For those of you who oppose the Happy Meal toy ban in SF:

[Haiku]

The difference is that it is illegal to sell cigarettes and other tobacco products products to minors.

 

True, but I have never heard a parent say that laws against alcohol and tobacco sales to minors infringe on their parental liberties.

 

Tara

[Tea Time]

True, but I have never heard a parent say that laws against alcohol and tobacco sales to minors infringe on their parental liberties.

 

Tara

 

Let me try to understand you. You are suggesting that because some laws exist that affect what children can consume, we should be fine with any other laws affecting what children eat or drink or smoke. No other laws would ever be overstepping their boundary or inappropriately usurping parental authority. Is that what you are suggesting? Couldn't you use that argument to add endless laws? Is that how we come up with laws? How many laws will satisfy everyone? Where will it end?

 

Those things are deadly and without any necessity or positive benefits whatsoever. That is not the case with junk food. If you were on a desert island (almost wrote dessert - Freudian slip there), you could eat McDs and LIVE for a long, long time. Maybe enough time to get rescued! Yay! All the alcohol and tobacco in the world would not help. Well, maybe a little. ;) Apples and oranges. We have no definitive proof that McDs will kill you if eaten occasionally, and that is why the other things are not totally illegal, because mature people can use them responsibly. This law is patently absurd and pointless. It is just politicians making themselves look "caring."

 

It is very healthy to be able to decide things for ourselves, don't you think? I don't like McDs and gave it up a LONG time ago. But I did that with TV, too. Are you going to like it if I decide that you have to give up TV too, because it is pretty BAD for you, too. Sooner or later this mentality will bite us in the backside when what we really think is okay is outlawed for our own good, of course. That idea is deeply flawed and needs to be set back on its heels.

 

Government power (these are the big guns, folks) should be used for its primary functions (which are not being accomplished very well right now) and not expanded exponentially in the vain hope of "making everyone perfectly safe."

 

BTW, young people in Europe don't have drinking laws and do just fine. I have had that discussion with someone recently (so it does get discussed). Laws do not fix everything, and sometimes they make things worse (prohibition).

[Haiku]

Is that what you are suggesting?

 

Nope.

 

Tara

[lovemyboys]

I'm sorry your brother died. I'm sorry he did not have his helmet on. But he chose not to wear the helmet.

 

I live in a state with no helmet law. I see about 3/4 of the bikers wearing helmets. They have made the choice to be as safe as they can on their machines. The other quarter? Well, they are adults that one can pretty safely assume that unless they live under a rock know the dangers of going without one.

 

For what it is worth I lost two close friends due to motorcycle accidents. Both had helmets on.

 

 

As for the alcohol mixed with caffeinated beverages, I think it is absolutely ridiculous. I don't much like rum and Coke, but to ban it out right is just plain stupid. Seriously how are they going to enforce it?

 

Dh was talking with ds about this kind of thing just last night. I think ds asked if he'd ever done anything dangerous. Dh told him that yes he had, but that was before the kids were born.

 

Now that he's a dad, he's more careful because he feels responsible for them.

 

Motorcycles fall into that category for us. We both used to ride them, but not now. We've lost friends and acquaintances who rode them.

 

With all of these issues, I'm more for the states or individual locales having jurisdiction vs. say a federal ban. But all the laws in the world won't stop bad things from happening. Putting myriad laws in place with the idea that we'll be "safe" is just over-bureaucratizing our lives.

 

Most all the fast food joints now have salad, fruit cup, coleslaw, soup options even for the "happy meal" combos, as well as chocolate milk or juice box. When done very occasionally, that's not too bad.

 

Look at cool places like Trader Joe's -- organic, natural and whole-grain do not equate with low fat, low sugar and good for you. You have to be just as cautious (or more so!) when shopping there because the assumption is that it's "healthy." Really look at those labels...much of the cheeses/dairy are full-fat only, baked goods are high in sugar and fats, sodium, you name it. The fresh produce area is just a small portion of the store.

 

This is why I think it's ludicrous for places like SF to single out little happy meals as horrible for young children. As parents, we should model moderation with our choices and avoid demonizing foods. But I suspect that that horse was beaten pretty soundly in the other thread.

[lovemyboys]

While the dollar amount of marketing to kids may have increased, such marketing has nonetheless has been going on for many decades, and there has been marketing directed at children since prior to the inception of television, though it was probably television where such marketing really exploded in the 1950s.

 

To flesh this out a little more, specific to the issue of food, see e.g. http://www.scribd.com/doc/24239658/CSPI-s-History-of-1978-1980-FTC-History-Regarding-Food-Ads-and-Children

 

 

 

In the case at hand, McDonald's introduced happy meal toys in 1979.

 

I haven't seen advertising for happy meal toys anyplace but television and within the restaurant, though it's not something I'd necessarily notice. We do eat fast food, but I don't buy happy meals.

 

In addition to the first amendment issues, I have a hard time believing that the San Francisco regulation will have the desired affect - the cause and affect are too disconnected (so much so that I wonder whether it can be invalidated on grounds of being arbitrary and capricious, though I also admit I don't know what the applicable standard of review would be under California law). The parents wouldn't be buying happy meals if they weren't already at the restaurant. IMO, not having the toy isn't going to stop the parents from buying fries and nuggets unless both they wouldn't have gone to McD's but for the child's begging and the child's begging was caused solely by the desire for the toy. And the child is easily suckered into eating what came with the toy. (ETA: And the eating caused the child to develop health problems.) If happy meal toys really cause health problems in children, I have to wonder who is driving the car.

 

 

Yes, I would venture that the increased amount of money spent in advertising to kids has as much to do with the number of channels, outlets and programming hours as anything else. "Back in my day...." ;) we had a couple hours around dinner time and Sat. morning cartoons. That was about it.

 

Fwiw, dc here long ago decided that there were very few fast food joints with any toys they were interested in. The movie/television tie-ins were often for the latest superhero movie or tv shows (like yu-gi-oh) and dc never saw those shows. As a parent, you only have to say no a couple of times and dc get the message. Was it pqr who pointed out the huge Hollywood movie tie-in?

 

I think it has a good bit more to do with control of corporations than real concern for kids' food. :glare: But it sounds like a great and valiant effort.

[Haiku]

Four Loko is dropping the caffeine.

 

Tara

[LisaKinVA]

Here's my issue... SF is fighting a problem with the wrong solution. Banning a "toy" isn't going to change the consumption of the food -- only the purchase of a toy.

 

My kids eat at McDonald's -- not often, mind you. We rarely, if ever get the toys, because I feel they are junk. Sometimes life is so crazy I break down and stop at McDonald's... but it never has to do with the toys or marketing. It has to do with putting something into my kid's stomachs because they are hungry.

 

Sometimes, it's a fruit and yogurt parfait (I cringe at the sugar... but oh well). Sometimes, it's the chicken nuggets. My kids don't really like the fries, so that's not an issue (one small fry will feed 5 of my kids). They don't get soda, we usually carry our water with us. But, those chicken nuggets go a long way to ending the car-ride crabbies when errands have taken too long, and the snacks I packed are long gone.

[Tea Time]

Here's my issue... SF is fighting a problem with the wrong solution. Banning a "toy" isn't going to change the consumption of the food -- only the purchase of a toy.

 

My kids eat at McDonald's -- not often, mind you. We rarely, if ever get the toys, because I feel they are junk. Sometimes life is so crazy I break down and stop at McDonald's... but it never has to do with the toys or marketing. It has to do with putting something into my kid's stomachs because they are hungry.

 

Sometimes, it's a fruit and yogurt parfait (I cringe at the sugar... but oh well). Sometimes, it's the chicken nuggets. My kids don't really like the fries, so that's not an issue (one small fry will feed 5 of my kids). They don't get soda, we usually carry our water with us. But, those chicken nuggets go a long way to ending the car-ride crabbies when errands have taken too long, and the snacks I packed are long gone.

 

Since you brought up chicken nuggets, I thought I would post a link to an interesting food related tid-bit (no pun intended).

 

Mechanical meat separation:

 

http://www.snopes.com/food/prepare/msm.asp

 

This is about a photo that was circulating on facebook. I posted it here because it is an interesting case study about regulating food, but it is not politically charged and did not pay off political dividends without any real purpose.

 

The mechanical meat separation was regulated because of worries about using it with beef products. There was some concern that mad cow disease would spread easier this way, so it is no longer allowed for beef products but can still be used for other meats. This limitation probably cost someone some money, but I would not be surprised if there was little fuss about it. When the science can be clear, and the danger is specific and avoidable... with specific meanings and clear results, it makes sense to regulate.

 

That may be the case with the beverage, although the link Tara posted has interested comments that make it clear that not everyone thinks it is a good use of regulation. I think the regulation about the toy in happy meals is quite a leap given that no child ever became overweight or sickly solely due to toys in happy meals. It is just a huge over reach by comparison.

[Snickerdoodle]

...much of the cheeses/dairy are full-fat only,

 

I really don't understand why anyone would buy reduced fat dairy products?

 

Brie is health food in my book. ;)

[Murphy101]

I really don't understand why anyone would buy reduced fat dairy products?

 

Brie is health food in my book. ;)

 

 

I agree. Tastes like chalk too.

 

Fat is not always bad folks. Kids need lots of fats, even saturated fats. Give me REAL whole foods and a neighborhood park and call it good!

[TechWife]

I saw a news story this morning about OKlahoma, Michigan, and two other states banning beverages with alcohol and caffeine mixed. Do you also oppose the beverage ban?

 

No, I do not. Alcohol is a drug and as such it is already regulated. The state regulatory boards have a long history of being able to decide who can sell alcohol, what constitutes alcohol, where it can be sold, when it can be sold and how it can be sold. I see this ban falling well within their realm.

[TechWife]

Isn't that interfering with Four Loco's owners opportunities to make money with a legal product on Oklahoma?

No, they have just made the product illegal in their state, so they have no legal opportunities to make money with it there.

 

If you wouldn't mind, can you address the issue of motorcycle helmet laws too? Do you absolutely oppose helmet laws, taking into account the costs and benefits of the laws?

Not at all. I see this as a low/no cost law. In fact, it most likely is a money making law with the fines & impound fees that would be a result of its violation.

 

I also see a motorcycle helmet law as protecting people from their own stupidity. In addition, those who may be involved in an accident w/a motorcycle driver w/out a helmet could possibly be liable for a lot of personal injury $$ that they might not have been liable for had the driver been wearing a helmet. In that sense, it protects the general public.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

OK, marketing is everywhere and it is going to stay everywhere, even when my cute little kids grow up to be adults looking to buy cars and get mortgages and handle credit cards.

 

The lessons they learn as elementary students that businesses have a goal to make money that imperfectly overlaps with my kids interests. Now their interests are to eat good food but soon they will be to drive a good car or live in a good home.

 

I have no problem explaining to my kids even at pre-school age why a Happy Meal is charging us extra for the toy to get them to want it more. We do the math of if meals are even best for us or if we should just get a bag of cheeseburgers and a couple fries to share. My kids all know to say that the toy isn't free, but that it is included in the price of the meal.

 

We sometimes do get the kids' meal option. Especially if it lines up with what we would have ordered anyway or if the extra item is a book or audio book. But I try not to miss the chance to make my kids informed consumers.

 

It is never too young to tell your kid they can't have a certain meal that they mostly want because of the shiny plastic premium.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

But if people are too distractible/forgetful/apathtic to vote about the things that matter to them, that doesn't mean that local governments shouldn't pass laws ordinances that govern what they want in their local jusridiction. Perhaps I am reading you wrong, but it kinda sounds like you are arguing against local governments having power because you can't trust people to vote properly.

 

I'm still trying to understand why people have a problem with a local government passing a local law. I honestly thought that people who are more conservative than I am really wanted less federal and more local control. Am I misunderstanding? Or is it really that any law is pretty a much a bad law because the government (at any level) simply shouldn't interfere? I'm not tying to be snarky, I am really trying to understand.

 

Tara

 

Being conservative doesn't always mean less federal and more local, though it can include that. It also often includes the idea that there are areas of life that ought not be under government supervision, even local.

 

So for example, I don't think that there should be a government agency, federal or local, that supervises the food that I make in my kitchen and serve to my family. I am not opposed, however, to standards for professional food prep either as local health inspectors of restaurants or as federal standards that something packaged say as juice must be juice and not some juice mixed with water and sugar.

 

I think there are things that are within the local government's power to enact that they have no business enacting. For example, Jim Crow laws, property covenant restrictions and public segregation were within the authority of local government once upon a time. Local govenments still have enormous power to condemn properties and neighborhoods in order to build new developments for the "public good" even if the most benefit goes to a private concern like a sports team or a mall corporation.

 

Not far from where we own a house in Virginia is a whole swath of neighborhoods where the city said that they didn't have the money to condemn and take the property right now, but they planned on doing it sometime in the future (meaning in the coming decades). This was an area that was near a seedy district that had been condemned and redeveloped. But the area under warning was pretty solidly middle class and older homes that had been well taken care of until the city's announcement. Then no one could sell their house because no banks would finance a mortgage for the buyers. And people stopped maintaining what they had. The action actually drove the condition of the neighborhood down.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

This isn't directed at any particular board member, but I wonder if the same people who support not permiting a toy premium in a kid's meal also support invasive screening in airports (also determined by the government to be in the interest of public safety) or with the Patriot Act provisions that allow law enforcement agencies in the US a greater ability to collect and share information, particularly that gathered on the internet (also determined by the government to be in the interest of public safety).

 

Why object to airport screenings designed to find weapons and devices that we know from past experience over the last decade are being brought onto planes but then be ok with government regulation of toys sold with food?

[Murphy101]

This isn't directed at any particular board member, but I wonder if the same people who support not permiting a toy premium in a kid's meal also support invasive screening in airports (also determined by the government to be in the interest of public safety) or with the Patriot Act provisions that allow law enforcement agencies in the US a greater ability to collect and share information, particularly that gathered on the internet (also determined by the government to be in the interest of public safety).

 

Why object to airport screenings designed to find weapons and devices that we know from past experience over the last decade are being brought onto planes but then be ok with government regulation of toys sold with food?

 

Danged if I know. I'm not for either of them!