San Francisco bans Happy Meals

You can't be serious. McDonalds and fast food chains are the easiest, cheapest, quickest and most temporarily tasty option available to poor people with very little money and very little time. Again, I refer to above. How often do you think the average entry-level guy or gal "scratch cooks" from their comfy apartment earned by their paycheck, in turn earned by their degree, in turn earned by the support of their parents and inherited wealth? Probably not that often, even then. And now you think it a possible alternative option for the depressed impoverished, who are having their physical health raped by the easiest solution. Removing McDonalds may encourage local, more healthy stores to sell cheaper healthy foods. God forbid the government "reach into our lives" and make them better; hence, do their job.

I feel bad for both the parents and children who have little reasonable alternative to crappy food. And there isn't a doubt in my mind corporations are, in general (not as a rule), inherently evil. They will do anything to increase profits. Anything. How is that even an argument? They should not be given free reign.

It is not our free will. It is the free will of those corporate executives responsible for meeting shareholder demands. And I don't just want to stomp on that free will. I want to crush its life out. No one has the right to ruin the world. If that makes me a fascist, so be it.

Stoopid is as...,

So you are saying that "all research" showing these differences are "misrepresenting" the data? Are you also saying the Centers of Disease Control and the Department of Health and Human Services as well as the all state health departments are "misrepresenting" their studies? I know this is letsrun, but do you have evidence of the "misrepresentation"?

I am not putting the sole responsibility on fast food companies. I never said that. All I am saying is that for the sake of public health, San Francisco has a vested interest in protecting its citizens.

You talk about personal responsibility but you do realize that childhood obesity affects you. Childhood obesity raises your healthcare costs, even if you and your family are healthy. If these parent are irresponsible with fastfood, do you think that they are also paying for their healthcare?

It's not a big deal. All they have to do is change the contents of the meal to comply with the nutritional requirements. Maybe they just switch fries for carrots. I think McDonalds will figure it out. Who knows, maybe they will sell a lot more Happy Meals because parents will choose them over BK more frequently.

market research wrote:

It's not a big deal. All they have to do is change the contents of the meal to comply with the nutritional requirements. Maybe they just switch fries for carrots. I think McDonalds will figure it out. Who knows, maybe they will sell a lot more Happy Meals because parents will choose them over BK more frequently.

If it has carrots instead of fries do you think that is going to make a 4 year old Happy?

First, it would have made more sense to legislate a HAPPY TOY in every bag of broccoli than to take them away from McDonalds.

Second, Do you people know what those families eat at home when they don't go to McDonalds? Burgers, fries, sausage, bacon, pizza, pies, cakes, and gallons of ranch dressing!!!

Now they have to go BUY a toy for their kid when he starts screaming that he won't get one in his happy meal anymore.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

If it has carrots instead of fries do you think that is going to make a 4 year old Happy?

A 4 year old cares a lot more about the toy than the food. (Yes, I have kids).

So the kid's choice is driven by what toy they will get, and the parent's choice by nutritional content (and keeping the kid happy). It's a win-win.

Surprise! wrote:

candy wrapper wrote:

San Francisco. What a screwed up city. They try to legalize pot because they don't want their rights infringed upon. But they vote to outlaw toys in fast food meals. What a screwed up city.

While SF may be a screwed up city, it isn't specifically for the reasons you provide.

Prop 19 was state-wide. Let's wait until the breakdown by county is available and see if SF voted for or against. Map currently isn't loading.

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/maps/ballot-measures/19/

The toys in food wasn't on the voters ballot. It was voted on by the SF Board of Supervisors. They voted 8-3 in favor of the banning. This wouldn't have passed if it was presented to the voting public.

Did you honestly think that SF would not have a majority of voters in favor of Prop 19? Unless they were all still drunk and hung over from the Giants victory, they would support Prop 19 overwhelmingly.

SF county:

113,166 (64.9%)for Prop 19

61,233 (35.1%) against Prop 19

It's called parenting. If you don't want your child to be obese, don't feed them happy meals every day and make them exercise.

We don't need laws for this...

ahhhhhhhhh wrote:

Primordial Ooze wrote:

"We're part of a movement that is moving forward an agenda of food justice," said Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure.

Because forcing good nutrition on people is "food justice"? What a concept.

If you passed a law forcing people to run 20 miles a week, would that be "exercise justice"?

read the article idiot, they're not forcing anything on anyone, just banning mcdonalds from luring kids with toys in their calorie rich crappy food.

Do the kids go there on their own? Or does a parent have to take them there? Doesn't a parent have a right to decide what is right and not right for their child?

Idiot...

Parents? wrote:

Do the kids go there on their own? Or does a parent have to take them there? Doesn't a parent have a right to decide what is right and not right for their child?

Idiot...

There a lot of ordinances that regulate behavior for the greater public good and potential cost to society. We have laws preventing people from smoking in planes or restaurants. We have helmet laws for riding motorcycles. We have laws making it illegal to provide alcohol to children.

If parents want to feed their kids nothing but junk food they can. But there is plenty of evidence that obese children grow up into adults with early onset of diabetes, etc. So there is a cost to society that we all end up paying for.

Now this regulation seems pretty silly, but I don't think there is any harm done and there may actually be some benefit. Have you checked McDonald's stock over the past 5 years of so? They are pretty darned good at figuring out how to adapt to changes in the marketplace.

candy wrapper wrote:

Surprise! wrote:

While SF may be a screwed up city, it isn't specifically for the reasons you provide.

Prop 19 was state-wide. Let's wait until the breakdown by county is available and see if SF voted for or against. Map currently isn't loading.

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/maps/ballot-measures/19/

The toys in food wasn't on the voters ballot. It was voted on by the SF Board of Supervisors. They voted 8-3 in favor of the banning. This wouldn't have passed if it was presented to the voting public.

Did you honestly think that SF would not have a majority of voters in favor of Prop 19? Unless they were all still drunk and hung over from the Giants victory, they would support Prop 19 overwhelmingly.

SF county:

113,166 (64.9%)for Prop 19

61,233 (35.1%) against Prop 19

Huh? Did I honestly think SF would not vote for Prop 19? No, of course not - I just wasn't aware you knew it was a statewide prop. Do you even live here?

Well it's San Francisco and all....

They make up for it by having a "Gay Meal" with "McLube" and "McBeads" (McDonald branded Anal Beads) along with fries and burger.

Two things I don't agree with:

1.) If these people eat at McDonalds does that mean that McDonalds is the only restaurant that these people eat at? If you closed all McDonalds would all further decisions become healthy-choice decisions?

2.) Quote from article: 'Under the ordinance, scheduled to take effect in December 2011, restaurants may include a toy with a meal if the food and drink combined contain fewer than 600 calories, and if less than 35% of the calories come from fat.'

Why only fat? Fat is not the only problem, refined carbohydrates are a much bigger problem.

Shakes, Deserts, Muffins, McMuffin (muffin part) mayo, mcChicken Sauce, Pop, Bun part of all burgers, ketchup (catsup), sugar in coffee/tea...

Oh sure the fats are LDL fats and baaad however, the refined carbohydrates in the home are even worse yet:

Breads, Bagels, Tortillas, Taco Shell, Refined sugar, soft drinks, ice-cream, chocolate bars, candy bars, donuts, most breakfast cereals, pasta, refined white rice, most dips and sauces, most snacks that are convenience food products are mostly refined carbohydrates, cake...anything with flour....

So a kid plays video games for hours and waddles into the kitchen and grabs a pop and donought, goes back to the tv or computer and continues...I think McDonald's as a problem isn't the source and the solution resides at home with the parent.

Quick thought, childhood obeisity is an epidemic. Diabetes is rising like wildfire.

If we don't start changing shAt like FAST, the health care system is going to be a DISASTER in 15-25 years. Hard working healthy people will suffer because their taxes will go up and up to pay for those with no disipline to get there insulin and more serious hospital costs. It will drag us down and down.

You bums can joke about it and ignore it, but it is coming straight at you and at some point you and your children and loved ones will pay the price for this gluttony and ignorance that is rampant in our society.

Americans have simply become mindless slobs seeking nothing but instant gratification and posessing a false sense of entitlement to everything.

We need to wake up from the trance and realize that if we want to live well and be well, we need some responsibility and that means less credit cards, less buying liabilies with those credit cards, less ignorance and entertainment and more focus on what it takes to be sustainable in both health and finance.

Until then, we are in the downward spiral of what may be referred to as the burp in history known as the USA period, where people so obsessed and engrossed with denial and instant gratification shommited all over themselves and their future of the their children and their childrens children.

iamnotconvinced wrote:

This law just bans restaurants from giving away a toy with high-fat or high-calorie meals. They can still sell Happy Meals, just not with the toy.

If they ban the toy they ban the happy meal- what would make it happy without the toy?

And so your solution is to ban happy meals? Let's ban video games while we're at it. And take over private broadcasting companies so they don't put up ads that cause kids to buy unhealthy food.

This is ridiculous. I hope McDonalds challanges this in court.

A more logical alternative would be to either

a) tax unhealthy food

b) grant tax breaks to healthy food companies

but is this what SF is doing? No, because they have their head stuck up their ass so far they can't see that a simple economic incentive is the easiest way to influence behavior. Oh No! X is bad for us! Let's ban it! Guess what, education and taxation dropped smoking rates by a TON since 50 years ago. Why not do the same with unhealthy food? There will always be some fatties, and there will always be some smokers.

Also, seconded on the irony of SF passing the happy meal ban and voting for Prop 19

To all those who say "let them keep happy meals, it is up to the parent" or "it's the parents fault" or "a matter of life at home, controlled by the parent." Yes, parents have a great influence, but understand their job is HARDER if they have to combat outside influences than if those influences weren't there. Let's double the amount of McDonalds adds on TV. Is it still up to the parent? How about make McDonalds legally a part of all school lunches. Still up to the parent? Make the McDonalds meals all have twice as much fat. Still the job of the parent?

You can't blame everything on parents, especially since it's a harder job for them with so many outside sources as opposed to if those didn't exist. It's like people think that there can be as many outside sources as possible and the job of a parent won't change.

If I were mcds I would replace the toy with a cookie and say a big giant FU to SF.

How is that irony? How many people have you heard of dying from pot overdose? How many people die from prolonged food overdose? No comparison.

Taxing a company like McDonalds will do nothing. Giving tax breaks to healthy companies is good, but it doesn't do a thing to change the problem at hand. There is no guarentee that a) the healthy company's food prices will drop or that b) their food will have a taste that can compete with mcdonalds.

Everyone always seems to convince themselves that all solutions to everything lie in the private sector. It's absurd. The reality is this: poor people will buy cheap and easy food because it is cheap and easy. Addictive crap food like McDonalds should be wiped off the face of the earth. I don't care if that makes me a fascist in the eyes of "free" marketers. If you cared about freedom, you'd recognize how not free so much of America is, and you'd stop hoping against hope for a private sector miracle. You care about your own right to make money, regardless of the suffering of other people.

Obesity, diabetes, and lung cancer don't just hurt people who contracted the disease from McDonalds and Marlboro. It takes medical resources away from the people who were born with predispositions. It raises everyone's insurance. It cheapens the quality of the human spirit, by bringing it to such base levels.

The day you start campaigning for the legalization of not just pot, but cocaine and ecstasy too, then we can have a conversation about you not being a hypocrite. Until then...