San Francisco bans Happy Meals

R

RockX

Banned
The city's board of supervisors votes to forbid restaurants from giving away toys with meals with high levels of calories, sugar and fat.

San Francisco's board of supervisors has voted, by a veto-proof margin, to ban most of McDonald's Happy Meals as they are now served in the restaurants.

The measure will make San Francisco the first major city in the country to forbid restaurants from offering a free toy with meals that contain more than set levels of calories, sugar and fat.

The ordinance would also require restaurants to provide fruits and vegetables with all meals for children that come with toys.

"We're part of a movement that is moving forward an agenda of food justice," said Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure. "From San Francisco to New York City, the epidemic of childhood obesity in this country is making our kids sick, particularly kids from low income neighborhoods, at an alarming rate. It's a survival issue and a day-to-day issue."
Get a daily snapshot of market numbers and trends, delivered right to your mobile phone. Text BUSINESS to 52669.

Just after the vote, McDonald's spokeswoman Danya Proud said, "We are extremely disappointed with today's decision. It's not what our customers want, nor is it something they asked for."

The ban, already enacted in a similar measure by Santa Clara County, was opposed by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who was vying to be lieutenant governor in Tuesday's election. But because the measure was passed by eight votes — one more than needed to override a veto — his opposition doesn't matter unless one of the supervisors changes his or her mind after the promised veto.


http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103,0,5438230.story


:beam:
The loony liberals strike again. No happiness for kids in S.F., the government knows whats best for your kids.

View attachment 536
 
webbway said:
The city's board of supervisors votes to forbid restaurants from giving away toys with meals with high levels of calories, sugar and fat.

San Francisco's board of supervisors has voted, by a veto-proof margin, to ban most of McDonald's Happy Meals as they are now served in the restaurants.

The measure will make San Francisco the first major city in the country to forbid restaurants from offering a free toy with meals that contain more than set levels of calories, sugar and fat.

The ordinance would also require restaurants to provide fruits and vegetables with all meals for children that come with toys.

"We're part of a movement that is moving forward an agenda of food justice," said Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure. "From San Francisco to New York City, the epidemic of childhood obesity in this country is making our kids sick, particularly kids from low income neighborhoods, at an alarming rate. It's a survival issue and a day-to-day issue."
Get a daily snapshot of market numbers and trends, delivered right to your mobile phone. Text BUSINESS to 52669.

Just after the vote, McDonald's spokeswoman Danya Proud said, "We are extremely disappointed with today's decision. It's not what our customers want, nor is it something they asked for."

The ban, already enacted in a similar measure by Santa Clara County, was opposed by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who was vying to be lieutenant governor in Tuesday's election. But because the measure was passed by eight votes — one more than needed to override a veto — his opposition doesn't matter unless one of the supervisors changes his or her mind after the promised veto.


http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103,0,5438230.story


:beam:
The loony liberals strike again. No happiness for kids in S.F., the government knows whats best for your kids.

View attachment 536
Click to expand...

McDonalds can still package the same poisons and call it a Happy Meal. They just can't use toys as enticements to poison kids.

Fact Check: How much is spent annually on obesity in the United States?

• A 2009 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, along with RTI International (a nonprofit research group), found that the direct and indirect cost of obesity "is as high as $147 billion annually." The study was based on figures collected in 2006.

• The study found that in 2006, obese patients spent an average of $1,429 more for their medical care than did people within a normal weight range. That is a 42 percent higher cost for people who are obese.

• The CDC study found that Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers increased spending due to obesity from 6.5 percent in 1998 to 9.1 percent in 2006. The figure includes prescription drug costs.
Video: Tackling childhood obesity

• Another 2009 study in the journal Health Affairs concluded that the costs of hospitalizations related to childhood obesity rose from $125.9 million in 2001 to $237.6 million in 2005. Bottom Line: America spends as much as $147 billion annually on the direct and indirect costs of obesity. In the year of the most recent CDC study, 2006, that made up 9.1 percent of medical spending.

The Price of Childhood Obesity
Why the costs could be 'catastrophic' if we don't stop the epidemic now.

http://www.newsweek.com/2007/12/05/the-price-of-childhood-obesity.html

In Mexico; grown-ups control dogs and children. In America: dogs and children control grow-ups
Cesar Millan - the dog whisperer
 
The parents are the one's who buy the Happy Meals not the kids. San Francisco again shines through in exhibiting its 'we know best' nannyism.
 
cawacko said:
The parents are the one's who buy the Happy Meals not the kids. San Francisco again shines through in exhibiting its 'we know best' nannyism.
Click to expand...

They do know best. While parents may buy the Happy poison, all of the costs of childhood obesity do not fall ONLY on those parents. All of society pays. So I guess that would make you the socialist.
 
Last edited:
Bfgrn said:
They do know best. While parents may buy the Happy poison, all of the costs of childhood obesity do not fall ONLY on those parents. All of society pays. So I guess that would make you the socialist.
Click to expand...

Yeah a socialist. Exactly. It's frightening that so many people in this damn city think just like you who elect our board of supervisors who come up with this crap.
 
cawacko said:
Yeah a socialist. Exactly. It's frightening that so many people in this damn city think just like you who elect our board of supervisors who come up with this crap.
Click to expand...

What is frightening is people that don't understand the ramifications of obesity in our society. Besides the costs that everyone in society has to share, even a liberal like myself can grasp other ramifications. And right wingers who are so big on the military and national security should grasp it too.



Climbing Obesity Rates Threaten U.S. National Security by Hampering Military Recruitment

ScienceDaily (Oct. 19, 2010) — At a time when American military forces are stretched thin overseas, a growing number of potential recruits are too fat to enlist, according to an analysis by Cornell economists.

In the past half-century, the number of women of military age who exceed the U.S. Army's enlistment standards for weight-for-height and body fat percentage has more than tripled. For military-age men, the figure has more than doubled. As of 2007-08, 5.7 million men, or nearly 12 percent, and 16.5 million women, about 35 percent, of military age are ineligible for duty because they are overweight or obese, estimate John Cawley, associate professor of policy analysis and management, and economics doctoral student Catherine Maclean.

The findings, published in September by the National Bureau of Economic Research in a working paper titled "Unfit for Service: The Implications of Rising Obesity for U.S. Military Recruitment," are cause for alarm for the military branches (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps), which together must attract some 184,000 new service members each year. Fewer able-bodied recruits could also lead the Pentagon to limit its use of troops and rely instead on unmanned aircraft and private security companies to carry out missions, the paper notes.

"Almost one in four applicants to the military are rejected for being overweight or obese -- it's the most common reason for medical disqualification," Cawley said. "With an active war in Afghanistan and continuing operations in Iraq, it is well-known that the military is struggling to recruit and retain soldiers. Having a smaller pool of men and women who are fit enough to serve adds to the strain and creates even more problems for national defense."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101018165430.htm

Unfit for Service: The Implications of Rising Obesity for U.S. Military Recruitment
 
Bfgrn said:
They do know best. While parents may buy the Happy poison, all of the costs of childhood obesity do not fall ONLY on those parents. All of society pays. So I guess that would make you the socialist.
Click to expand...

if parents know best, then who the fuck are you to say the government knows better? you're the socialist dumbass...or rather fascist that thinks its ok for the government to dictate if a restaurant gives toys with its meals, notwithstanding that parents know best....
 
Without the toy, what's the point? Take away the toy and it's just a substandard burger and some fucking fries.


Oh, and speaking as a parent, I don't need the GOD damned government telling me how to raise my kids or what to feed them.
 
Bfgrn said:
What is frightening is people that don't understand the ramifications of obesity in our society. Besides the costs that everyone in society has to share, even a liberal like myself can grasp other ramifications. And right wingers who are so big on the military and national security should grasp it too.



Climbing Obesity Rates Threaten U.S. National Security by Hampering Military Recruitment

ScienceDaily (Oct. 19, 2010) — At a time when American military forces are stretched thin overseas, a growing number of potential recruits are too fat to enlist, according to an analysis by Cornell economists.

In the past half-century, the number of women of military age who exceed the U.S. Army's enlistment standards for weight-for-height and body fat percentage has more than tripled. For military-age men, the figure has more than doubled. As of 2007-08, 5.7 million men, or nearly 12 percent, and 16.5 million women, about 35 percent, of military age are ineligible for duty because they are overweight or obese, estimate John Cawley, associate professor of policy analysis and management, and economics doctoral student Catherine Maclean.

The findings, published in September by the National Bureau of Economic Research in a working paper titled "Unfit for Service: The Implications of Rising Obesity for U.S. Military Recruitment," are cause for alarm for the military branches (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps), which together must attract some 184,000 new service members each year. Fewer able-bodied recruits could also lead the Pentagon to limit its use of troops and rely instead on unmanned aircraft and private security companies to carry out missions, the paper notes.

"Almost one in four applicants to the military are rejected for being overweight or obese -- it's the most common reason for medical disqualification," Cawley said. "With an active war in Afghanistan and continuing operations in Iraq, it is well-known that the military is struggling to recruit and retain soldiers. Having a smaller pool of men and women who are fit enough to serve adds to the strain and creates even more problems for national defense."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101018165430.htm

Unfit for Service: The Implications of Rising Obesity for U.S. Military Recruitment
Click to expand...

Ban McDonalds then. If you want government regulating our health why should we even allow crap like that to be served? There are plenty of fat adults in America obviously they can't be trusted to make choices about their diet.
 
Yurt said:
if parents know best, then who the fuck are you to say the government knows better? you're the socialist dumbass...or rather fascist that thinks its ok for the government to dictate if a restaurant gives toys with its meals, notwithstanding that parents know best....
Click to expand...

No, the socialist is the one that want me and everyone else to PAY for your kids health problems.

No one is stopping the McDonalds corporation from selling their poison in a box, just remove the HOOK. We don't let kids drive a car for a reason, they do not have the cognitive skills and development of adults. If the poison in a box is such a great deal and a great meal, why does it need a toy inside? McDonalds is a restaurant, not a toy store.
 
cawacko said:
Ban McDonalds then. If you want government regulating our health why should we even allow crap like that to be served? There are plenty of fat adults in America obviously they can't be trusted to make choices about their diet.
Click to expand...

There you go...the right wing temper tantrum...if I can't have it ALL MY way, then blow it UP...

GROW UP!!!
 
cawacko said:
The parents are the one's who buy the Happy Meals not the kids. San Francisco again shines through in exhibiting its 'we know best' nannyism.
Click to expand...
Beats the fuck out of your "We don't give a fuck who we hurt, kill or poison and long as we're making a buck ya'll can go fuck your self" corporatist attitude. It is a corporations mission to maximize profits. If that means they have to poison little kids to do so then they will given the pressures. It is a legitimate role of government to curb and regulate these excesses and to protect public health and that is a legitimate role of government. You're sort of demagoguery to line the pockets of corporations at the expense of the public's health, particularly children, just shows that you really don't care whom corporations harm in the chase for the all might dollar. I find that unconscionable.
 
cawacko said:
Ban McDonalds then. If you want government regulating our health why should we even allow crap like that to be served? There are plenty of fat adults in America obviously they can't be trusted to make choices about their diet.
Click to expand...
That's a fucking ignorant comment Wacko. Our government has been doing precisely that since the founding of this republic. You may want to live in a neo-fascist corporation run laissez faire society but the rest of us expect our government to protect the public health by regulating the excesses of business. You may think that what is best for McDonalds is what's best for the country but most rational people don't think that way at all.
 
Bfgrn said:
There you go...the right wing temper tantrum...if I can't have it ALL MY way, then blow it UP...

GROW UP!!!
Click to expand...
No shit. They seem to think that it's the role of government to bend over and kiss corporations asses when ever they say so. Well they may think that their life is better off felching some corporation but any rational person wants them appropriately regulated.
 
The point is not the toy. The point is parents letting their kids run things.

Does anyone actually think removing the toy from a happy meal will actually have an effect on obesity? Really?

The toy is a hook for the kids. But the parents are the ones who drive to McDonalds, order the food, and pay for it.

This is just another example of nannyism and the loss of freedoms.
 
Bfgrn said:
There you go...the right wing temper tantrum...if I can't have it ALL MY way, then blow it UP...

GROW UP!!!
Click to expand...

a right wing tantrum? Ok. McDonald's serves little to no nutritional value. It appeals to our most vulnerable, the poor, because of its cheap prices. I'm not sure why its a 'tantrum' to suggest if we truly care why do we allow it to be served? What is its benefit?
 
Norman Paperman said:
Without the toy, what's the point? Take away the toy and it's just a substandard burger and some fucking fries.


Oh, and speaking as a parent, I don't need the GOD damned government telling me how to raise my kids or what to feed them.
Click to expand...

Worth repeating again and again....

"Oh, and speaking as a parent, I don't need the GOD damned government telling me how to raise my kids or what to feed them"
 
Bfgrn said:
No, the socialist is the one that want me and everyone else to PAY for your kids health problems.

No one is stopping the McDonalds corporation from selling their poison in a box, just remove the HOOK. We don't let kids drive a car for a reason, they do not have the cognitive skills and development of adults. If the poison in a box is such a great deal and a great meal, why does it need a toy inside? McDonalds is a restaurant, not a toy store.
Click to expand...

Take a deep breath, settle down, and try to understand what I'm going to say.

T-H-E
K-I-D-S
A-R-E
N-O-T
T-H-E
O-N-E-S
B-U-Y-I-N-G
T-H-E
M-E-A-L-S
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Take a deep breath, settle down, and try to understand what I'm going to say.

T-H-E
K-I-D-S
A-R-E
N-O-T
T-H-E
O-N-E-S
B-U-Y-I-N-G
T-H-E
M-E-A-L-S
Click to expand...

See if you can grasp this observation:

In Mexico; grown-ups control dogs and children. In America: dogs and children control grow-ups.
Cesar Millan

As a parent, here's a word that worked for me...

N
O
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top