, I did say that in a previous post that I do not necessarily agree with this and that parents need to parent their children. OTOH I am a little uneasy with marketing to children.

 

For good cause.

 

We stopped cigarette manufactures from marketing to children with things like Joe Camel, because marketing to children "works."

 

I know none of the parents here feed their children "Happy Meals" (heaven forbid) but I know lots of kids who seem to get these as a regular part of their diets. The screaming for the toy gets indulged in some quarters.

 

And look at what is happening in our society. The rates of obesity and type II diabetes are shocking. And it is due to diet. These are not "airy-fairy" concerns, but a response to a demonstrable threat to the health of this nation's children.

 

Bill

[HRAAB]

 

I know none of the parents here feed their children "Happy Meals" (heaven forbid) but I know lot's of kids who seem to get these as a regular part of their diets. The screaming for the toy gets indulged in some quarters.

 

Bill

 

Our children get to choose whatever they want to eat on their birthdays. We have several times been requested to buy them Happy Meals, which we happily did. Of course, the next day it was brown rice and beans again.

[Spy Car]

Our children get to choose whatever they want to eat on their birthdays. We have several times been requested to buy them Happy Meals, which we happily did. Of course, the next day it was brown rice and beans again.

 

Which is great. But it also shows just how effective McDonalds is in luring in even those children whose parents raise them on healthful foods. They are geniuses at marketing. But the product they feed to children is unhealthful.

 

Bill

[TXMomof4]

Oreos aren't healthy, brownies aren't healthy, potato chips aren't healthy, fruit loops aren't healthy....

 

There's a list a hundred miles long of things that aren't healthy and there are parents who feed their children these things every day. Should those be banned also?

 

ETA: How about taking relatively healthy things and cooking them in an unhealthy manner. Okra is healthy, but the only way my kids like it is breaded and fried. Should that be banned? Where do you stop regulating to prevent poor decisions by a portion of the population?

Edited November 10, 2010 by TXMomof4

[Mommy22alyns]

I heartily disagree with this. I don't need the government to parent my kids; I can do that on my own thankyouverymuch. :glare:

[TXMary2]

I buy my kid Happy Meals every once in a while. He does like the toy. It isn't exactly genius marketing. Kids like toys. Wow. Who knew?

[Barry Goldwater]

If I can figure out how to deep fry a Happy Meal (toy & all) and put it on a stick, I'll be a millionaire!!

 

Nanny states don't accomplish their "stated goals" anyway. It assumes our 'betters' know better than us (they don't). They've been telling us how to live for quite some time now...yet, we're still all fatties, apparently, according to some PP...doesn't that tell anyone anything?

 

I'll take liberty instead.

[Joy at Home]

For good cause.

 

We stopped cigarette manufactures from marketing to children with things like Joe Camel, because marketing to children "works."

 

I know none of the parents here feed their children "Happy Meals" (heaven forbid) but I know lots of kids who seem to get these as a regular part of their diets. The screaming for the toy gets indulged in some quarters.

 

And look at what is happening in our society. The rates of obesity and type II diabetes are shocking. And it is due to diet. These are not "airy-fairy" concerns, but a response to a demonstrable threat to the health of this nation's children.

 

Bill

 

Mine do when *I* allow it as their PARENT. It our decision, not yours, not governments. End of story.

[Barry Goldwater]

These are not "airy-fairy" concerns, but a response to a demonstrable threat to the health of this nation's children.

 

Bill

 

...I thought they were my children...God did give them to me and DW to raise, after all...my mistake, I guess.

[Spy Car]

Mine do when *I* allow it as their PARENT. It our decision, not yours, not governments. End of story.

 

San Francisco did not ban the food. They banned the marketing to children through toys as inducements in conjunction with very unhealthful "food" choices. You can still purchase these unhealthful items for your children if that is the choice you want to make.

 

Bill

[MelanieM]

Oreos aren't healthy, brownies aren't healthy, potato chips aren't healthy, fruit loops aren't healthy....

 

There's a list a hundred miles long of things that aren't healthy and there are parents who feed their children these things every day. Should those be banned also?

 

 

Nobody is banning the food from Happy Meals, so this isn't entirely relevant. However, I will say that there are certainly days when I think the world would be better if there was no manufacturing of any of that garbage. But that's merely because *I* would be less likely to eat it if it didn't exist! (Though in reality I'm all for people having whatever choices they want.)

 

Priscilla, I'm with you in my discomfort around marketing to children, and I have no problem with restrictions around such things. In fact, I think it would be even better if there were a blanket statement that applied such marketing restrictions to all food items.

[mo2]

I know none of the parents here feed their children "Happy Meals" (heaven forbid)

 

Are you serious? My kids get Happy Meals...but not every day. Just like we eat pancakes loaded with butter and syrup....but not everyday. And we eat chocolate chip cookies....but not every day. And my husband drinks beer....but not every day. It's all about moderation. None of us are obese.

 

You'd probably be shocked to know that we still fry our french fries in lard at our house. :lol:

[mom2att]

I know none of the parents here feed their children "Happy Meals" (heaven forbid) but I know lots of kids who seem to get these as a regular part of their diets. The screaming for the toy gets indulged in some quarters.

 

 

I must not be "here" then. I wonder where I am???

 

If "a regular part of their diets" is maybe once a week, I guess I'm really in trouble.

 

If we ever go to San Fran, I think we'll skip the Happy Meal and make it Big Macs all around instead. That should satisfy the health police ;-)

[Stacy in NJ]

It takes no effort on the part of the local politicians to ban these toys. It costs them nothing and requires nothing from them. Why not try actually being useful to your constituents by doing something that actually addresses the issue of childhood obesity? Reduced cost sports classes for children with weight issues? More recess time at the local ps? Healthy food served at the ps? All of those things would actually cost money, and their benefits could be debated, but they might actually help someone.

 

So, so selfsatisfied and so lazy.....

[mo2]

San Francisco did not ban the food. They banned the marketing to children through toys as inducements in conjunction with very unhealthful "food" choices. You can still purchase these unhealthful items for your children if that is the choice you want to make.

 

Bill

 

Just like we can choose not to purchase them even if they come with a toy. Should the toys be banned, or should parents have more willpower?

[Barry Goldwater]

 

You'd probably be shocked to know that we still fry our french fries in lard at our house. :lol:

 

:drool5:

[MelanieM]

I don't think anybody complaining about this just doesn't get it and thinks that they've banned Happy Meals. :confused:

 

Based on all the comments here about banned foods, it appears as if people do indeed have this impression.

[MBM]

The fries ultimately get them coming back for more.

 

Maybe the government should offer toys with purchases of vegetables and fruit?

[Joy at Home]

San Francisco did not ban the food. They banned the marketing to children through toys as inducements in conjunction with very unhealthful "food" choices. You can still purchase these unhealthful items for your children if that is the choice you want to make.

 

Bill

 

I was responding to the judgment you seem to pass on parents who feed this "poison" to their children. Marketing to children or not, it's the parent who makes the decision. If they choose to buy fast food for their child, they'll do it with or without a trinket.

[mo2]

I was responding to the judgment you seem to pass on parents who feed this "poison" to their children. Marketing to children or not, it's the parent who makes the decision. If they choose to buy fast food for their child, they'll do it with or without a trinket.

:iagree: On the days that we eat fast food, it's not because of the toy. It's because we have been out running around all day to appointments, errands, etc, and we want something...welll...fast.

[MelanieM]

It takes no effort on the part of the local politicians to ban these toys. It costs them nothing and requires nothing from them. Why not try actually being useful to your constituents by doing something that actually addresses the issue of childhood obesity? Reduced cost sports classes for children with weight issues? More recess time at the local ps? Healthy food served at the ps? All of those things would actually cost money, and their benefits could be debated, but they might actually help someone.

 

So, so selfsatisfied and so lazy.....

 

Well, there are two things that could come of this new regulation. 1) McDonalds will stop selling Happy Meals with toys or 2) McDonalds will change their Happy Meals to include a more nutrient rich meal so they can still include the toys. I don't think they're going to give up the very big money they get from toy advertising, therefore this "lazy" move on the part of the politicians is likely to result in more healthy food options at fast food restaurants. That might result in better diets for the children who do eat in such places on a regular basis which should have an impact on childhood obesity in as much as this is a related cause. Seems a reasonable enough approach for them to take, really.

[mo2]

:drool5:

 

 

Too bad it's only 2 or 3 times a year!

[Spy Car]

I was responding to the judgment you seem to pass on parents who feed this "poison" to their children. Marketing to children or not, it's the parent who makes the decision. If they choose to buy fast food for their child, they'll do it with or without a trinket.

 

Perhaps they will make the same poor food choices. Maybe they will do better without a child screaming for the toy. I don't know for sure.

 

I do think limiting the marketing to children of such unhealthful meals is a very good idea. It does leave the "toy option" for "meals" that comply with minimal standards of nutrition. Hopefully it encourages McDonalds to improve their options.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Well, there are two things that could come of this new regulation. 1) McDonalds will stop selling Happy Meals with toys or 2) McDonalds will change their Happy Meals to include a more nutrient rich meal so they can still include the toys. I don't think they're going to give up the very big money they get from toy advertising, therefore this "lazy" move on the part of the politicians is likely to result in more healthy food options at fast food restaurants. That might result in better diets for the children who do eat in such places on a regular basis which should have an impact on childhood obesity in as much as this is a related cause. Seems a reasonable enough approach for them to take, really.

 

That's right!

 

Bill

[katemary63]

Well, there are two things that could come of this new regulation. 1) McDonalds will stop selling Happy Meals with toys or 2) McDonalds will change their Happy Meals to include a more nutrient rich meal so they can still include the toys. I don't think they're going to give up the very big money they get from toy advertising, therefore this "lazy" move on the part of the politicians is likely to result in more healthy food options at fast food restaurants. That might result in better diets for the children who do eat in such places on a regular basis which should have an impact on childhood obesity in as much as this is a related cause. Seems a reasonable enough approach for them to take, really.

 

Sorry but....:ack2:

[mom2att]

Well, there are two things that could come of this new regulation. 1) McDonalds will stop selling Happy Meals with toys or 2) McDonalds will change their Happy Meals to include a more nutrient rich meal so they can still include the toys. I don't think they're going to give up the very big money they get from toy advertising, therefore this "lazy" move on the part of the politicians is likely to result in more healthy food options at fast food restaurants. That might result in better diets for the children who do eat in such places on a regular basis which should have an impact on childhood obesity in as much as this is a related cause. Seems a reasonable enough approach for them to take, really.

 

You can already choose apples instead of fries, juice or milk (or there's always water) instead of soda. My son used to get a plain cheese sandwich (bun & cheese only), apples, and milk as his Happy Meal. Barring the fact that it's white bread, processed cheese, and apples and milk that are not organic, it seems like this meal would fit the guidelines. Maybe if he ordered that in San Fran he could still get the toy . . .

 

The point is that the healthier choices are out there, but people have to choose them. McD's isn't going to offer something that won't sell, and their crowd isn't hankering for menu items that include hummus and bok choy on a whole wheat pita.

 

Stood in line at Wal Mart today behind a guy buying all kinds of junk with his EBT card. What are they doing about that in San Francisco? If parents can choose what to buy for their kids with the government's money at Wal Mart, why limit what their own money can buy at McDonalds?

[MelanieM]

Sorry but....:ack2:

 

No apologies necessary... gagging perfectly acceptable. lol! Obviously if you believe there shouldn't be any regulation at all then you wouldn't agree with this, either. And I can respect that. I was simply pointing out that if the government is going to step in and do something to help 'regulate' childhood obesity, then this is as reasonable an approach as any other regulation suggested in the post I was replying to.

[Stacy in NJ]

Well, there are two things that could come of this new regulation. 1) McDonalds will stop selling Happy Meals with toys or 2) McDonalds will change their Happy Meals to include a more nutrient rich meal so they can still include the toys. I don't think they're going to give up the very big money they get from toy advertising, therefore this "lazy" move on the part of the politicians is likely to result in more healthy food options at fast food restaurants. That might result in better diets for the children who do eat in such places on a regular basis which should have an impact on childhood obesity in as much as this is a related cause. Seems a reasonable enough approach for them to take, really.

 

Sorry, but it's not. There are already healthy food choices at McDonalds. Parents and children choose the less healthy options because they like the food better. Just because you replace french fries with apples slices doesn't mean the kid will actually eat them. If parents choose to buy Happy Meals regularly for the children, do you think their other daily food choices are any better? If the local pols are really concerned about the health of the children within the community, there are multiple ways to make a positive impact that doesn't treat the customers at McDonalds like infants.

 

I love the way our betters are trying to trick us into eating the way they want us to by blaming those awful corporations and their evil toys that seduce the simple minds of innocent children.

 

Ugg, I'd rather be treated like an adult and would rather everyone else, even those with obese children, be treated as adults as well.

[Murphy101]

Or is it that people that are against this regulation are against regulations in general?

 

Most of the time, yes.

 

I'm curious if you also think it inappropriate to have regulations around the use of the words 'healthy' or 'organic' or 'low fat' on packaging of food items? These types of restrictions currently exist so that companies cannot use whatever phrases they like to market their foods unless it meets certain criteria. Is that also an issue, in your mind?

 

See now, that I don't have a problem with. It is nothing more than making sure they are being clear in what they are providing. The label should be clear and have honest meaning. I don't have a problem with that.

 

Yes but don't you think marketing to children is exploiting them?

 

Nope. Not most of the time. Parents too lazy to tell their kid no and explain the ad is full of BS need to quit griping to the govt nanny and start parenting.

 

Problem solved.

 

No, because generally children don't have money. Someone else already said it, the parents are the ones making the purchases. Marketing to children is nothing new. When I was a kid all the gum and candy was at my eye level at the grocery checkout line - still is in the same spot and now my 6 year old does the same thing I did. He asks for gum and candy and guess what? I say NO 9 time out of 10.

 

Yes. And so are the sugary cereals and spaghetti-os and white bread and pop and koolaid and chocolate milk.

 

And look at what is happening in our society. The rates of obesity and type II diabetes are shocking. And it is due to diet. These are not "airy-fairy" concerns, but a response to a demonstrable threat to the health of this nation's children.

 

Sure they are legit concerns. And you know what my dh's endoronolgoist says about? Bar none the reason he stopped pediatric care was because the kids eat what the parents eat and the parents just don't give enough of a d@mn to change their lifestyle and you cannot make them do it. It is very rare that he gets a type 2 10 year old with skinny healthy parents. Yes, some of it is that healthy food is more expensive, but mostly it's a refusal to say no and a refusal to deny themselves what they crave.

 

Oreos aren't healthy, brownies aren't healthy, potato chips aren't healthy, fruit loops aren't healthy....

 

There's a list a hundred miles long of things that aren't healthy and there are parents who feed their children these things every day. Should those be banned also?

 

ETA: How about taking relatively healthy things and cooking them in an unhealthy manner. Okra is healthy, but the only way my kids like it is breaded and fried. Should that be banned? Where do you stop regulating to prevent poor decisions by a portion of the population?

 

Well. That'd cure us of ever eating okra again. That'd the ONLY way most of us would ever touch it. The others only eat it pickled.:ack2:

 

It takes no effort on the part of the local politicians to ban these toys. It costs them nothing and requires nothing from them. Why not try actually being useful to your constituents by doing something that actually addresses the issue of childhood obesity? Reduced cost sports classes for children with weight issues? More recess time at the local ps? Healthy food served at the ps? All of those things would actually cost money, and their benefits could be debated, but they might actually help someone.

 

So, so selfsatisfied and so lazy.....

:iagree:

 

 

Well, there are two things that could come of this new regulation. 1) McDonalds will stop selling Happy Meals with toys or 2) McDonalds will change their Happy Meals to include a more nutrient rich meal so they can still include the toys. I don't think they're going to give up the very big money they get from toy advertising, therefore this "lazy" move on

the part of the politicians is likely to result in more healthy food options at fast food restaurants. That might result in better diets for the children who do eat in such places on a regular basis which should have an impact on childhood obesity in as much as this is a related cause. Seems a reasonable enough approach for them to take, really.

 

Or more likely IMO, option 3: they will offer the Happy Meals same as always, maybe slightly cheaper and charge the difference between the new reduced price happy meal and the old price for the optional toy. That would be perfectly legal, and those who don't want the toy would actually get their happy meals cheaper than before. I actually hope that is exactly what they do.

 

So many things this could spread to...

 

Make it illegal for grocery stores to give away a free cookie to kiddies in the bakery.

 

Suckers at the bank.

 

Halloween

 

Easter

 

Christmas

 

Tailgating for football games

 

Concessions at baseball and the movies

 

county fairs

[pqr]

I applaud San Francisco for their leadership in protecting the health of this nation's children.

 

Happy Meals are Death.

 

Giving children toys as an inducement to making very bad food choices is a despicable practice by the McDonalds corporation. They should be ashamed of themselves.

 

Bravo San Francisco!!!

 

 

 

 

Nanny state arriving....

 

 

Just remember that this attitude typifies the view that our children are not actually ours. Some faceless bureaucrat actually believes that he knows better than we how to raise our children.

 

He (the faceless bureaucrat) will decide what food they get (or at least if they get a plastic gewgaw with their meal);

He will decide what type of "sex ed" they receive in school;

He will decide if they should be offered medical procedures (obviously without the consent of knowledge of the parents);

He will decide all.

 

He will display "leadership in protecting the health of this nation's children" not the parents who are obviously too stupid to make a decision.

 

Have Children for the State!... after all the San Francisco view seems to believe that they are the State's to raise.

 

Reminds me of a well known quote "Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted". -Lenin

 

How can anybody seriously argue for this utter stupidity?

 

I am assuming that Spycar was being facetious with his comments in order to generate debate making for an enjoyable time and interesting discussion, even if tongue in cheek.

Edited November 11, 2010 by pqr

[Catherine]

They are not individuals. The rights of corporations to advertise as they choose, for the sole purpose of maximizing profit, are not addressed in the constitution. So there's nothing to prevent cities or states from legislating as they choose. There are plenty of laws regulating corporations advertising behavior and this is just another one.

[Halcyon]

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.

 

 

Warning: dissenting opinion ahead!! Okay, the food schools offer is horrible. And yes, it is NY that bans transfats, and as a former NYer I think it's great.

 

Remember the hullaballoo when cities started banning smoking indoors? It was SUCH a big deal. Now, when I see shows like Mad Men where people are puffing away like chimneys indoors, I cringe. I think it's GREAT that those laws were put into place. And I think it's great that transfats are limited in NY. And personally, I think cigarettes should be banned outright.

 

Re the Happy Meals? Not so happy when a great percentage of kids are overweight, diabetic, and being diagnosed with adult disease due to their horrible diets. If not including a toy in a meal is a way to help cut down on those diseases, I'm all for it. I don't see it as Big Brother-ish. You can still buy your junk food if you want it, but your child is going to get a REWARD in the form of a TOY for making such a choice. Basically, children are being "trained" that they will be rewarded in the form of a toy for eating junk food. I don't get it.

 

To be frank, I don't think this is so much an imposition on the free rights of the parents to make poor food choices. I rather think it's an attempt to limit the power of transnational conglomerates who care NOT A FIG about your child's health from making a buck by selling junk masquerading as food. Perhaps the previous poster is right: hopefully, it will be the kick in the pants McDonald's and the like need to find healthier alternatives that still appeal to kids.

Edited November 11, 2010 by Halcyon

[Halcyon]

 

I do think limiting the marketing to children of such unhealthful meals is a very good idea. It does leave the "toy option" for "meals" that comply with minimal standards of nutrition. Hopefully it encourages McDonalds to improve their options.

 

Bill

 

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[Halcyon]

What I don't get is this: we rely on the "big bad government" to issue recalls to faulty strollers, dangerous cribs and food tainted with E. Coli. And if they don't, or if they don't monitor, let's say, food supply chains effectively such that children are poisoned at Jack in the Box, we blame them for poor oversight.

 

But when that self-same government tries to act PREVENTATIVELY, that is, says that maybe, if we disallow the sale of toys concurrent with a Happy Meal (meals which contain food DIRECTLY and scientifically linked to poor health, type 2 diabetes, obesity and disease), suddenly this government is labeled a nanny-state.

 

Color me confused. :confused:

[unsinkable]

There is a technique :D

 

Bill

 

Reminds me of a story my DS-15 told me.

 

It seems one of his classmates said something mouthy to his teacher. The teacher walked over to the boy's desk and made a show of looking around the boy's desk.

 

Teacher said, "I'm just looking for the wheelbarrow you're using to carry around those balls." Then he gave the boy detention.

 

DS says he loves his school b/c teachers could never say funny stuff like that if there were girls there.

[pqr]

What I don't get is this: we rely on the "big bad government" to issue recalls to faulty strollers, dangerous cribs and food tainted with E. Coli. And if they don't, or if they don't monitor, let's say, food supply chains effectively such that children are poisoned at Jack in the Box, we blame them for poor oversight.

 

But when that self-same government tries to act PREVENTATIVELY, that is, says that maybe, if we disallow the sale of toys concurrent with a Happy Meal (meals which contain food DIRECTLY and scientifically linked to poor health, type 2 diabetes, obesity and disease), suddenly this government is labeled a nanny-state.

 

Color me confused. :confused:

 

Because a free people are FREE to make bad decisions. If I decide to buy a hamburger for my children it is none of anyone else's business.

 

Nanny states try to make decisions for us, those that are (according to some bureaucrat) "good" for us.

 

Color me confused as to why anyone would want the local government in San Francisco (of all places) to decide if your child gets a toy with an unhealthy meal or not.

 

“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”-Franklin

Edited November 11, 2010 by pqr

[ReneTL]

 

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.

 

 

The sad part of this is the government does no better in their schools. I can't tell you how many times does the Chick-Fil-A cow, Chuck-E-Cheese mouse and Good Ole' Ronald show up at schools here peddling their wares. And that is a captive audience without any input from parents. We really need to take our country back.

[elizabeth]

I applaud San Francisco for their leadership in protecting the health of this nation's children.

 

Happy Meals are Death.

 

Giving children toys as an inducement to making very bad food choices is a despicable practice by the McDonalds corporation. They should be ashamed of themselves.

 

Bravo San Francisco!!!

 

Bill

 

Bravo.

[Halcyon]

Because a free people are FREE to make bad decisions. If I decide to buy a hamburger for my children it is none of anyone else's business.

 

Nanny states try to make decisions for us, those that are (according to some bureaucrat) "good" for us.

 

Color me confused as to why anyone would want the local government in San Francisco (of all places) to decide if your child gets a toy with an unhealthy meal or not.

 

“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.â€-Franklin

 

But the law isn't telling you not to buy a hamburger, is it? It's just telling the corporations that they can't incentivize the hamburger with a toy geared for children.

[Halcyon]

But those things seem so cut and dried to me. I think most people can agree that deadly strollers and e-coli tainted food is bad. Not everyone agrees with what constitutes healthy verses not healthy eating. Is McDonald's really THE cause of childhood obesity? Is the toy in the Happy Meal THE cause?

 

And then I hate that the government tells us what is healthy. The information they tell us about it isn't based on scientific evidence, but often times lobbies. Yet lots of people think what they tell us is based on some sort of research and is sound information.

 

So then the whole food thing kind of turns into some sort of religious debate because believe it or not a lot of people feel very religious about what they think is healthy eating (I know I do and I often have to bite my tongue hard not to get into arguments about it).

 

So when it comes to "healthy eating" my feeling towards the government is don't tell me what to eat until you know what the heck you are talking about.

 

 

I think it can be universally agreed that a diet of french fries and reconstituted chicken parts is unhealthy though, no? :) Replace your argument above with 'cigarettes' and we could be back in the 1950's; people made the same arguments back then with regards to inhaling smoke and tar.

[Murphy101]

What I don't get is this: we rely on the "big bad government" to issue recalls to faulty strollers, dangerous cribs and food tainted with E. Coli. And if they don't, or if they don't monitor, let's say, food supply chains effectively such that children are poisoned at Jack in the Box, we blame them for poor oversight.

 

But when that self-same government tries to act PREVENTATIVELY, that is, says that maybe, if we disallow the sale of toys concurrent with a Happy Meal (meals which contain food DIRECTLY and scientifically linked to poor health, type 2 diabetes, obesity and disease), suddenly this government is labeled a nanny-state.

 

Color me confused. :confused:

 

Yes of course you are confused if you can't see the difference between near certain death from ecoli or a crib collapsing in on an infant, never mind that they don't regulate those items very much at all and they only issue recalls when confirmed unsafe, and a toy that is not unsafe with or without a cheeseburger in a cartoon covered box.:glare:

 

There is ZERO connection between cheeseburgers with fries from McD or anywhere else and any of those health issues.

 

The only thing directly connecting to those health issues is a LIFESTYLE, a regular, daily unbalanced diet over an extended period of time.

 

There is a far greater connection to having unhealthy parents. Shall we remove children from any parent that is obese? Because that is a far bigger indicator of the child's potential weight and health issues. I sure wouldn't be for that either. In fact, I would think it despicable too.

 

To suggest that removing a toy from a purchase of a cheeseburger is on par with reporting a deadly pathogen is ridiculous.