Happy meals banned in several counties in California

[Ancien Régime]

I like how you kept it simple and avoided the implications of what you just wrote. Did you think I wouldn't notice? Yes, the government should allow small children to purchase drugs and firearms that are directly marketed to them?

Because drugs and firearms are actually harmful to kids? And because unlike an adult, a child cannot be held responsible for acquiring such things, thus, if a child were to acquire drugs or firearms, then either the adult who allowed them to have it or the seller who sold it to them would be liable if something bad happened?

Understand that parents cannot, and will not, ever have full control over their child's activities. Understand that marketing can target children at a very young age, and expose them to dangers very easily. Did you know that the primary target demographic of Phillip-Morris in the 70s was kids from 8-13? They called them "cradle-to-grave" smokers.

Cradle-to-grave smokers with shitty parents. Smoking is passed down through peer pressure, not marketing, and the inability to resist peer pressure is something that can't be controlled for - I don't see people advertising marijuana or the abuse of household substances on TV, yet young people use those all the time.

Don't pretend to stand on principle and claim that "government shouldn't interfere with parents blah blah", the practical results of government non-interference in the regulation of dangerous substances are far too insidious for me to entertain libertarian bullshit in this matter.

Practical results based on...what, exactly? Seeing the government hasn't not regulated these substances in 100 years. And are you really, seriously fucking implying that FOOD is a dangerous substance?

Are you claiming that it would be okay for the government to regulate fast food if they were dangerous? I ask because I don't want you to worm out of the point with "well I believe in liberty" later on if you make me prove that, while fast food may not be as addictive/dangerous as cigarettes, they are certainly addictive and dangerous.

So we should have the state regulate personal choices.

The government is not telling you what to do with your body. The government is telling McDonalds what they can sell
. You are entirely free to purchase the relevant ingredients and make the exact meals and eat them yourself, if you so desire...but McDonalds cannot sell them to you. You might be wondering "what the fuck is the difference", and the difference is that the ban is on the initiation of harmful conduct by one party against another party, not necessarily on the conduct itself.

Selling something to another party is harmful conduct. Right. Hey, since we're going all fascist police state, tell me what stops the state from criminalizing the sale of the relevant ingredients, huh? After all, Safeway selling me the "relevant ingredients" would be the initiation of harmful conduct against another party just as much as McDonalds selling me the whole damn burger premade, right?

More relevantly, under common law, the government has the right to invalidate or criminalize certain types of contracts even if they are entirely "voluntary" under certain conditions. Without getting too in-depth into contract and tort law, one of these conditions can be stated to be "information asymmetry", wherein one party is unaware of the full repercussions of their consent to an otherwise "voluntary" agreement. For instance, a store cannot hang up a discreet but visible sign that says "we will change you $10 for every second you spend here", EULAs cannot have fine print that says "by agreeing to this you agree to sell us your wife and kids", etc.

Except that you should know McDonalds is unhealthy for you, so no information asymmetry there. Unless this concept coversNever mind that the idea of the state invalidating contracts is truly insidious, there is no fine print involved in "EATING TOO MUCH MCDONALDS MAKES YOU FAT."

You mention that a felon buying a gun has a "high potential for hurting others", but you don't think a restaurant that serves food which has been categorically proven to cause significant health problems even over frequent moderate-term consumption "has a high potential for hurting others"? I think your priorities are fucked, mate.

You're comparing fucking FOOD to fucking FIREARMS. Are you insane? One thing gives you health problems if you eat too much of it. The other kills you. One of these things is not like the other. I'm not even going to argue that firearms should be sold freely, the comparison you just made is so ridiculous as to defy belief.


tl;dr

 

[sensible]

What I notice about this topic is that many of the people against the regulation of advertising of harmful foods to children are blatantly uninformed. I'm gonna post some links to help some of these people know the harm that society has on children. It is pure neglect if you let this happen even if you think its the parent's choice to let it.

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/070925/junk-food-tv-driving-kids-to-obesity.htm

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/childhood-obesity-statistics.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2009-07-20-obesityboy_N.htm

Make sure to read these before posting again.

 

[WaterBomb]

Childhood obesity is not completely caused by their poor diet, either. Half of maintaining proper weight and cardiovascular health is exercise. If a child is getting adequate exercise, their metabolism will be functioning properly and they will be able to process the occasional happy meal. Hell, when I was a teenager I at all kinds of junk, but I led an active lifestyle so I was able to metabolize it all. The greater focus, I think, should be on increasing exercise and not decreasing caloric intake. Remember, you can eat all "healthy" food, but still be overweight because you are not exercising enough to keep your metabolism functioning at an appropriate rate.

Banning this stuff is, to quote a movie, like "shooting a beebee gun at a freight train". Junk food is literally everywhere, and eliminating the Happy Meal will simply not have an impact. I think rather than futile efforts like these that will clearly not make any difference, a more reasonable pursuit like pushing exercise would alleviate (slightly) the problem.

All in all, I think we can all agree that the solution to childhood obesity is getting parents (and kids) to not only know the meaning of proper diet and exercise, but to actually give a shit. It's all fine and dandy to say we need to educate people on this stuff, but until someone comes up with a way to effectively reach the general public and coax them into real action we will only see this problem increase. I hope that somehow, some way, someone figures out how to make people listen and care, and we can eventually see an end to this epidemic.

 

[Alan]

McDonald's Happy Meals are certainly not the heart of the problem.

I'm not sure if that pun was intended or not but if it was bravo sir.

Also, this is a really dumb thing to do. Kids are fat. Yeah we know that but now they have to buy regular sized meals (as said by Kinneas) so I really don't think this is accomplishing anything. I think its kind of dumb that California can tell companies what they can and cannot sell, since the government (at any level) has no business in interfering with private enterprise.

Best way to make your fat fuck of a kid skinny? Take away his gameboy and xbox and give him a soccer ball or something. I don't know why parents cant just figure that out.

 

[Toothache]

More and more these days, people are becoming both environmental and health-conscious. This can only be a good thing, as people are starting to care about not only their own well-being, but the well being of the people and land around them. While I agree that there should be some government involvement in a national health issue like obesity, I am concerned that things are stepping into overregulation.

That said, there is a psychological effect of adding a toy to a meal on children, since they are impressionable and much easier to influence. So, on a basic level, I can understand the principle behind this. Should it have been enshrined in law? I'm not so sure. Surely the food industry has an independent ombudsman or regulatory body that would be better positioned to impose restrictions like this. And has been mentioned above, it will not necessarily lead to parents choosing a healthy option for a child, just because there's no more toys in Happy Meals. Education at an early age is the most important factor, and thankfully there is a lot more of that these days, although the fruits of that knowledge won't be seen for a few years. Ironically, it is the adults who have to be convinced that making new healthier choices is the best option, and they are slower to change.

Imposing regulation just for the sake of doing something, or appearing to do something, often leads to bad laws and bad government. It is surprising to me, as a non US citizen, watching the US become steadily more overregulated, since it likes to portray itself as the 'land of the free'.

In short, this did not need to be a law, encouraging the food industry regulatory bodies to actively regulate is a much better approach.

 

[lmitchell0012]

Well, if not being able to tell if someone's lying to you constitutes stupidity. The main reason I feel business regulation is needed is because of the information imbalance. An individual dealing with a business has information given by that business, and the individual doesn't have the resources to verify that information.

So the government imposes regulations that ban the info from being a pack of lies, and the government does have the resources to check.

(The government should in principle itself be subject to the same sort of regulations. But it's unclear who enforces them on it.)

Note that it was a general statement. Having read the more details the OP added, it very much doesn't apply in this case, which I think is a prime example of bad business regulation, and this kind of stuff costs businesses a lot of money and brings no real benefit to anyone. (Remember, there's not just this one rule, there's LOADS of silly laws like it, putting an undue burden on businesses that have to check them all to be sure they're not breaking any. Why do you think lawyers make so much money? Because the law - in general - is too effing complicated. We need a government with a commitment to simplify it.)

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. That you can say something so wrong makes me sad for America.

The bigger problem I feel with that is it's a "regressive tax", one that has a proportionally greater impact on poorer people (because they necessarily spend a bigger percentage of their money on food).

Maybe prices are different in the US, but in the UK the home-cooked meal will almost always be cheaper, as will a microwave ready meal. (Either option may be more or less healthy than McD's of course.) I could feed a whole family at home for the price of one McD's Value Meal, and taking about 20 minutes or less for the cooking.

Did you learn anything when you were in school?? That IS what we were fighting for.

 

[TaiCrunch]

The basic causes of World War II were nationalistic tensions, unresolved issues, and resentments resulting from the First World War and the interwar period in Europe, plus the effects of the Great Depression in the 1930s. The culmination of events that led to the outbreak of war are generally understood to be the 1939 invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany and the 1937 invasion of the Republic of China by the Empire of Japan. These military aggressions were the decisions made by authoritarian ruling Nazi elite in Germany and by the leadership of the Kwantung Army in the case of Japan. World War II started after these aggressive actions were met with an official declaration of war and/or armed resistance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II

We didn't really start fighting communism until that whole Cold War thing a while later.

 

[Obsessed]

Did you learn anything when you were in school?? That IS what we were fighting for.

Cantab is not from America, nor does he live there.

 

[WaterBomb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II

We didn't really start fighting communism until that whole Cold War thing a while later.

Citing wikipedia is not a great way to prove your case, btw. Nothing personal as I'm not disagreeing with you, just letting you know that, especially with articles related to history, that Wikipedia is far from a reliable source.

 

[vonFiedler]

What I notice about this topic is that many of the people against the regulation of advertising of harmful foods to children are blatantly uninformed. I'm gonna post some links to help some of these people know the harm that society has on children. It is pure neglect if you let this happen even if you think its the parent's choice to let it.

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/070925/junk-food-tv-driving-kids-to-obesity.htm

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/childhood-obesity-statistics.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2009-07-20-obesityboy_N.htm

Make sure to read these before posting again.

Here's a news flash. I had McDonalds (or the equivalent) MAYBE once a month and I didn't like TV and I still became one of the relatively rare overweight people in my state. And you know why? Lack of exercise mostly, but I was actually picked on for being too skinny as a kid. These statistics mean jackshit to anyone who actually remembers what it was like being a kid with two (or less) overworked and underpayed parents.

• Almost 30% of kids eat some type of fast food everyday of the year. If the consumption of fast foods is at such a high rate, it's not surprising if children are at a risk of getting obese.
• What does SOME kind of fast food entail? Does it include the kind of frozen food I was talking about?
• Children with problems of obesity are bound to suffer from other problems like depression and social anxiety disorders. This is due to the fact that obese children may feel shy and hesitant to approach others due to their weight issues.
• This doesn't sound like a statistic to me. And it being such a problem, maybe we should do something (ANYTHING) about the bullying problem instead of basically encouraging others to bully kids fat kids because they are an epidemic.
• One of the most concerning statistics of childhood obesity is that studies show that nearly 30% of the entire children population are obese and it's predicted that if obesity problems continue uncontrolled, by 2010, nearly 50% of children population may be obese in US.
• Obese or just overweight?
• The instances of childhood obesity in US have risen 3 times in the last 30 years.
• Why would obesity problems rapidly rise? McDonalds isn't new nor is anything they are doing. If you're not just full of shit here maybe you should be looking into an actual cause
• In the the year 1980, nearly 6.5% children aged 6 - 11 years were obese. For 2008, percentage of children obese were 19.8%.
• You motherfuckers just said, JUST SAID that 30% of kids were obese and 50% would be obese 2 years from that statistic. Way to contradict yourselves.
• In adolescents, (aged 12 - 19), the obesity statistics jumped from 5.0% (1980) to 18.1% (2008).
• So where the fuck is this 30% I keep hearing about? Oh, I get it. 18.1% + 19.8% = 37.9%. So the people who make troll science pics are doing these studies. Actually that's pretty much correct.
• One of the interesting childhood obesity statistics in US is that, childhood obesity is not prevalent in preschool low income group. Just 1 in every 7, low income pre school kids is obese.
• No, the kids who have nothing to do with their time and parents who probably have less work might get more exercise? Really? Nah, low income just means they can't afford McDonalds of course.
• Nearly, 85% of female girls aged 12 - 19 don't take proper calcium in their diet.
• I can find a use for this statistic.
• Almost 25% obese adults were obese in their childhood.
• That actually sounds like a small number to me, and not all that relevant anyway.
• As per research by CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), the number of children in US meeting the dietary guidelines are very less, just about 40%.
• Again, children are picky bastards who eat only simple foods and don't usually even consume vegetables. It is up to parents to show their children an appreciation in a greater variety of foods.
• In the US, a trend has been observed where children spend more time in front of the idiot box and computers, eating fast foods and stuffing chocolates and snacks all the time, than in sports and games. This has made them vulnerable to obesity.
• Alex Winter hasn't had any work in a while has he? I approve of children watching his 1990 MTV sketch comedy show.
• A study states that majority of children in US have been negatively influenced by TV and this has increased the habit of eating fast foods and unhealthy food.
• TV has been around for half a century. Piss off.

 

[Wikey]

Blame. The. Parents.

You can teach your kids that kale and steamed raisin skins taste like milk and honey if you get off your fatass and parent instead of shoving fat and grease down their gullets. Go to a public place and just watch people with kids. You'll see that the real epidemics in America are ignorance, indecisiveness, and a compulsion to blame EVERYTHING on someone else.

Also, vonFielder is right in implying that income level is a huge factor in this. I have horrible diet habits because I was raised by a single-mother who worked 60+ hours a week. She's an amazing cook that can make amazing and healthy meals. But when you're working ten hours a day, six days a week the microwave ends up doing a lot of cooking.

 

[MrIndigo]

Keep in mind, it's not the food being banned here; it's the toy/marketing.

That said, as incredibly depressing as it is to me that governments have to resort to legislating what food people can buy for themselves or their kids, there are so many cases where people actually are just too stupid to make choices for themselves without legislation forcing them.

 

[MrIndigo]

Blame. The. Parents.

You can teach your kids that kale and steamed raisin skins taste like milk and honey if you get off your fatass and parent instead of shoving fat and grease down their gullets. Go to a public place and just watch people with kids. You'll see that the real epidemics in America are ignorance, indecisiveness, and a compulsion to blame EVERYTHING on someone else.

Also, vonFielder is right in implying that income level is a huge factor in this. I have horrible diet habits because I was raised by a single-mother who worked 60+ hours a week. She's an amazing cook that can make amazing and healthy meals. But when you're working ten hours a day, six days a week the microwave ends up doing a lot of cooking.

It's not income level so much as time. You get a lot more food for your money actually buying it and cooking it yourself. Many people are too lazy to cook for themselves, which is why they go out to eat so often. Some people just can't spare the time.

 

[Chou Toshio]

In that case a better solution would be a government subsidy / tax relief for companies looking to mass-produce healthy vegetable-packed microwavable meals marketed towards kids (with toys).

Am I a genius? >______>

 

[Ancien Régime]

Using taxpayer money for the purposes of social engineering?

No thanks, don't want.

I thought you agreed with my overall philosophy!

 

[mtr]

If you look at smoking rates and obesity/overweight rates over the past generation, you'll see an inverse correlation. People are trading one "bad", stress-relieving habit for another. This is made even easier by the fact that fast food has become way more accessible than in 1960, and way more unhealthy (look at the growth in McD's sizes of sodas and fries in that time period).

But given what happened to smoking, we have hope. If we forced restaurants to display nutrition facts for everything, you could bet that McD's would lose business. We don't need to do what Britain does and say "smokers die younger" on every cigarette pack, but simply displaying nutrition facts and requiring the corporations to be accountable to the consumer would do a lot.

 

[TaiCrunch]

The thing is, most people that go into a McDonald's don't care enough about their own health probably don't even know how to read nutrition facts, let alone care enough to try to. In the three times a week I go to McDonald's (fuckyeah devil's advocate), I've never seen someone walk in, ask to see nutrition facts, read them, and walk out saying "my god, I had no idea!"

The main question being who's really concerned, the consumers or the people who feel the need to think for the consumer? Going back to everyone's cigarette comparison, when an anti-smoker asks me if I'm aware of the ~600 ingredients in a single cigarette, I say yes and continue to smoke. It's my choice to smoke, even though activists and now even tobacco companies are clear about the risks. So no matter what you do to get somebody to stop consuming whatever it is that's bad for them, you can't really make someone stop if they don't want to.

 

[cantab]

If you look at smoking rates and obesity/overweight rates over the past generation, you'll see an inverse correlation. People are trading one "bad", stress-relieving habit for another.

There could be a causal relationship there. Smoking is known to reduce appetite. People who quit smoking often gain weight.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Using taxpayer money for the purposes of social engineering?

No thanks, don't want.

I thought you agreed with my overall philosophy!

It's probably not apparent by the way I posted looking back (so I don't blame) but I was being sarcastic.

 

[Wikey]

It's not income level so much as time. You get a lot more food for your money actually buying it and cooking it yourself. Many people are too lazy to cook for themselves, which is why they go out to eat so often. Some people just can't spare the time.

They're linked. Rich people either have the time to cook healthy food or the money to pay someone else to.

In that case a better solution would be a government subsidy / tax relief for companies looking to mass-produce healthy vegetable-packed microwavable meals marketed towards kids (with toys).


Am I a genius? >______>

If the government is going to protect us from ourselves I'd much rather they do it this way.

 

[Layell]

How can anyone believe that now kids will be getting regular sized meals instead of kid sized ones?

The happy meals will still exist, it just means if they aren't healthy there won't be a toy with them.

Also this operates on the idea that kids just want toys with their food. So now if they want toy's they'll have to get the healthier meal option. Assuming food companies don't kill this law they will make meal options that can come with toys, because they know kids will be more concerned with the toy rather than what they put in their mouth.

 

[Lanturn314]

The thing is, most people that go into a McDonald's don't care enough about their own health probably don't even know how to read nutrition facts, let alone care enough to try to. In the three times a week I go to McDonald's (fuckyeah devil's advocate), I've never seen someone walk in, ask to see nutrition facts, read them, and walk out saying "my god, I had no idea!"

It's true that the way nutrition facts are displayed isn't exactly enlightening to anyone who doesn't know what the numbers mean, but if they put warnings similar to the surgeon general's warning on cigarette packs in prominent places (food bags, advertisements for fast food, etc), it might be a better deterrent. The health risks associated with obesity are bad enough that they might scare some people:

Hide

(copy/pasted from the CDC website)

• Coronary heart disease
• Type 2 diabetes
• Cancers (endometrial, breast, and colon)
• Hypertension (high blood pressure)
• Dyslipidemia (for example, high total cholesterol or high levels of triglycerides)
• Stroke
• Liver and Gallbladder disease
• Sleep apnea and respiratory problems
• Osteoarthritis (a degeneration of cartilage and its underlying bone within a joint)
• Gynecological problems (abnormal menses, infertility)

The main question being who's really concerned, the consumers or the people who feel the need to think for the consumer? Going back to everyone's cigarette comparison, when an anti-smoker asks me if I'm aware of the ~600 ingredients in a single cigarette, I say yes and continue to smoke. It's my choice to smoke, even though activists and now even tobacco companies are clear about the risks. So no matter what you do to get somebody to stop consuming whatever it is that's bad for them, you can't really make someone stop if they don't want to.

It is indeed your decision to smoke despite all the warnings on the packs of cigarettes. However, there are also a lot of people who haven't started smoking because of all the warnings out there about lung cancer; I'm one of them. I respect your right to buy cigarettes and smoke them as you see fit, but I would rather not increase my risk of lung cancer, heart disease, and emphysema.
Similarly, it's inevitable that a lot of people won't be deterred from continuous consumption of fast food by simply putting lots of health warnings everywhere, but there will also be people who will read the warnings, take them seriously, and adopt healthier eating habits.

You can't make someone stop doing something if they don't want to, but you can give them more information to make them reevaluate whether they want to continue doing something or not. And by making more information available, people are actually more free to make decisions, because they know what's really at stake.

 

[MrIndigo]

It's true that the way nutrition facts are displayed isn't exactly enlightening to anyone who doesn't know what the numbers mean, but if they put warnings similar to the surgeon general's warning on cigarette packs in prominent places (food bags, advertisements for fast food, etc), it might be a better deterrent.

...

It is indeed your decision to smoke despite all the warnings on the packs of cigarettes. However, there are also a lot of people who haven't started smoking because of all the warnings out there about lung cancer; I'm one of them. I respect your right to buy cigarettes and smoke them as you see fit, but I would rather not increase my risk of lung cancer, heart disease, and emphysema.

The health scare warnings on cigarettes have not contributed that much to the reduction of smoking. However, I read that a study conducted in Denmark (I think, it was one of those European countries) found a significantly higher rate of deterrant when they used shame as a motivator rather than health/wellbeing, i.e. "smoking makes you look unattractive", "smoking makes you smell bad", and so on.

 

[cantab]

However, there are also a lot of people who haven't started smoking because of all the warnings out there about lung cancer; I'm one of them.

There are also a lot of people who want to stop smoking, but can't. I would not be surprised if there are more smokers who want to quit than want to continue. That's somewhere smoking differs very strongly from unhealthy food (and don't give me "the food's addictive", it's nothing like the same, comparing the addictiveness of food with smoking is like comparing the speed of Usain Bolt with a Bugatti Veyron.)

I read that a study conducted in Denmark (I think, it was one of those European countries) found a significantly higher rate of deterrant when they used shame as a motivator rather than health/wellbeing, i.e. "smoking makes you look unattractive", "smoking makes you smell bad", and so on.

Woe betide any government who decides to take that approach regarding childhood obesity.

(Sidenote: I read that the majority of psychology studies are of dubious generality, due to the use of WEIRD - Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic - subjects, often students. When studies take subjects from different societies around the world, it's very clear that not everyone thinks the same way.)

 

[mtr]

Fast Food IS addictive, but not physiologically so (like smoking is). I guess you could make the argument that the fast food companies design their food to suit what our tongue is wired to like (as more studies are revealing), but that's not the point. What's addictive is that it is relatively cheap, readily accessible, and easier than the alternative of going to the supermarket, buying groceries, and cooking.

Also, the guys at McD's are masters of psychologically manipulating young children. They present McD's as a family-friendly place where kids go to eat food, get toys, and have fun in the play place. The kids are classically conditioned to associate McD's with a good time. Then, when they're older, and they're rushed for time and need food, McD's is the first thing that pops into their mind.