San Francisco bans Happy Meals with toys (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/11/09/california.fast.food.ban/index.html)


The San Francisco, California, Board of Supervisors on Tuesday banned most McDonald's Happy Meals with toys, as they're now served. Under the law, McDonald's and other restaurants will have until December 2011 to improve their meals' nutrition by adding fruits and vegetables -- if the chains want to keep offering toys, including those promoting the latest films.

The food and beverages will have to contain fewer than 600 calories, and less than 35 percent of total calories will come from fat. The meal must contain half a cup of fruit and three-fourths cup of vegetables, and offer less than 640 milligrams of sodium and less than 0.5 milligrams of trans fat. Breakfast will have the option of offering half cups of fruit or vegetables.

Wow, first parents can't beat their own kids and now parents aren't even given the freedom to feed their little piggy's fat laden MickeyDs, which is the only known scientifically proven means to balance a high sugar cola diet!


Seriously, do you support outright banning Happy Meals?

I would rather support better quality foods to be made for the kids and keep the toys as a nice attraction to buy.

Face the facts..If McD's suddenly became health food central, how many kids would want to go?

McD's relies on kids wanting their junk food..They try to change for the "Better", they will lose money hand over fist.

besides, aren't potatoes vegetables?

I do agree with Cosmic though..The toys should be kept seperate.

I don't think the mods have that kind of power.

I don't think the mods have that kind of power.

True, this goes straight to Admin.

True, this goes straight to Admin.

Unless he's talking about the user Happy Meals, who I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting. Though I would be in support of banning him if he is a threat to our children.

this is a tough one. on one hand, i'm all for freedom and supply and demand, and people being able to dig their own graves or otherwise. but when it comes to children, one the basic responsibilities a parent has is to provide nutrition for them.

if you want to say that not feeding your children nutritional food is neglect and abuse, then i'm all for that, and that would certainly effect the supply and demand for mcdonald's happy meals.

but if an adult wants to hurt or even kill themselves by pounding down extra value meals, then i think they should have the right to do that. just don't ask me to pay for their hospital bills or disability payments.

a couple of years ago i took classes to become a foster parent, and i'll never forget this one couple that was going through the classes with me. both were obese, and constantly complaining about their medical/health issues. while they guzzled diet soda, brought fast food to class with them, and snarfed up all of the junk food provided by the administrators. they were so fucking disgusting, and i was appalled because i knew that any child they had in their custody would be subject to the same diet. i would have rather been sitting next to a crack addict. at least crack addicts don't share their drugs with their kids, and most likely would not qualify as foster parents. very disturbing.

Unless he's talking about the user Happy Meals, who I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting. Though I would be in support of banning him if he is a threat to our children.

I think Happy Meals is a spammer...Sells midget porn videos, I think.

Not so much a threat to children, just the other "lil" people.

Oh no this guys want bans 'happy meals' what will he ban next? Oh my...oh no...help us.

bl;a bla balbalbalbalba

I'm in favor of banning the San Francisco government. lol Seriously though, I'm generally against government, but for local control. I'd say, let McDonalds do whatever they want, but don't let them advertise to children. Madison avenue and advertising is scientifically proven to work on the brains of small children, which in turn influences parents. . . Parents are weak weak weak. If you have ever had a child, you would know why. :p

At that point, it really isn't about "free choice" in the consumer market now is it? It becomes just as coercive and violent as government, doesn't it?

Where does this evil elitist eugenicists streak against the freedom to have children come from? I never knew this hostility toward breeding existed on this forum? Where did this come from?

Yes ban them, and also ban Melancholy Meals while you're at it.

Considering that 50 years ago people cooked food themselves, you could suggest a ban on "fast food" could aid in increase attempts at home cooking (and likely increase cases of Botulism)

I suppose you could suggest that having a pre-portion cheap food source aids the poor, lazy and illiterate (in fact considering the nature of the illiterate, perhaps they should have pictographic explanations about the ingredients content since they can't read), lessens the potential self-inflicted health issues through food poisoning, while also granting a better dietary control (After all it's suppose to contain "on average" what's listed on the label. )

I wonder if Henry Ford ever considered that the production line would stem from the manufacturing of cars to fast food outlets.

I can't support banning fast food or even kids happy meals. I think it just comes down to education - we need to better educate the public on health issues and then it's up to them I suppose.

I also hate to see very obese parents stuffing their face with fast food with their massively obese kids doing likewise. But, it's their life and their kids. Without taking away parenting rights, I'm not sure what the solution would be other than education.

a high sugar cola diet!

Don't be silly. We barely eat any sugar at all in the USA. Now, high-fructose corn syrup, on the other hand...

A lot of these dietary elitist arguments miss the reasons that we are flooded with cheapo hfcs foods in the first place, which is the War on Hunger started by Nixon. There used to be a considerable number of hungry poor people in the US (particularly children), and high-fructose corn syrup and other processed foods provide cheap, high-calorie food to fill that demand. Yeah, they're unhealthy, but what, exactly, is a poor single mother supposed to feed her kids? It ain't gonna be organic quinoa, free-range meat and locally-grown heirloom vegetables, that's for sure.

Those of us who can afford to eat well may look down on it, but the fact of the matter is that a Happy Meal is cheap, hot food that will fill a kid up and put a smile on their face. I'd think very, very long and hard about coming up with a suitable replacement before taking that option away from people. Unhealthy food is strongly preferable to hunger, and in historical terms it's a god damned miracle that even very poor families can feed their kid a cheeseburger, fries and a beverage, along with toys and entertainment, prepared for you and with no clean-up duties, for the equivalent of 30 minutes work at minimum wage.

The marketting of unhealthy foods (and particularly soda and juice) directly at kids needs to be reduced, though. And the idea that fruit juice is "healthy" (while soda is not) needs to be outright demolished. A glass of apple juice is every bit as bad for you as a glass of Coca-Cola. And it doesn't even have caffeine or bubbles!

Don't be silly. We barely eat any sugar at all in the USA. Now, high-fructose corn syrup, on the other hand...

A lot of these dietary elitist arguments miss the reasons that we are flooded with cheapo hfcs foods in the first place, which is the War on Hunger started by Nixon. There used to be a considerable number of hungry poor people in the US (particularly children), and high-fructose corn syrup and other processed foods provide cheap, high-calorie food to fill that demand. Yeah, they're unhealthy, but what, exactly, is a poor single mother supposed to feed her kids? It ain't gonna be organic quinoa, free-range meat and locally-grown heirloom vegetables, that's for sure.

Those of us who can afford to eat well may look down on it, but the fact of the matter is that a Happy Meal is cheap, hot food that will fill a kid up and put a smile on their face. I'd think very, very long and hard about coming up with a suitable replacement before taking that option away from people. Unhealthy food is strongly preferable to hunger, and in historical terms it's a god damned miracle that even very poor families can feed their kid a cheeseburger, fries and a beverage, along with toys and entertainment, prepared for you and with no clean-up duties, for the equivalent of 30 minutes work at minimum wage.

The marketting of unhealthy foods (and particularly soda and juice) directly at kids needs to be reduced, though. And the idea that fruit juice is "healthy" (while soda is not) needs to be outright demolished. A glass of apple juice is every bit as bad for you as a glass of Coca-Cola. And it doesn't even have caffeine or bubbles!
Now, that is a paradigm shift! You work in McDonald's marketing don't you? :eek:


:D

I can't support banning fast food or even kids happy meals. I think it just comes down to education - we need to better educate the public on health issues and then it's up to them I suppose.

Are you in favour of making heroin legal as well? Clearly it all comes down to education with heroin as well.

I can't support banning fast food or even kids happy meals. I think it just comes down to education - we need to better educate the public on health issues and then it's up to them I suppose.


I agree with this only in the cases of adults. However, marketing toward children is far more deceptive than it is toward adults, based on both the content being marketed and the naivety of the audience being marketed to. The toys are marketed toward an age group that doesn't know better and isn't expected to. I honestly don't see this as being much different from when joe camel, the cartoon character, was being used as a tool to attract underage smokers.

I agree with this only in the cases of adults. However, marketing toward children is far more deceptive than it is toward adults, based on both the content being marketed and the naivety of the audience being marketed to. The toys are marketed toward an age group that doesn't know better and isn't expected to. I honestly don't see this as being much different from when joe camel, the cartoon character, was being used as a tool to attract underage smokers.

The toy can be purchased without buying the food. Unlike Joe Camel's potential buyers, the kids (usually between the ages of 3 and 7) who actually want the toys are too young to walk down the street into a fast food place and purchase a Kid's Meal on their own without their parents' knowledge. Parents buy these meals for their kids, all they have to do is not buy them.
As a kid I enjoyed kid's meals whether I got a toy or not, I still preferred it to eating at home. But more often than not when I asked for a kid's meal from some fast food place my mother would say no and that was the end of that. There was nothing I could do about it besides whine. But that didn't make chicken nuggets and french fries appear. It isn't fair for kids like I used to be who do not have weight problems to no longer be able to enjoy "terrible for them" but "tastes great to them" food and a toy. There is nothing wrong with the occasional indulgence. They shouldn't be punished for other people's poor parental decisions.

All fraudulent products pretending to be food should banned by the FDA.

I've got an alternative, rather than banning it or stopping the toy being given with it, why not just rename it a....

"Flabby Meal".

Are you in favour of making heroin legal as well? Clearly it all comes down to education with heroin as well.I'd be willing to try making it legal and see where that goes.


The toy can be purchased without buying the food. Unlike Joe Camel's potential buyers, the kids (usually between the ages of 3 and 7) who actually want the toys are too young to walk down the street into a fast food place and purchase a Kid's Meal on their own without their parents' knowledge. Parents buy these meals for their kids, all they have to do is not buy them.
As a kid I enjoyed kid's meals whether I got a toy or not, I still preferred it to eating at home. But more often than not when I asked for a kid's meal from some fast food place my mother would say no and that was the end of that. There was nothing I could do about it besides whine. But that didn't make chicken nuggets and french fries appear. It isn't fair for kids like I used to be who do not have weight problems to no longer be able to enjoy "terrible for them" but "tastes great to them" food and a toy. There is nothing wrong with the occasional indulgence. They shouldn't be punished for other people's poor parental decisions.I ate McDonald's maybe once a year as a kid - as a special treat.


All fraudulent products pretending to be food should banned by the FDA.What would you consider fraudulent?




One thing I used to eat a lot of when I was a kid was sugar. I used to pour mountains of sugar on cornflakes as a kid. I was probably much worse than a Happy/Flabby meal.

One thing I used to eat a lot of when I was a kid was sugar. I used to pour mountains of sugar on cornflakes as a kid. I was probably much worse than a Happy/Flabby meal.

That would be the Happy Hyperglycemia Meal.. Not sure what kinda toy would come with it though..

I ate McDonald's maybe once a year as a kid - as a special treat. .

Makes it that much more special doesn't it? Like Christmas or your birthday.
I probably went once a month or so.

That would be the Happy Hyperglycemia Meal.. Not sure what kinda toy would come with it though..Free insulin and syringe?


Makes it that much more special doesn't it? Like Christmas or your birthday.
I probably went once a month or so.So true :)

Free insulin and syringe?



Sure...And the syringe would be edible..Made of what?...Sugar, of course.

Free insulin and syringe?

Or statins!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10955522


Fast food outlets should consider handing out cholesterol-lowering drugs to combat the effects of fatty food, say UK researchers.

Or statins!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10955522


That ruins the whole fat food, I mean fast food experience.

We always ate at home. McDs doesnt bother me though, or other places like it and sometimes it is good. BUT i eat it maybe one ever 5 years or so. I dont like overly salty food and really not into thick sause especially on lettuce. Food for me is more like something i have to do though and does not instill in me a gratifying feeling. Which is why i never been fat.

Yeah, they're unhealthy, but what, exactly, is a poor single mother supposed to feed her kids? It ain't gonna be organic quinoa, free-range meat and locally-grown heirloom vegetables, that's for sure.

Those of us who can afford to eat well may look down on it, but the fact of the matter is that a Happy Meal is cheap, hot food that will fill a kid up and put a smile on their face. I'd think very, very long and hard about coming up with a suitable replacement before taking that option away from people. Unhealthy food is strongly preferable to hunger, and in historical terms it's a god damned miracle that even very poor families can feed their kid a cheeseburger, fries and a beverage, along with toys and entertainment, prepared for you and with no clean-up duties, for the equivalent of 30 minutes work at minimum wage. As someone who has actually been poor, I can assure you that it is much cheaper to prepare food yourself than it is to buy even the cheapest of fast foods. Granted, it takes a modicum of effort - but throwing a ground beef patty into a skillet isn't exactly a major project.
The marketting of unhealthy foods (and particularly soda and juice) directly at kids needs to be reduced, though. And the idea that fruit juice is "healthy" (while soda is not) needs to be outright demolished. A glass of apple juice is every bit as bad for you as a glass of Coca-Cola. And it doesn't even have caffeine or bubbles!This I agree with. Convincing parents that juices are more "healthy" than sodas has got to be one of the greatest scams ever pulled by marketers.

Now, that is a paradigm shift! You work in McDonald's marketing don't you? :eek:


:D

No, but in the interests of full disclosure I'll mention that my upbringing and education was funded with the profits from a McDonald's franchise. And that I spent several summers working full time at McDonald's (and hated it).


As someone who has actually been poor, I can assure you that it is much cheaper to prepare food yourself than it is to buy even the cheapest of fast foods. Granted, it takes a modicum of effort - but throwing a ground beef patty into a skillet isn't exactly a major project.

I didn't mean to suggest the McDonald's is cheaper than preparing food yourself. Rather, it's cheap enough that even fairly poor families can still afford the luxury of eating out on occasion. And that's important - this issue gets examined from a perspective that seems to be purely about calories and health. But it is really, really important from a social perspective to maintain spaces where even poor people are able to participate and enjoy themselves. It keeps them normalized as visible, valid members of society, and not just lepers left to suffer in private.

While I've never been poor, the town where the McDonald's my parents owned and operated was quite poor (and such is, not coincidentally, a much better place to operate a McDonald's than a rich neighborhood. Both from staffing and sales perspectives), and the highest-sales periods were reliably the evenings of payday. Twice monthly dinners out at McDonald's were the big reward for a lot of poor families in that town. And while that might seem pathetic, consider the benefits: no cooking or clean-up, the kids are happy and wear themselves out playing with their toys in the playground, and the parents get to socialize and be seen as providers who can make their families happy, and eat out like "normal" families. That's nothing to sneer at, and the condescending suggestions that this option should be destroyed because some elite knows what's best for poor people bothers me a great deal.

Likewise on the employment side. Sure, a McJob sucks. I've worked there full time, so I understand this very clearly. I've also seen a slew of high-school drop-outs, recovering addicts and (literal) mental retards given their only shot at a stable income and personal advancement by employment at McDonald's. I've seen people make it out of prison-bound gang lifestyles by working their way through a GED and community college on a McDonald's job. And a manager position at McDonald's is a big deal in poor towns with crap employment opportunities - I know entire families that would be destitute without that chance. The fact of the matter is that, as a low-end business, McDonald's values poor people (both as customers and employees) in a way that the majority of our society does not. And so the elitism evident in anti-McDonald's rhetoric rankles me, even without getting into stuff like Ronald McDonald House and other benevolent activities.

Meanwhile, I find the anti-corporatist conspiracy angle to anti-McDonald's rhetoric unconvincing. If people wanted healthier food, McDonald's would gladly sell it to them. They have a long, long history of introducing healthier products which then don't sell for crap and get pulled off of the market. They make a point of responding to reasonable (and even, unreasonable) complaints about their products and service. They are extremely averse to negative publicity, and so routinely spend money catering to such expectations (recall them summarily dropping the Super Size meals when Supersize Me came out, offering fruits and veggies in lieu of fries, etc. - it never lasts, because people want the junk food). So, given that the conspiracy theories about McDonald's are hollow, the rhetoric ends up being nothing more than anti-poor elitism, dressed up as anti-corporatism to appeal to "liberals."



This I agree with. Convincing parents that juices are more "healthy" than sodas has got to be one of the greatest scams ever pulled by marketers.

Right, and this gets to why it's silly to pick on McDonald's. Yes, they do market unhealthy food to children, and it would be cool if they didn't. But this occurs in a context where unhealthy food is systematically marketted to children by any number of entities - to the point where people think that grossly unhealthy foods are actually healthy, and pat themselves on the back for feeding them to their children! People who complain about Happy Meals including soda are then mollified when it's replaced with apple juice or chocolate milk!

The unhealthy aspects of McDonald's are simply a manifestation of a larger unhealthy food culture, which again makes the attempts to single them out look more like elitism than serious health advocacy. It wouldn't accomplish anything for McDonald's to martyr itself by pushing healthier foods - customers would just go to Burger King instead, and the whole problem would lurch onward unimpeded. Reforming American food culture needs to be about more than being seen to look down on McDonald's.

As someone who has actually been poor, I can assure you that it is much cheaper to prepare food yourself than it is to buy even the cheapest of fast foods. Granted, it takes a modicum of effort - but throwing a ground beef patty into a skillet isn't exactly a major project.

Overall eating at home is cheaper in the long run, but not always in individual situations. Grocery stores in poor areas tend to be more expensive than stores else where. On the rare occasions that I run out of both money and food, I can always scrape enough loose change together to buy something off of the value menu at a fast food place and I'm usually satisfied after eating it. However going to the grocery store with just loose change is enough for either really unhealthy food (like Top Ramen and co.) or one fruit or vegetable which would leave me starving after eating it. At Taco Bell, I can get a burrito for only $0.79 +tax and may not even finish the whole thing, which means two dinners for for under a dollar! It's not the healthiest by any standards, but when you're starving all you want is for the terrible feeling to go away and stay gone. Unfortunately unhealthy food is much more filling than healthy food.

No, we shouldn't ban Happy Meals. I see this sort of shit as the slippery slope to government monitoring what people feed their kids.

no way freedom fries baby

Has anyone noticed that Ronald MacDonald is no longer in the commercials? I haven't seen him in months.

I did, and kinda miss him, though I never eat at Mickie - D's. :o Always liked old Ronald though - he was such a clown! :D

The toy can be purchased without buying the food.

So then why not separate them? The toy alone isn't unhealthy.