If we can only get them to ban video games next, it will be no time at all until we are competing with the Africans again.
what a bunch of idiots, just like cartman i have taken a vow to never step foot in san francisco, the hippy capital of the world
"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"?
Primordial Ooze wrote:
If you passed a law forcing people to run 20 miles a week, would that be "exercise justice"?
Primordial Ooze, do you live in San Francisco by any chance? Because I would move there just to vote for you. It is forward thinking like you are displaying here that will have us competing with the Africans in no time.
I'm not sure if I agree with the law but it didn't ban happy meals, it just prevented a toy being sold with a happy meal if it didn't meet nutritional requirementsAn argument can be made that childhood obesity is rising to epidemic proportions similar to that of HIV. Is it within the realm of public health that a law like this should be enforced?
Mr. Obvious wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103,0,5438230.storyIf we can only get them to ban video games next, it will be no time at all until we are competing with the Africans again.
Sorry to disappoint. Where I live, "food justice" would mean the right to adequate amounts of gravy.
Man, that Happy Meal looks pretty good.
I like San Franciso (don't live any where near there, though).
And I occassionally give Happy Meals to my kids.
They look forward to the toy.
They are just banning the toy that lures kids to the high fat foods.
I control what my kids eat and occassionally let them have a little junk food. That's my choice.
Are parents going to stop going there because there is no toy?
elibad wrote:
I'm not sure if I agree with the law but it didn't ban happy meals, it just prevented a toy being sold with a happy meal if it didn't meet nutritional requirements
The food or the toy?
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.
[quote]elibad wrote:
An argument can be made that childhood obesity is rising to epidemic proportions similar to that of HIV. Is it within the realm of public health that a law like this should be enforced?[quote]
Is it within the realm of public health that if you let your child eat too much junk food and not exercise enough, that you are in fact abusing/neglecting your child? If you are going to assign blame, why stop with the evil, corporate fast food companies, lets make sure everbody gets their fair share. What should the penalty be? Why aren't the parents held accountable? I don't see too many kids rolling up to the drive through on their big wheels and ordering these Happy Meals all by themselves. Where exactly does the buck stop?
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.
"Our children are sick. Rates of obesity in San Francisco are disturbingly high, especially among children of color," said San Francisco Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure.
So, the SF board thinks that parents, especially parents of children of color, are not smart enough to purchase healthy food for their children?
That sounds awfully racist to me.
Um, it's a statistic, not an opinion.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
...blah blah blah yappity blah blah blegh...
I don't like your normal posts.
Why did you stop asking for pics?
So, if I want to have a small meal and collect the happy meal toy I can't get one with a happy meal? Sounds like a really bad way to restrict the market.
Can a kids meal with no toy really be called a "HAPPY MEAL?"
Mean old grinches in S.F.
ahhhhhhhhh wrote:
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.
Ohhh, right, that makes sense. What I'm confused about is how the kids manage to pay for the meals once they're "lured" in. Or how they even drive there in the first place.
They are mad because "happy" is too close a term to gay.
Stoopid is as... wrote:
[quote]elibad wrote:
An argument can be made that childhood obesity is rising to epidemic proportions similar to that of HIV. Is it within the realm of public health that a law like this should be enforced?[quote]
Is it within the realm of public health that if you let your child eat too much junk food and not exercise enough, that you are in fact abusing/neglecting your child? If you are going to assign blame, why stop with the evil, corporate fast food companies, lets make sure everbody gets their fair share. What should the penalty be? Why aren't the parents held accountable? I don't see too many kids rolling up to the drive through on their big wheels and ordering these Happy Meals all by themselves. Where exactly does the buck stop?
I don't think you should think of it as parental negligence. It is a fact that it is cheaper to eat unhealthy. For example, soda is cheaper than milk. It is also a fact that people are working more for less. Within those constraints, I sympathize with what parents have to go through. Granted, there are cases by parental neglect but I don't think that punishing parents in general would work.
Also, I disagree with corporations being "evil". They work within the constraints of society as well as regulation. In a sense, they are trying survive and prosper. They have the ability and will adapt to these regulations. The state is seeing the interests of having health children and trying to adapt the current fast food situation to promote those interests. Why do we regulate baby formula and toys for kids?
I compare this issue to vaccination. We require parents to get their kids vaccinated but we completely subsidize vaccine production. The state's goals is to reduce childhood obesity and to help parent get healthier meals to their kids.
elibad wrote:
I don't think you should think of it as parental negligence. It is a fact that it is cheaper to eat unhealthy. For example, soda is cheaper than milk.
This has to do with a lack of nutritional education. I tend to drink tap water as it is healthier and cheaper than both milk and soda. Also, my per meal cost is far less than that of a happy meal, and I eat healthy. Rice, beans, tuna, wheat bread, and vegetables/herbs from my windowsill garden are very cheap per meal. I consider McDonalds and other junk food to be a luxury, in both a financial and health sense.