San Francisco considers banning Happy Meals toys

[The Northerner]

SAN FRANCISCO – San Francisco has a long history of bold public health and environmental stances, going after everything from plastic bags in grocery stores to cigarettes to sugary drinks.

The latest target: Ronald McDonald.

A proposed city ordinance would ban McDonald's from putting toys in Happy Meals unless it adds fruit and vegetable portions and limits calories. The proposal would apply to all restaurants, but the focus has been on McDonald's and its iconic Happy Meals.

Supervisor Eric Mar said he proposed the law to protect the health of his constituents, but McDonald's has waged an aggressive fight to block the measure. A battery of McDonald's Corp. executives showed up at city hall to argue that the legislation is a heavy-handed effort that threatens the company's decades-old business model and the free choice of its customers.

The proposed Happy Meal law is just the latest in a string of San Francisco ordinances aimed at regulating public health. The city recently expanded a law banning tobacco sales in pharmacies to include grocery stores and big-box stores that also have pharmacies.

Mayor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order earlier this year banning sweetened beverages like Coca Cola and Pepsi from vending machines on city property. Local leaders considered but ultimately abandoned laws recently that would have imposed a fee on businesses that sell sugary drinks and alcohol.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101002/ap_on_bi_ge/us_legislating_health

[datasuspect]

1. some people really need fucking hobbies

instead of telling other people how to live.

[Imajika]

2. Seriously, what a complete waste of time...

Is there really nothing more important for elected officials in San Francisco to worry about? Happy Meals?

[datasuspect]

3. there is less and less freedom every day

and both democrats and republicans chip away at our liberties.

[defendandprotect]

8. How is stopping exploitation of children ending anyone's "liberties" .... ????

[datasuspect]

12. happy meals exploit children?

what planet are you from?

[defendandprotect]

16. Evidently, you don't think about exploitation very much ....

kids are eating unhealthful meals in these restaurants -- attracted to them by

playground equipment and "toys" --

[Imajika]

22. Oh please...

Kids would like that stuff whether there is a toy in the box or not.

People like food from McDonald's, BK, Wendy's, etc, etc.

Take the happy meal toy away and you won't have changed one single thing. It is a "feel good" waste of time that will make no difference other than to take away a little toy a lot of kids (and adults) like.

[defendandprotect]

29. I don't agree at all -- the "toy" is an added incentive for both the kid and the parent ....

otherwise, it wouldn't be there!

[proteus_lives]

33. Is it a plot by the Zionists?

Or is it a good, old-fashioned Free-Mason conspiracy?

:rofl:

[defendandprotect]

37. Why don't you tell us .... you seem to be obsessed by Zionist plots -- !!

[Warren DeMontague]

63. Actually, Happy Meals don't exist.

They're faked at a soundstage in Area 51.

[Codeine]

71. Happy Meal Holograms killed my Twin Towers! nt

[apocalypsehow]

139. Probably the same sinister forces that faked the moon landing.... n/t.

[krispos42]

93. Not really

I used to take my kid to one of them (either BK or McD) every week, when I picked him up on Saturdays. The determining point was whether the place had a playground or not, not the kid's toy. It was a 2½ hour trip down to get him and the same back, so it was a nice break in an long car ride. It was especially useful during the wintertime.

About a quarter of the time the toys are either generic (not tied into any special promotion) or leftovers from a previous promotion.

They had a lot of nice indoor playplaces in Minnesota.

[cleanhippie]

124. I hear rumors about the ball pits.

Dirty, bacteria filled, and dangerous.

[krispos42]

125. Never seen one. These are generally lots of tubes and a couple of slides.

Some tic-tac-toe games, lots of padding, cargo nets, platforms... sometimes the tube segments are in the shapes of locomotives or airplanes or whatever.

:shrug:

I see my kid about once every ten minutes as he swoops in for a bite or a sip. He's busy otherwise!

[Dogtown]

132. And *snakes*!!

:scared:








:rofl:

[JVS]

104. The purpose of the toy is to get you to pay $3.19 + tax on the kid instead of buying...

the kid an 89¢ cheeseburger and giving him or her some of your coke and fries. By providing the toy you take away the child's indifference to the two possible meal solutions, thus counterbalancing the parent's preference for the cheaper solution.

[FirstLight]

36. sorry, you're wrong

my kids know the food there is bad for you, but have begged me to go there JUST for the toy of the week they see advertized...

besides, rather than being a 'health' issue, i would think they would ban these because of the plastic junk filling up in landfills. seriously, that's all they are good for.

[defendandprotect]

39. The PLASTIC is another excellent point . . . .

[AndyTiedye]

45. Good Luck Finding Toys Made of Anything But Plastic These Days

[defendandprotect]

58. Same with almost every other product .... from keyboards to furniture ...!!

[Luminous Animal]

141. There are thousands and there are stores that specialize in no plastic toys.

[AndyTiedye]

50. You Do RECYCLE that Plastic, Don't You?

Virtually all toys are made of plastic these days, but nearly all of it is recycleable plastic at least.

[Luminous Animal]

145. Which, of course, puts you in the position of having, yet again, saying no.

Parents should have the freedom to say yes and yes and yes... to be have the opportunity to invoke enthusiasm over decisions that parents have to make on behalf of the child.

There is enough "no" in a child's life without forcing parents to be at constant odds with their child's artificially induced desires. Desires manufactured by psychologists to exploit a child's developing brain and backed by billions of dollars.

[Odin2005]

80. Because their parents LET THEM.

What ever happened to that thing called PARENTING and SAYING NO?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

115. Then tell their parents to stop buying them (n/m)

[cleanhippie]

123. Hahahaha! Nice strawman.

Have fun knocking that one down.

[EFerrari]

4. Seriously. Public health? What the fuck is that?

lol

[datasuspect]

112. yeah, what is that?

sure would be nice if they could do more to stop the spread of treatment-resistant gonorrhea, syphilis, bedbugs, or a host of other more relevant and deadly issues.

E, this is a ruse, it's meant to generate press, and it's fucking stupid, and you're buying/selling it.

wake up.

[LWolf]

111. Personally, I'd like to find a

fast-food restaurant selling healthy meals for those times when I'm in a hurry and need to grab a quick meal. Why is being surrounded by businesses selling crap food that's bad for you supposed to be "freedom?" Yes, we are free to choose whether or not to frequent those businesses, but unless we are at home making our own meal there is often not a lot of choice.

With the rise in obesity causing numerous health problems, it might be a matter of public health to regulate the health content of the food produced for sale to others. Especially in meals marketed to children.

Rather than starting with fast food restaurants, where people can choose the salad that most offer instead of the burger and fries, I'd rather see us start in public schools. I'd like to see public schools have to serve FRESH, prepared on site food that meets high nutritional standards.

It's interesting to note the rise in childhood obesity that, along with the rise of too much electronic entertainment, includes the outsourcing of school lunches.

[BlueJazz]

148. I feel that (a lot of) Americans are just too damn ignorant to eat right.

It's rather shitty to make other taxpayers pay for your terrible health problems because you can't eat like a reasonable adult...
Our whole nation looks like a pack of fucking Hogs.

[Luminous Animal]

153. Many are too poor. Many do not have access to alternatives.

And, according to a study that I read earlier today, many parents will give in to their kids even while make healthier choices for themselves because they are worn out from being the bad guy all the time. McDonald's with it's billions in advertising says, "yes, yes, yes!" But mean old mom is always saying no, no, no. Children's advertising pits children against their parents.

I find it disgusting that our society expects one or two people to be constantly on guard against the brain-washers. And not only that, but we think that these one or two people are on an equal footing with multi-national corporations who have more power than God.

[BlueJazz]

166. Yes...Education is the Key, Plus if we had support for people that eat..

...because of emotional problems, We would ALL be healthier.

[Luminous Animal]

169. The educators are outgunned. There is no way we can come close to the matching corporations.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/05/ED061FO577.DTL

Every four days, the food industry spends more on advertising directed at children than the nation's leading funder of childhood obesity initiatives - the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation - spends in an entire year on health education, as Dr. Kelly Brownell, director of the Yale Rudd Center, has pointed out.

[LWolf]

162. It isn't just ignorance, it's marketing and supply, as well.

Most of the nation depends on buying food at the store. Take a look at the ingredients for the stuff in stores, outside of vegetables and fruit, and you'll find that skipping fast food chains doesn't mean you're getting healthy food.

I think food manufacturers ought to have to adhere to stricter health codes. No sugar in anything but desserts, for instance.

[arcane1]

5. Sigh... sometimes my adopted home town is embarrasing

I'm' glad all of the city's other problems have been solved!

[Lucian]

6. Wow.

That's a bit much.

[defendandprotect]

7. You'd think they were asking them to run video of

slaughter houses inside the restaurant!!

How long do we want to permit this exploitation of children and families go on?

[AndyTiedye]

14. So the Mom Drives to a McD in Daly City to Get the Happy Meal Instead

to avoid screaming kid when he finds no toy in his (un)happy meal in SF.

[defendandprotect]

19. We need more education for parents and children on healthful foods ....

and unhealthful foods -- and a child "screaming" for a plastic toy from McD is

a sign something is really wrong in this arrangement!

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

32. Exactly. People will have to go to more effort to put their kids

at risk of choking and obesity.

I don't see a down side here.

[AndyTiedye]

43. The Downside is That We Become the Party of Taking Toys Away from Little Kids

[EFerrari]

62. Oh, please. n/t

[krispos42]

94. Which, of course, burns more gas.

Sounds like it's time to build a big-ass McDonald's with a big-ass playplace a block outside of San Francisco and put a big-ass "YES WE HAVE HAPPY MEAL TOYS!!!" banner on it.


Or even better... put a big-ass McDonald's with a big-ass PlayPlace on a barge and dock it in SanFran.

[Warren DeMontague]

66. The exploitation of children and families doesn't exist.

It's faked, at a soundstage in Area 51. And never could get past the Van Allen Radiation belts, anyway.

[rrneck]

9. Another tailpipe solution.

Education is a much better investment.

[tammywammy]

10. Well San Francisco must be doing pretty good

If this is what the city is focusing on, everything else must be doing pretty good.

[EFerrari]

15. Chew gum, walk, I don't see the problem.

:)

[AndyTiedye]

11. I Love San Francisco, But Sometimes They're A Few Fries Short of a Happy Meal

[FourScore]

151. ROFLOL

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

13. The Truth about McDonald's and Children

Published on Sunday, May 22, 2005 by the lndependent/UK
The Truth about McDonald's and Children
by Morgan Spurlock

Every waking moment of our lives, we swim in an ocean of advertising, all of it telling us the same thing: consume, consume. And then consume some more. The epidemic of overconsumption begins with the things we put in our mouths. The United States is the fattest nation on earth. Sixty-five per cent of American adults are overweight; 30 per cent are obese. In the decade between 1991 and 2001, obesity figures almost doubled.

But the truly shocking thing is that we've taught our kids how to be fat, too. Obesity rates in American children remained stable throughout the 1960s, but they began to climb in the 1970s. In the past 20 years, the rate of obesity has doubled in children and trebled in teenagers. Kids are starting to clock in as obese as early as the age of two. If we find that surprising, we shouldn't.

During the McMonth I endured for Super Size Me, in which I ate every meal at McDonald's, every day - taking up the option to have a Supersize portion whenever I was offered it - I couldn't get over how many kids there were in the restaurants almost any time that I walked in. Children with their parents. Gaggles of them stopping off for breakfast or for a pre-dinner snack in their cute little school uniforms. Kids in all the play areas. Kids as little as three and four having Happy Meal McBirthday parties. Or, in a McDonald's in Houston, at 9am, a mother with her two very overweight kids who, having just finished their fat-filled breakfasts, were now eating hot fudge sundaes.

Ray Kroc, the man behind the McDonald's empire, understood from Day McOne that youngsters were his target market. He had no sooner bought the company from the McDonald brothers than Ronald McDonald was brought in to attract the kiddies to the burgers and shakes.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0522-20.htm

"Happy Meal" Toys Made by Sad Sweatshop Workers (1997)
http://www.albionmonitor.com/9705a/happymeal.html

CPSC, McDonald's Announce Recall of "Scooter Bug" Happy Meal Toys
http://www.safety-recalls.org/cpsc-content-01-01099.html

CT wants ‘Happy Meal' toy off the market
http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/news14144.html


Happy Meal toys could be banned in Santa Clara County
A county supervisor has created a stir with his proposal to bar the inclusion of toys in restaurant meals that contain high amounts of sugar, salt or certain fats.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/27/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20100427

Consumer Protection: Take Happy Meal Toy Away From Kids
http://articles.courant.com/2010-07-28/business/hc-dangerous-happy-meal-toy-20100728_1_figurine-and-bracelet-ledyard-mother-farrell

Oh, but those wacky people in San Francisco. What is the matter with them. :sarcasm:

[defendandprotect]

26. Thank you -- people still trust their government to protect them ....

and sometimes it actually still happens!

IMO, many of the parents who are buying meals still at McDonald's or Burger King

really aren't thinking about the food they are eating -- and especially not thinking

about what they are feeding their children ... but, again, government hasn't really

been playing the necessary role in informing them, either!


Would just add here, that people who break down foods to profit from them mightily also

well understand that both SUGAR and SALT are addictive -- and that usually processed

foods are loaded with them . . . which is often what brings people back for MORE!

[merqz]

46. lots of high end foods are LOADED with sugar and salt

but if you get it at a French restaurant and pay $6 a serving for "Pommes Frites", the city of SF is fine with that. This is the sort of nanny'ism that targets lower to middle income people. I can think of a lot of haute cuisine items that are LOADED with Sugar, Salt, and saturated fat.


This admittedly specifically targets McD's business model. They are penalizing McD's for god forbid - being successful.

I am SO reminded of the South Park San Francisco episode.

[defendandprotect]

73. McDonald's food is loaded with FAT, SUGAR -- and SALT --

Government regulating corporations isn't "nanny'ism" any more than government

regulating working conditions is "nanny'ism" --

And -- rather -- people who are frequenting "high end" establishments generally

know more about food and nutrition -- and would be unlikely to be found at McDonald's,

even if they were charging $6 for their fries!

To suggest that this "targets" McDonald's business model is like saying that Separation

of Church and State "targets" Church. The question behind each -- both McDonald's and

Church -- is really ... "Who are they targeting . . . ?"

[merqz]

74. the anti-toy legislation

specifically targets them. That's what we are talking about.

[defendandprotect]

82. Read the article ... it is anti-unhealthful food legislation ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9242641&mesg_id=9244226

[Nuclear Unicorn]

134. There is a difference between beiing crushed in a work accident

and trans fat.

If YOU cannot be trusted not to eat crap food then you obviously need help and I wish you well in that endeavor.

But you make grand assumptions about other people when you presume to tell them what they can or cannot eat and/or buy.

I spent many nights, not long ago, eating ramen noodles. To say those things are overly salty would be an understatement. They're so salty that to this day I use far less salt than I did when I was younger just because Ramen noodles wore me out.

But those cheap, nasty packages were all I could afford to eat while I was in college.

[Scout]

165. wow, there's some arrogance and ignorance for you

"people who are frequenting "high end" establishments generally know more about food and nutrition"

:rofl:

[wickerwoman]

90. French restaurants don't market to kids.

And if they do, they should be held accountable for what they serve them and call a "meal".

It's not about penalizing McDonalds for being successful (and presumably employing people and paying taxes... all of which you would think San Francisco would have an incentive to encourage if anything.)

It's about protecting impressionable kids from craven corporate greedheads trying to "hook 'em while they're young" by teaching them to associate positive feelings and comfort (getting a toy) with eating food that will make them fat and unhealthy.

[FirstLight]

44. that Spurlock article is incredible

that is what we should be teaching in schools under the subject "economics & marketing" ya!

[AsahinaKimi]

119. There was a time

There were very few Fast Food places in the City, as they had a city ordinance about it. I guess that has changed. Every other block has a Starbucks, Peets Coffee, and there are quite a few Fast Food places including McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, Tacobell, etc around the city.

Now adays, its too expensive to eat at a local Restaurant, so people flock to these places. Many of them are out by Fisherman's Wharf, which is funny, because thats where you find many of the Seafood Restaurants. You won't find a single fast food place in Chinatown, or near Japantown.

[proteus_lives]

17. SF is a city run by control freaks.

[EFerrari]

28. You seem not to know the difference between social responsibility

and control freaks.

Too bad for you.

[proteus_lives]

31. So what is it about wanting to run peoples lives?

Do you consider that good for you?

[EFerrari]

34. Your frame is crap. Those toys are dangerous, made in sweatshops

and promote food that is bad for you.

What part of public health is unclear to you?

[proteus_lives]

40. And your authoritarian urge is crap.

You don't like happy meals? Don't get one, don't buy your kids one.

But go ahead, bans and prohibitions. Those always work.

Then you can get to the books, movies and music you don't like.

[EFerrari]

42. Apples and spare tires.

When the city and county government identifies a public health problem, it is their sworn duty to do something about it.

And this is what democracy looks like. These people were all elected to do this job. If they do it badly, they won't be re-elected.

[proteus_lives]

107. Hopefully these mooks will soon get the boot then.

If they can think of nothing better to then micro-manage peoples lives.

[EFerrari]

113. McDonald's will get the boot before they do.

San Francisco is not overly fond of chains. We have plenty of locally owned businesses that need the trade.

[AndyTiedye]

47. IF the Toys Are Dangerous, Ban Them For THAT Reason

There is no mention of any hazard associated with the toys themselves in the article.

If they were to be banned due to something like a choking hazard, that would be a much easier case to make,
and one that does not put us in such a Grinch-like position (in an election year no less).

[defendandprotect]

75. Read the article ... the "toys" are being banned to offset the unhealthful food ....

A proposed city ordinance would ban McDonald's from putting toys in Happy Meals unless it adds fruit and vegetable portions and limits calories.

Supervisor Eric Mar said he proposed the law to protect the health of his constituents...

The toys are a lure ....

what is it about advertising that so many accept without thought?

[Warren DeMontague]

100. I don't believe that Supervisor Eric Mar actually said that

It was faked, on a soundstage in Area 51.

Science proves that the Van Allen Radiation Belts would prevent a San Francisco Supervisor from saying that.


What is it about people that they accept the "factual" "evidence" presented to them, instead of doing the requisite research into the myriad elaborate conspiracies and hoaxes that surround them?

[AndyTiedye]

122. The Post I WAS RESPONDING TO Said the Toys Are Dangerous

which is a claim that is made nowhere in the article, which I did read.

[HuckleB]

67. Actually, there is this idea called democracy.

It's something that theoretically allows people more control over their lives than when the wealthy control everything. Hmmm.

[Pavulon]

18. Because you people are to dumb to raise your kids...

wow, pretty stupid position. But hey I am sure this will be very popular with people.

I assume they have no crime, no poverty, and no other issues to address when they have moved onto this type of stuff.

[tammywammy]

25. Exactly n/t

[Mimosa]

54. "I assume they have no crime, no poverty, and no other issues to address"

LOL, Pavulon.

[WolverineDG]

87. Remember, these are the same people who flipped their lids

over a McDonalds franchise owner in SF getting rid of the Dollar Menu so she could stay profitable, making it too expensive for the homeless to eat there.

:crazy:

dg

[Iggo]

20. Good!

[EFerrari]

30. Outlaw unsafe toys made in sweatshops to promote unhealthy crap food --

wtf is my county government thinking! :crazy:

[Mimosa]

55. That's not the role of government

Parents have responsibilities.

And you actually don't know that all the toys are made in 'sweatshops'.

I haven't eaten at a McDomald's in 18 years!!!

CHOICE. IT'S A GOOD THING.

[HuckleB]

69. And democracy can be used to help the citizens give themselves better or more true choices.

It's funny how that works out.

[defendandprotect]

76. It is, of course, the role of government to protect citizens ....

from scams like using "toys" to lure children to food that is unhealthful.

INFORMED "choice" is a good thing -- and that's the issue here!

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

106. Why do you trust that the government would actually do it?

Wouldn't it be simpler, and more logical, to stage an elaborate hoax whereby they merely convinced Millions of people that they did it, while faking the entire thing ... say, on a soundstage, at Area 51?

[Luminous Animal]

140. Disney, McDonald's, Happy Meals & sweatshops

Hey kids! Have a toy manufactured by kids whose hands have been eaten away by solvents!

http://www.alternet.org/story/5552/

http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Disney/Labor.html

http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/clw20100810/oldwebsite/20091117mertonappeal.htm

The role of government isn't to promote public health & safety? Then why do we have emissions standards and why did we outlaw lead? Perhaps we should abolish the EPA, the FDA, the USDA, and child protection services.

Yes, parents have responsibilities but so does the community. A corporation's power is evident in the billions of dollars that it spends to manipulate the public. A government's power is wielded when it enacts laws to regulate than manipulation. And, in doing such, assists parents.

[The Straight Story]

21. Some people hate choices they don't make, and want to force others into their 'religion'

screw them.

[Buns_of_Fire]

24. Gee, I guess that means that putting a mini-pack of cigarettes in a Happy Meal is also out. nt

[bigwillq]

27. I think this is a good idea (nt)

[terrya]

121. I think it's a good idea, also.

[McCamy Taylor]

35. Um..I thought San Francisco already banned children.

jk

But the only place I ever see kids in San Francisco is the Golden Gate Park and Chinatown. And I do not remember seeing any McD's at all.

[hayu_lol]

38. Next up for Wussville...

will be the banning of the 'toys' in Cracker Jacks and breakfast cereal.

Some of these folks just can't stand to see kids and adults alike--enjoying themselves.

And here we thought the 'blue nose' Puritans were bad.

[EFerrari]

41. The San Francisco Supervisors have never burned witches

and frankly, I don't see the benefit from allowing toys kids can choke on made in sweatshops that promote crap food for my town. :)

[HuckleB]

48. When was the last time you bought Cracker Jacks?

There haven't been toys in there for years.

[depakid]

49. Good

The less insidious marketing of junk food to kids the better.

While the libertarian crowd may be ignorant of how small children are reinforced (addicted) into patterns of unhealthy behavior that follow and hurt them the rest of their lives, thankfully at least supervisor Eric Mar isn't.

[underpants]

57. I agree - the toys are part of the selling point not to the buyer (me) but to the kid

it is amazing how effective marketing is

I am sure you have seen this but if you haven't

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dA89CBBOC0

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

77. Thanks -- and noted the immaturity of the comments at that site!! Wow!!

[Odin2005]

85. Being against Nanny-State BS makes me a Teabagger?

BS! :grr:

[depakid]

88. It's the sort of thing you hear them say with some considerable frequency

Then again, they would almost never say CORPORATISTS HATE KIDS!

In response to a childhood nutrition program- so you're not in their league when it comes right down to it. :-)

[Odin2005]

89. Well, I'm an Anarcho-Socialist / Left-Libertarian, so I'm just as...

skeptical of government in a lot of things as I am of corporations, especially since I think the government is an enabler of corporate power, because they own it. The rich will always own it until we move past Capitalism towards a more inherently equitable economic system.

[Renew Deal]

51. Nannies

[depakid]

56. Public health advocates

vs. obesity and diabetes promoters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6P-4bzj9sdI

[Renew Deal]

59. The parents should be the public health advocates.

If they want to ban happy meals, they should do that directly instead of this passive aggressive toy ban.

[depakid]

60. But as you know, they won't be

but instead will be taken in by the same insidious processes that junk food companies spend billions hiring child AND adult psychologists to design.

That's who you're supporting.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. And somewhere, at some point, someone is going to make a choice I don't like.

They MUST BE STOPPED.

[depakid]

70. Why does an attempt to regulate manipulative corporations offend you?

Why the libertarian streak about an obvious public health issue that needs to be addressed (and costs everyone tons of money?)

[Warren DeMontague]

91. There is an "obvious health issue" in putting free toys in kids meals?

Are kids eating the toys?

I'll tell you what offends me: The dumb-fuck notion that people shouldn't be permitted to make up their own fucking minds, to make even sometimes bad choices- that they are so jelly-brained that they must be protected from "manipulative" corporations. No, I don't like McDonalds, and no I don't give my kids Happy Meals. But this idea that the great unwashed masses can't be trusted to make their own decisions about, say, what to put in their mouths.. you're damn right it offends me, and if that means I get tagged with the nasty label "libertarian" :o :o :o then, so be it.

[depakid]

109. If the shoe fits...

Free market libertarians do tend to speak the same language- and do tend to stand up for abusive corporations while using said language denigrate those who are working on solutions to public health problems.

[Warren DeMontague]

116. You seem to think it's an insult.

Whereas you seem to think legislating what citizens can freely choose to do with their own bodies is somehow a badge of honor. When it's exactly the same sort of thing that uptight, authoritarian far right fudamentalist busybodies seem to get their kicks doing; passing all sorts of laws about the decisions people can make in their own lives.

As you say, if the shoe fits.

[defendandprotect]

78. The parents WOULD be concerned with the health issue ... if they understood it --

Obviously, huge amounts of corporate money for advertising -- and toys as lures --

overcomes any possibility of sensible advice on healthful food from penetrating

the corporate propaganda --

[Warren DeMontague]

92. Healthful food can't penetrate the corporate propaganda due to the Van Allen Radiation Belts.

Science Sez So, I read it on a truther-ness site.

[athenasatanjesus]

52. Didn't San Francisco used to ban McDonald's.(and other corporations)

When I was a little kid in the 80's I remember there being very few recognizable chains and I told that there were alot of regulations making it hard for them to get into SF,I wish they still had those.(tho there was 1 McDonald's at least)

[HuckleB]

68. I don't think so.

[AsahinaKimi]

120. I know of five ..in the city.

One at Fisherman's Wharf. Two on Market Street. One on Van Ness. One on Haight Street out by Golden Gate park.

[Mimosa]

53. RIDICULOUS.

It's stuff like this which makes the left look stupid.

If you don't want your lids to eat at McDonald's don't take them. I can't imagine an occasional 'Happy Mail' could hurt a kid.

[Warren DeMontague]

65. Feh. Idiotic.

I don't like McDonald's but this is just goofy.

[Zax2me]

72. Stupid

How about this - don't go to McDonald's, and feed your kids fruits and veggies at home.
I haven't walked into one of those places in years so believe me, it works.

[Odin2005]

79. What kind of nanny-state BS is this?

Don't like McD? DON'T BRING YOUR KIDS THERE!!! Parents need to be PARENTS and learn to say "NO" to their kids, their whining he damned.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

81. When will there be an end to this fucking nanny state bullshit????

[Odin2005]

84. Never, if the Nanny-State supporters in this thread are any indication.

Apparently they are too lazy to be parents and say no to their kids demands and want the government to do the job. :eyes:

[JackRiddler]

127. Why should parents be put in this position?

"Lazy" or not, why should they essentially be forced to deal with the highest levels of marketing (in this case, of very crappy, unhealthy food) aimed at children in all history? It's true there have always been unavoidable bad influences that made responsible parenting more difficult -- and there have always been attempts to restrict or regulate it.

Turn this around for a moment and explain to us why it's a good thing when McDonald's uses manipulative means and billions of dollars to market provably unhealthy food to the mentally and emotionally most vulnerable members of society?

[Luminous Animal]

131. Against the tide of billions of $$$ of manipulative advertising aimed at our children,

the only weapon parents have is the ability to say no. It is exhausting and demoralizing to be put in the position of consistent and constant naysayer. What kind of society are we that we view individual parents of regulators of global conglomerates.

"Can I have this cereal?"
"No."
"Can I have this bubblegum yogurt?"
"No."
"Can I have "Lunchables?"
"No."
"Can I have Kraft Mac & Cheese?"
"No,"
"Can we get this peanut butter?"
"No."
"Can I have Sunny D?"
"No"
"Can I have a Happy Meal?"
"No."
"Can I have (cookies, chips, jelly, "juice", pudding, soup, breakfast bar, syrup, oatmeal, fish sticks, graham crackers, chocolate milk...."
"No. no. no. no. no. no. no. no. no. no. no. no."


I read once somewhere that we would never allow a strange person the opportunity to speak to our child alone about the fun things that the stranger has in store for our child. But, essentially that is what we are allowing advertisers to do. Sugar cereals, fat and salt laden snacks, and free toys with unhealthful meals.

[Warren DeMontague]

156. Honestly, I don't think you're a parent.

Real parents understand that saying "no" to our kids comes with the gig.

[Luminous Animal]

164. I'm a parent who strove to affirm my daughter's desires and experiences.

I did everything I could to minimize the "no". At age two, people said I was spoiling her. At age four, those same people apologized and said that I did the right thing.

[depakid]

86. When Republicans take over, you can stop worrying about promoting their memes

and supporting their multinational corporations' marketing efforts to kids- because they'll be sure to be running the show in your schools again, too.

Hey, a silver lining for some people here, at least, eh?

[Warren DeMontague]

98. There is nothing "liberal" or "progressive" about micro-managing peoples' personal decisions.

Sorry.

[krabigirl]

103. exactly..

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackRiddler]

128. What is defensible about companies manipulating children to have them eat crap?

[Warren DeMontague]

129. Because you need to define "manipulation", and show that anyone is being forced to eat that stuff.

I mean, there are all sorts of things that you do, or maybe that you even buy for your kids, that I might not like. Maybe we should all make giant lists of all the things other people do that we don't approve of, so we can try to pass laws to stop them all.

Or, we could accept that sometimes people make personal decisions that we consider bad, ill-advised, even unhealthy~ yet we have to, somehow, figure out how to deal and live in a world where not everyone else behaves to our exact specifications. :shrug:

Also, saying that something shouldn't be against the law isn't the same as 'defending' it. I don't eat McDonald's, and I don't feed it to my kids. Yet somehow I got to that place without an over-reaching city government passing laws to 'protect' us from them.

[Luminous Animal]

136. If I knocked on your door, a stranger, and asked to speak to your child alone

about some cool toy she/he can have for free, would you let me in? Would you agree to let me in 10-60 times a day to tell your child (again alone) about how great sugar cereals are, or HFCS sweeten juices are, or sodium laden lunch meats? C'mon, I promise to do it in a totally entertaining way that will make your child's eyes light up!

I doubt you'd let me in. I suspect that, even, for some odd reason, you trusted me, you would not allow me to try to manipulate your child like that. Unless you've managed to ban all advertising from your child's world, you are essentially opening the door to strangers and allowing them to manipulate.

[Warren DeMontague]

143. And yet, I still don't think happy meals should be against the law.

Of course, I also don't pretend to understand the sort of mental architecture that would cause someone to, for example, argue that cheesecake-filled pancakes should be against the law--- and then turn around and say that the practice of FGM deserves "cultural respect". :crazy:

[Luminous Animal]

149. I've never made either argument so you may cease the obfuscation with irrelevancies.

McDonald's would be able to serve Happy Meals with toys IF they agree to swap out some of the fat, sugar, and salt with healthy alternatives.

[Warren DeMontague]

157. Really? You acknowledge that consenting adults should be free to eat cheesecake filled pancakes

and FGM on girls should be prosecuted as a crime, not extended 'cultural understanding'?

Hey, good for you. :patriot:

Still, I think this is well beyond the job description of the SF government and Gavin Newsom, who I usually agree with. Believe me, those of us who actually are parents and take our job seriously can have a far greater impact on our kids' diets than a local ban can. Hell, Morgan Spurlock had more of an impact on McDonald's menu choices than any local legislation is likely to.

[JackRiddler]

138. You seem to have missed the point altogether.

I didn't talk about the parents' decision - I talked about the marketers' manipulation of children. You say nothing at all about that, but return again to the parents and their right to choose, which I did not dispute.

How do you define manipulation? Any commercial pitch aimed at small children is by definition manipulative. I'm saying McDonald's, a corporate stranger with no motive here other than sales, and with more victims than any pedophile, has no business to be talking to my children by presenting a cute brainwashing clown show (which thanks to their omnipresence they end up doing even if I keep the TV off).

[Warren DeMontague]

144. Then shouldn't the focus of these efforts be aimed at, say, tv advertising?

And how does the cute brainwashing clown show get into your house, if not via the television? I'm curious, really. Maybe you should get your deadbolt fixed?

[Luminous Animal]

155. TV advertising is not in San Franciso's jusidiction.

[JackRiddler]

160. Yes, of course, it's about advertising. The SF measure is cosmetic. Go here:

I believe I've said that around this thread, but scattered comments don't get noticed.

Taking the toy out of the happy meals sounds bizarrely evangelical and is yet utterly cosmetic. The point should be to restrict misleading promotion aimed at children, and that starts with television, which is the main route through which anyone hears about happy meals and other junk food promotion aimed at children in the first place. (The TV is how the corporate child abuser comes into my house, although this also operates through peers. Parents who want to shield their children from the influences of poison peddlers shouldn't be forced to work so hard, let alone to cut off their children from interaction with the world.)

Anyway, so this thread prompted me to start the following:

Sweden banned advertising to children a decade ago. Is this bad?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9252028

Of course, politicians don't like fucking with the teevee. Thus lame proposals to snatch a piece of plastic out of the Happy Meal.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

117. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It's an issue of freedom to do what one thinks

is correct for oneself and ones family without getting the government to act as a "nanny". So McDonald's is a big evil corporation, and I am adult enough to make my own decisions regarding it. My feelings about this have nothing to do with McDonalds but about CHOICE.


I'm a left-wing libertarian and proud of it.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

83. The "include fruit and veggies" part is stupid, paternalistic, and condescending.

But just banning the inclusion of toys in meals? I'd go for that.

If you want to give your child a toy, buy a toy.

If you want to give your child food, buy food.

[alcibiades_mystery]

95. I agree with this legislation

The sole purpose of McDonald's child-related marketing (including the Happy Meal) is to hook people into a physically toxic set of substances at an age before they can choose. It is no different from cigarette advertising. If it was only a problem of the individual, then yes, whatever. But it is not. It is a problem that overloads our health system and costs us all a great deal of expense.

The City is saying this: if you want to market to children, you have to follow these health guidelines. Why is that objectionable? It's "objectionable" because McDonald's corporation and their industry allies have convinced people through billions in propaganda campaigns that any health regulation on the food we eat is tantamount to totalitarianism. The only difference between McDonald's anti-regulatory propaganda and Wall Street anti-regulatory propaganda is that McDonald's has been more successful, even to the point that the majority on a progressive forum like DU will sneer "nanny state" and other nonsenses, sounding more like CNBC flacks than anything else. Wall Street propaganda is pure amateur hour relative to the true masters of the form: the poisonous fast food industry.

[Pavulon]

99. pffart, mud butt in your pants

you deal with your kids, I deal with mine. You want to teach you kids stupid shit, not my personal issue. Sure sending your kids to catholic school is a fake, because there is no god. So ban catholic school, so no one will touch you kids balls.

dont want to be a fat fucker buy a road bike, ride that fucker. you can stuff your face with 300 calories an hour, but can burn 600 is you work out on a bike. So you can eat that EVIL alfredo, pizza, beer, sausage, what ever all day and still keep your BMI right.

All about how lazy you are, that it, no more no less, no fatties in bct, no fatties in paris, simple fucking math.

cheers.. mmm choice, tasty.

[depakid]

161. Why not just start handing out guns- or automatic weapons? It will be a whole lot quicker

and then you can enjoy even more capital punishment and suffering!

Big L libertarians- looking to degrade society in every way- every day.

[Jim Sagle]

96. Minutia-driven liberalism discredits the real thing.

:(

[JCMach1]

97. The gov. here requires the happy meal have water or 100% juice instead of soft-drink

This dramatically reduces the calories and sugar content.

Of course, the UAE has a higher diabetes rate than the US...

[krabigirl]

102. lol..give me a break.

[Confusious]

105. Laws are no substitute for good parenting. nt

[mwooldri]

110. Then McDonalds needs to do something simple. Sell the toys separately.

Put a price on the toy, say $2.00 separately. Discount it deeply to say 10 cents with the happy meal. When parents order, the order taker then should be trained to "upsell" the Happy Meal to include a toy for 10 cents. The majority of parents are most likely to agree to this very small extra cost to delight the child who demanded to go to McDonalds (or else).

This would give customers free choice, it would comply technically with the legislation, and it could give McDonalds a means to promote the healthier alternatives that they already offer by offering a free toy rather than a ten cent one. Franchisees are also going to appreciate the fact that the toy is no longer "free" because if they do get refuseniks who don't want to pay the extra 10 cents, then they don't lose out because the toy is already priced into the meal... and if the customers pay the 10 cents, well it's extra money for the franchisee.

[FourScore]

152. They already do. You can buy it seperately for $1.00. n/t

[meow mix]

114. whats wrong with happy meals toys lol i just got a batman one

did i do something wrong???

[hayu_lol]

118. Time for San Francisco to write and pass a new law...

banning people.

Make a park out of the place.

[JackRiddler]

126. Sweden banned advertising aimed at children altogether.

That's right, they took Ronald McDonald to the woodshed and peeled his caps back.

I can see how well that idea would go over with the crowd presently on this thread.

Yeah, good parenting can totally overcome the influence of the modern media on children. Carry on!

[Luminous Animal]

146. Good for Sweden.

[seabeyond]

130. we did happy meals occassionally. once every couple weeks or so. a treat. reward. different

it was special because boys didnt get it often.

not SF job to be the parent.

[sylvi]

133. Just put

the damn things in a box and hand them out at the drive thru or counter with every purchase of of a hamburger and fries if there's a kid present.

There's always a way around control freaks.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

135. Nanny-state idiocy.

[The Straight Story]

137. The religious left will tell you that they are saving souls...err lifes this way

remove choice, because people should only make choices the pope and church, err someone behind a keyboard, approve of.

Call it choice on anything but abortion and folks call me a libertarian. Funny how that works.

[proteus_lives]

147. Isn't it?

Dogma exists and not just on the right.

[Warren DeMontague]

159. I think if people want to smoke the toys in the happy meals, they should do it outside.

I think that's reasonable.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

168. !

:rofl:

[Throd]

142. I'm too stupid to feed my kids properly.

[Broderick]

167. Hilarious! n/t

[Ter]

150. And once again we wonder why we lose elections

Average Joe sees stuff like this and pulls the (R) lever in November.

[smalll]

154. Maybe, instead of banning happy meals, the city Fire Department should be ordered --

not to save any McDonald's that's burning down, unless that McD's has added "fruit and vegetable portions and limits calories."

[Warren DeMontague]

158. I think they should round up a bunch of soul patch wearin' hipster mac user 'consultants'

and bludgeon them silly with arugula, lattes, and copies of Star Trek and LOST DVDs.

It wouldn't have anything to do with anything, but it would probably scratch someone's itch.

[xchrom]

163. good. hope they do it. nt