Happy meals banned in several counties in California

[FlareBlitz]

Trying to regulate what people can and cannot eat is complete and utter bullshit. It's the parents responsibility to take care of their kids and make sure they eat healthy, not the governments. People are trying to give our government way too much power and it's ridiculous.

Oh okay, so obviously we should let tobacco companies/firearms manufacturers/alcohol producers market directly to kids too. Because it's the parent's responsibility to micromanage their children and prevent them from ever hearing or seeing any advertisements whose impact could influence the entire rest of their lives, right?

Some of you guys really need to think before you post. Happy Meals were isolated here because they are an extremely unhealthy product that are marketed directly to, and bought almost exclusively for, children. You know how the government stopped Philip-Morris from running cigarette ads in cartoons? Same thing here, except with obesity/heart disease instead of lung cancer/cirrhosis. Before bitching about this, there are a few questions you need to think about and answer:

Q1: Is it the government's prerogative to limit or ban the sale of certain products if it views those products to be detrimental to the general welfare of the population?

If yes, go to Q2.
If no, read the first part of this post, maybe think a bit more about whether you want violent felons to be able to buy guns or teenagers to be able to buy OTC vicodin, and then answer "yes".

Q2: Are the products in question detrimental to the general welfare of the population?

If you realize that happy meals are harmful to children, go to Q3.
If you think happy meals aren't harmful to children you're beyond hope, sorry. Maybe look up trans fats and appropriate caloric content if you think you can figure out how to work Google, otherwise continue on with your life of intellectual mediocrity.

Q3: Is the cost of limiting this product in this specific case worth the perceived benefit to the public?

Ah, now we get to the question where disagreement doesn't automatically denote ignorance. It's entirely possible that one can make the case that banning happy meals isn't going to have any sort of impact on childhood obesity (ostensibly the goal of this), and it's possible that they would be right. While I'm not aware of the particulars, I think the individual who said "if they don't get happy meals they'll just get normal meals" is partially correct; I say "partially" because some kids will not ask their parents to go to McDonalds at all if they are not exposed to advertisement about happy meals or if they have no toys to gain. Whether this is worth the cost of enforcement or the minor social inconvenience, I don't know.

But the point I wanted to emphasize is that this course of action is philosophically acceptable, just perhaps not practicable in this specific case.

 

[sensible]

No they aren't

They are food


Jesus

Wow so obesity isn't a big deal? Heart attacks at ages 8-12 would beg to differ. Seriously even if it doesn't work to lower obesity rates a significant amount, at least banning Happy Meals will send a message.

 

[Firestorm]

God. I'm going to post this here and edit it into the OP since lmitchell hasn't done so yet like I asked. In the future, link to the stories you're posting about so you aren't misinterpreting it. This isn't a ban on all happy meals.

Under the ruling, scheduled to take effect in December 2011, San Francisco restaurants will be allowed to include a toy with a meal only if the food and drink in the meal contain fewer than 600 calories, less than 640 milligrams of sodium and if less than 35 per cent of the calories are derived from fat (less than 10 per cent from saturated fat), except for fat contained in nuts, seeds, eggs or low-fat cheese.

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101104/happy-meals-101103/20101104/?hub=CalgaryHome

 

[sensible]

"We are extremely proud of our Happy Meals which give our youngest guests wholesome food and toys of the highest quality. Getting a toy with a kid's meal is just one part of a fun, family experience at McDonald's."

I loled at this.

 

[Lanturn314]

God. I'm going to post this here and edit it into the OP since lmitchell hasn't done so yet like I asked. In the future, link to the stories you're posting about so you aren't misinterpreting it. This isn't a ban on all happy meals.

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101104/happy-meals-101103/20101104/?hub=CalgaryHome

Oh, in that case, it's a perfectly reasonable step in the right direction. Outlawing toys going with the meal unless the meal is way less unhealthy is a very good way about going about this. It's not unfairly targeting McDonald's since other restaurants give out toys with meals, too, and it's encouraging everyone to step up in terms of including healthier options. Note that they could still sell Happy Meals as they are, too, as long as they didn't include the toy. McDonald's is only bitching because it wants to make an extra buck.

"We are extremely proud of our Happy Meals which give our youngest guests wholesome food and toys of the highest quality. Getting a toy with a kid's meal is just one part of a fun, family experience at McDonald's."

Please. If you really prided yourselves on providing "wholesome food" to your youngest guests, you wouldn't be worried about this legislation at all, because it wouldn't do anything to you.
Also, I bet the McDonald's rep really is fat. lol

 

[Thund91]

I think a decent middle ground would be to stop selling cheap, plastic mass produced toys and start giving toys that encourage kids to go outside and be active.

 

[Disgrace]

Mmm, I'm not American, but does Calfornia have a habit of banning things? I hear it about sometimes.

On topic, I believe it is largely the parents fault if a child eats junk food. They have the responsiblity to their own children and they shouldn't ask to government to make laws because they refuse to take responsiblity themselves. Banning Happy Meals likely wont change a thing, maybe make it worse.

That said, it is a good idea to lower the cost of healthier foods. But that might cost the government money and by the look of this situation it seems unacceptable.

 

[Oglemi]

Well... I understand that we don't want our kids being exposed to/marketed towards tobacco/firearms/etc., but "micromanaging" what a kid eats is highly plausible, (what they watch and see on TV is also possible, but who wants to do that to a kid?). God knows I would have starved if my parents didn't feed me. I really don't see the problem in kids being marketed towards in Happy Meals advertisements especially since it lies in the power of the parents to actually take their whiny children to MacDo or not. So, while the ads may entice the kids to want to be taken to MickyD's, it's up to the parents whether they do or not. I know if a kid is really motivated, they'll find a way to get a Happy Meal, (a la Cartman from South Park), but to my knowledge, those are extreme and limited cases.

I do however think and understand that Happy Meals should be made healthier, (being a skinny bastard makes it hard for me to relate to people with weight problems, so I never had to worry and don't have a strong opinion about this). The problem is, most times when a food is made healthier the taste quality goes way down the shitter. If they could find a way to make them healthier while keeping the taste, I think all will be good in the world. As Chou Toshio pointed out, healthy food is also far more expensive. Who wants to spend more money on something that probably tastes bad?

And please, do not advocate school lunches be made healthier. It happened in our school my senior year, and all hell broke loose. Our proportions went way down, the variety went to fuck, and although they served vegetables everyday they would not provide Ranch to go along with it. Who seriously wants to eat fresh broccoli, carrots or cauliflower without Ranch? Not me, and I really like those vegetables (with Ranch). Suffices to say, I pretty much went hungry last year at school. I even used to really like our lunch program before.

Weak, odd arguments I know, just posting my thoughts more than anything.

tl;dr: Let advertisers do what they want within reason, let companies sell what they want within reason, educate parents on healthy eating habits, educate kids on healthy eating habits, lower cost of healthy foods, make healthy food taste good.

What's funny is, I loved McDonald's as a kid, but hated the Happy Meals, because it wasn't enough food and the toy was lame. I always just got a Big Mac.

 

[Outlaw]

Wow so obesity isn't a big deal? Heart attacks at ages 8-12 would beg to differ. Seriously even if it doesn't work to lower obesity rates a significant amount, at least banning Happy Meals will send a message.

If a kid is having heart attacks at ages 8-12. I would suspect it has more to do with the parents not having a god damn back bone than McDonalds shoving food down a childs face hole while giving them a cheap toy.

Seriously, what more do you health nuts want fast food chains to do? McDonalds already offers APPLE SLICES and JUICE instead of delicious french fries and soda.

Make healthy food simply taste better and cheaper than the alternative. If this were to happen, I would venture to say that McDonalds would get to keep the happy meal and be all to happy to change what food is in it to make a buck.

 

[lmitchell0012]

It may not apply here, but regulation is definitely something needed so we don't get screwed over when it comes to telecommunications.

You never told me to edit the OP. You just told me to link to the site when I start a post like this. Next time I promise I'll link back to the site with the info.

 

[Invective]

Oh okay, so obviously we should let tobacco companies/firearms manufacturers/alcohol producers market directly to kids too. Because it's the parent's responsibility to micromanage their children and prevent them from ever hearing or seeing any advertisements whose impact could influence the entire rest of their lives, right?

It is the parents responsibility to raise their kids and the government should have no say in that.

Some of you guys really need to think before you post. Happy Meals were isolated here because they are an extremely unhealthy product that are marketed directly to, and bought almost exclusively for, children. You know how the government stopped Philip-Morris from running cigarette ads in cartoons? Same thing here, except with obesity/heart disease instead of lung cancer/cirrhosis.

I'm fairly certain fast food is neither as addicting nor as dangerous as cigarettes are. Cigarettes also pretty much lead to increases chances of cancer in exchange for a few minutes of relaxation. Happy meals are food. Are we to ban every food that is extremely unhealthy on the same basis?

Before bitching about this, there are a few questions you need to think about and answer:

Q1: Is it the government's prerogative to limit or ban the sale of certain products if it views those products to be detrimental to the general welfare of the population?

If yes, go to Q2.
If no, read the first part of this post, maybe think a bit more about whether you want violent felons to be able to buy guns or teenagers to be able to buy OTC vicodin, and then answer "yes".

It is not the government's responsibility to tell me what i can and cannot eat because it is my own fucking body. My eating a happy meal does not directly effect changes on anybody else. A felon buying a gun has a high potential for affecting another person, which is why there is a law against it (and not to start another debate but i believe all drugs should be available OTC). To put it another way, It is my body. Stop telling me what to do to it.

Q2: Are the products in question detrimental to the general welfare of the population?

If you realize that happy meals are harmful to children, go to Q3.
If you think happy meals aren't harmful to children you're beyond hope, sorry. Maybe look up trans fats and appropriate caloric content if you think you can figure out how to work Google, otherwise continue on with your life of intellectual mediocrity.

Since when is unhealthy a synonym for harmful?

Also, I somehow managed to figure out how to use Google (took me awhile to get there though, what with my diminished mental capacity) and was able to find this. Now apparently everything on the kids menu has at most 1 gram of trans fat. Are you proposing we ban every food item that has more than 1 gram of trans fat?

Q3: Is the cost of limiting this product in this specific case worth the perceived benefit to the public?

Ah, now we get to the question where disagreement doesn't automatically denote ignorance. It's entirely possible that one can make the case that banning happy meals isn't going to have any sort of impact on childhood obesity (ostensibly the goal of this), and it's possible that they would be right. While I'm not aware of the particulars, I think the individual who said "if they don't get happy meals they'll just get normal meals" is partially correct; I say "partially" because some kids will not ask their parents to go to McDonalds at all if they are not exposed to advertisement about happy meals or if they have no toys to gain. Whether this is worth the cost of enforcement or the minor social inconvenience, I don't know.

Personally, I think we should be encouraging parents to look into healthier alternatives than McDonalds or other fast foods rather than eliminating that choice entirely. Because i can honestly understand if you're short on cash and do not feel like making food at home, McDonalds is an extremely enticing option for a quick easy meal.

 

[Chou Toshio]

I just want to get back at the point I made earlier but bottom line is:

Fat, sugar, oils, salt-- unhealthy sources of calories and flavoring are simply cheaper. It is cheaper to buy a 90 cent wrapped burger at a 7-11 than it is to make yourself a ham sandwitch. I hate to say it, but these days McDonalds goers aren't the wealthy and educated, there is a decided devision in diet amongst Americans based on financial class. Parents take their kids to junk food places yes sometimes because kids want to go-- but more often because it's cheaper/easier than cooking healthy meals at home.

Health and taste are not the only factors involved here-- people are lazy, and people want to save money.

If you ban happy meals, that's just more money that will be spent on Cup Noodle, Twinkies, or burritos at Taco Bell. The only way you're going to get people to eat better is to make eating better the more economical option.

Subsidize fruits and vegatables (which are expensive), whole wheat bread, and other healthy grocery-store products.

And/or devise a taxing system on eateries that could be deemed "unhealthy" by decided regulations.

 

[Outlaw]

And/or devise a taxing system on eateries that could be deemed "unhealthy" by decided regulations.

No. Just, no. That is a horrible idea and a slippery slope. All it does is punish people who have a different affinity for food than those who make laws.

 

[lmitchell0012]

Yeah, I agree with pretty much everything that's been said so far. I think it's bullshit that McDonald's is being targeted. I think the government (or someone else) just wants them to have less money and this is their way of doing it. Bullshit government interference. That's all it is.

 

[Chou Toshio]

No. Just, no. That is a horrible idea and a slippery slope. All it does is punish people who have a different affinity for food than those who make laws.

If you don't think American Obesity is a problem, that's just plain ignorance.

On one hand, I'd say that food is a cultural thing, and such customs are to be respected. However, America is a very young country with no extensive culinary traditions, outside of what has been passed down through immigration.

Living in Japan, I have been given a very different perspective on this issue than the one I had before coming here.

Japan has an ancient culinary tradition, based primarily on plant foods and seafood with low amounts of seasoning (both by asian and world standards). It doesn't have the same degree of vegetable content as what would be recommended, but it is low in trans fats and sodium. The country also has a strong cultural emphasis on the importance of family, health, and taking care of the body your parents gave you.

Obesity is near non-existent.


America is still a very young country culturally, and has not developed such traditions on which to stand on. I think these are important to develop.

We want a strong, healthy, educated and functional work force. That is the fundamental block of a strong society.

Maybe if America was a country full of strong, active and health-aware individuals (like Japan), I would actually support Obama's health care system.

 

[vonFiedler]

Wow so obesity isn't a big deal? Heart attacks at ages 8-12 would beg to differ. Seriously even if it doesn't work to lower obesity rates a significant amount, at least banning Happy Meals will send a message.

Sending a message. Yeah. "Reelect us". I'm glad we got that message.

Do you even have any comprehension of what actually leads to childhood obesity? Do you honestly believe that somewhere out there an 8 year old is stealing money for his happy meal fix? That's what you're treating it like. Kids like junk food, but you know what leads parents to buying it for them? It's because kids don't like anything else. And parents are too busy to focus on making sure their kids regularly exercise, so why would they focus on expanding their kids pallet? If they don't buy their kids simple shitty food, their kids won't eat it. Do you seriously not remember being a picky little shit as a child? I sure as hell was.

But Happy Meals are a small fraction of the problem when parents need quick and cheap food. When I was a kid, it was all about the low quality fish sticks and other frozen junk food. That was at least five days a week, and they'd be lucky if my siblings or I would eat a traditional meal. The irony is that my mother never wanted me to have lunchables because they weren't healthy. But "Fish Sticks" isn't as popular an enemy as McDonalds, now is it?

And you know, there's another thing too. I live in Washington state, and we don't have an obesity problem. It's not because we eat different food, we don't. But people here love the outdoors and exercise.

 

[FlareBlitz]

It is the parents responsibility to raise their kids and the government should have no say in that.

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?

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.

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.

I'm fairly certain fast food is neither as addicting nor as dangerous as cigarettes are. Cigarettes also pretty much lead to increases chances of cancer in exchange for a few minutes of relaxation. Happy meals are food. Are we to ban every food that is extremely unhealthy on the same basis?

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.
And yes, as far as I'm concerned, we damn well should limit or ban (depending on the food) the sale of all "foods" that are as unhealthy as fast food to children. Some public schools eliminating soda from the premises is a great first start.

It is not the government's responsibility to tell me what i can and cannot eat because it is my own fucking body. My eating a happy meal does not directly effect changes on anybody else. A felon buying a gun has a high potential for affecting another person, which is why there is a law against it (and not to start another debate but i believe all drugs should be available OTC). To put it another way, It is my body. Stop telling me what to do to it.

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.

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.

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.

Since when is unhealthy a synonym for harmful?

Is this a serious question? If you're using Firefox, type "define unhealthy" into your URL bar and get back to me, thanks.

Also, I somehow managed to figure out how to use Google (took me awhile to get there though, what with my diminished mental capacity) and was able to find this. Now apparently everything on the kids menu has at most 1 gram of trans fat. Are you proposing we ban every food item that has more than 1 gram of trans fat?

First of all, the GRAS level of trans fat is considered 0 grams per day, because any amount of trans fat in a diet is directly established to increase heart disease risk. Would you be okay with companies selling food that has "just a little bit" over the GRAS level of lead? No? Then why the inconsistency?

Secondly, trans fat is not the only thing that makes a food unhealthy. Looking through the nutrition information for happy meals, the meals have anywhere between 30-50% of the daily recommended amounts of saturated fat and sodium. In one happy meal. Does that seem healthy to you?

EDIT: And apparently the law only specifically targets happy meals that are over a certain "unhealthiness" threshold, meaning that if McDonalds came out with a salad happy meal tomorrow they're free to sell it. Thanks to Firestorm for the added info.

Personally, I think we should be encouraging parents to look into healthier alternatives than McDonalds or other fast foods rather than eliminating that choice entirely. Because i can honestly understand if you're short on cash and do not feel like making food at home, McDonalds is an extremely enticing option for a quick easy meal.

We should be encouraging parents to eat healthier and give their kids healthier food. I believe the democrats pushed through a proposal that would limit the amounts of unhealthy food that can be acquired with food stamps and gave discounts on healthy ones (don't quote me on this, I heard it from my girlfriend just now and have no idea if it's true).

I just don't see why it should be an either/or. We can encourage parents to cook healthy food for their children while still banning the sale of harmful foods to kids.

 

[TaiCrunch]

But the thing is, why specifically target Happy Meals? Just because they cater to children? There's plenty of products on supermarket shelves, also geared towards kids, that don't have much better nutritional content than Happy Meals, but nobody's saying anything about them.

 

[FlareBlitz]

But the thing is, why specifically target Happy Meals? Just because they cater to children? There's plenty of products on supermarket shelves, also geared towards kids, that don't have much better nutritional content than Happy Meals, but nobody's saying anything about them.

So your argument is "everyone is selling unhealthy shit to kids, so why pick McDonalds specifically"?

Well, the simple reason is that McDonalds is visible and pervasive, arguably more so than any other company that targets food specifically to children.

That said, I agree in that certain other food corporations are definitely fair game for legislation like this. But we have to start somewhere.

 

[TaiCrunch]

The emphasis being on "starting somewhere." I'd personally love to see healthy options become more than just one overpriced aisle at Food Lion, but just banning one thing really isn't going to help much. Why not force McDonald's to offer healthier alternatives besides just those apple dippers and a couple tablespoons of powdered milk? Burger King's been doing that with their kids meals for a while now and it seems to be working out really well.

 

[Invective]

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?

What implications? That people should have the greatest say in what they do with their life. And you seemed to miss my point before that this holds true only when the consequences affect the user. I am for regulation of firearms as actions involving firearms can and do affect more than just the user.
Drugs are more complicated. I believe all drugs should be legal and available for purchase and use either at home or in a sort of bar area, as is currently the case with alcohol.

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.

I never said anything about marketing. Although I am wondering why you do not believe parents can simply opt not to take their kids to Mcdonalds?

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.

Dangerous substances? This is food we are talking about. That is all I can say as it seems you are not even willing to listen to my point of view with the whole "I can't entertain libertarian bullshit" and "don't pretend to stand on principle of blah blah".
Although actually, i don't have to pretend i stand on these principles, as i actually do.

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.
And yes, as far as I'm concerned, we damn well should limit or ban (depending on the food) the sale of all "foods" that are as unhealthy as fast food to children. Some public schools eliminating soda from the premises is a great first start.

Hmmm. Good question. Probably not. It depends what you consider dangerous. Dangerous in the short term, yes. Dangerous in the long term (as in one must consume it frequently for an extended period of time) no. As long as the consumers know what they are buying, that's their choice.

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.

I would have a problem with that if McDonalds was concealing the fact that their food is not the healthiest in the world. Since they are open about what is in their products I do not see what the problem is.

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.

I'm pretty sure there is a difference between your examples and "By eating this Happy Meal, you will also be eating trans fat and sodium."

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.

The difference is that you cannot decide when some felon is going to shoot you but you can decide when you want to splurge and go buy a McDouble.

Is this a serious question? If you're using Firefox, type "define unhealthy" into your URL bar and get back to me, thanks.

Ahhh. My mistake, i failed to define how I interpreted each word. To me, unhealthy is in the long term whereas dangerous is more immediate. What my point was is that eating one happy meal isn't going to clog your arteries and cause a heart attack. One would have to consume unhealthy food over a long period of time before it got to dangerous levels. And considering at that point its more a life style choice than the fault of Mcdonalds.

First of all, the GRAS level of trans fat is considered 0 grams per day, because any amount of trans fat in a diet is directly established to increase heart disease risk. Would you be okay with companies selling food that has "just a little bit" over the GRAS level of lead? No? Then why the inconsistency?

Hmm? I see no inconsistency. I am saying we allow all food regardless of their fat content and all that jazz, disclose it fully and let consumers decide for themselves if they want to buy it or not.

Secondly, trans fat is not the only thing that makes a food unhealthy. Looking through the nutrition information for happy meals, the meals have anywhere between 30-50% of the daily recommended amounts of saturated fat and sodium. In one happy meal. Does that seem healthy to you?

Yes, it does seem unhealthy. Do you propose we ban all foods that are unhealthy then? My point is let the consumers buy what they want instead of the government deciding what they can buy.

EDIT: And apparently the law only specifically targets happy meals that are over a certain "unhealthiness" threshold, meaning that if McDonalds came out with a salad happy meal tomorrow they're free to sell it. Thanks to Firestorm for the added info.

That is a slippery slope then. Who is to decide what is too "unhealthy?" Why not let parents decide that for their kids?

We should be encouraging parents to eat healthier and give their kids healthier food. I believe the democrats pushed through a proposal that would limit the amounts of unhealthy food that can be acquired with food stamps and gave discounts on healthy ones (don't quote me on this, I heard it from my girlfriend just now and have no idea if it's true).

If so, then this is good.

I just don't see why it should be an either/or. We can encourage parents to cook healthy food for their children while still banning the sale of harmful foods to kids.

And i do not see why we should be banning something. If I want to engorge on some fatty foods I should have that right.

 

[alamaster]

That sucks, how would I have gotten my super cool toys without my happy meal? :/

 

[AlphaSpade]

I never said anything about marketing. Although I am wondering why you do not believe parents can simply opt not to take their kids to Mcdonalds?

1.) Parents are so spoiling nowadays. They'll do anything the kids ask them. 2.) When it comes to simply buying Mickey Deez vs. buying dinner at your local store, people will prefer the cheaper option, and to make matters worse, food prices are fixing to jump.

Dangerous substances? This is food we are talking about.

"Too much of a good thing can be bad."

I would have a problem with that if McDonalds was concealing the fact that their food is not the healthiest in the world. Since they are open about what is in their products I do not see what the problem is.

While they actually are open when it comes to nutrition facts, the fact that a law like this is even considering to be passed must mean there is a dangerously high level of ignorance, so I would assume.

What my point was is that eating one happy meal isn't going to clog your arteries and cause a heart attack. One would have to consume unhealthy food over a long period of time before it got to dangerous levels. And considering at that point its more a life style choice than the fault of Mcdonalds.

While lifestyle choice is one's own fault, many people actually admit that McDonalds food can be addicting.

That is a slippery slope then. Who is to decide what is too "unhealthy?" Why not let parents decide that for their kids?

Parents are so spoiling nowadays.

 

[Atlas]

its a pretty stupid thing to regulate food, but if it goes through i cant wait till they start regulating the food at hooters.

 

[cantab]

Protect their freedoms? Don't you mean protect them from their own stupidity?

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.)

You know, when I think about this whole issue, I start to think about World War II. Why, you ask?? Well, what exactly were we fighting for the whole time. We wanted to stop the spread of communism, right??

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

No. Just, no. That is a horrible idea and a slippery slope. All it does is punish people who have a different affinity for food than those who make laws.

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).

1.) Parents are so spoiling nowadays. They'll do anything the kids ask them. 2.) When it comes to simply buying Mickey Deez vs. buying dinner at your local store, people will prefer the cheaper option

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.