Jump to content

San Francisco bans Happy Meals with toys

mark1447

By mark1447
in Off Topic Lounge

Recommended Posts

mark1447

mark1447

Posted
Posted

The San Francisco, California, Board of Supervisors on Tuesday banned most McDonald's Happy Meals with toys, as they're now served.

 

The ordinance, which requires McDonald's and other fast-food servings with toys to meet new nutritional standards, now goes to Mayor Gavin Newsom, who indicated before his election last week to California lieutenant governor that he would veto the law.

 

That veto would be meaningless because the board approved the ordinance 8-3, a veto-proof margin. With eight votes, the board could override the veto.

 

The new law, which San Francisco officials hope other cities will adopt in battling a child obesity epidemic, was a defeat for McDonald's, which led the fight against the measure.

 

"As previously stated, we are extremely disappointed with this decision. It's not what our customers want, nor is it something they asked for," said McDonald's spokeswoman Danya Proud.

 

Proud said public opinion is against such government intervention.

 

"Any fair and objective review of our menu and the actions we've taken will demonstrate we've added multiple options for parents to choose. This includes Apple Dippers (bagged, sliced, pre-peeled apples), low-fat one percent milk, 100 percent apple juice and Chicken McNuggets made with white meat," Proud said in a statement. "And, as we have stated all along, we are committed to doing even more."

 

The new law addresses how toys and other marketing freebies entice kids to buy fast-food meals that are high in fat and calories, said Supervisor Eric Mar. He initiated the proposal because his fifth-grade daughter is in the 6-to-11 age group that has seen obesity rates quadruple over the past 30 years, the same time that the Happy Meal has been on the market.

 

"This is a simple and modest policy that holds fast food accountable," Mar said.

 

Before Tuesday's vote, Mar cited a study released this week by Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, which examined 12 popular restaurant chains and found only 12 out of more than 3,000 kids' meal combinations met the nutritional guidelines for preschool-aged kids.

 

The study said the fast food industry spent $4.2 billion on advertising in 2009 and found that 40 percent of preschool-aged children ask to go to McDonald's on a weekly basis, and 15 percent ask on a daily basis. Also, 84 percent of parents say they've taken their children to eat fast food at least once in the past week.

 

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.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/09/california.fast.food.ban/index.html?hpt=T2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forest Glen

Forest Glen

Posted
Posted

I'm never visiting San Fran, even if they have the second-best subway system in the country. I'm so f*cking sick of these Nanny State liberals. I'm not saying it's ok for an 11 year old kid to weigh 180 pounds, but there's nothing wrong with going to McDonalds once in a while as a treat. These are the same people who want to legalize marijuana.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SubwayGuy

SubwayGuy

Posted
Posted
Let's clear things up: GOP DOES NOT = Conservative.

Bloomberg was a Democrat before switching to the GOP because there were too many Democrats running and the GOP spot was open for him. His 'independent' party is just his way of disowning himself from the GOP for political expedience.

 

Exactly. Now neither party wants him haha. Jerk shouldn't even be mayor right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SubwayGuy

SubwayGuy

Posted
Posted
One of many different issues, but doesn't make him a conservative. He runs a corporation, why would he want to pay more taxes?

He bans smoking and trans fat, approves pedestrian plazas. Hardly conservative ideals.

 

Those aren't classic "liberal" ideas those are nanny state ideas which is something that has come in and corrupted the left side of politics just like religion has corrupted the right side of politics.

 

I am very much against both.

 

Nanny state ideas have no place in America - anywhere - because they impact INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. People have the rights to freedom. Other legal entities don't, but PEOPLE - private citizens - DO.

 

I will say that I view smoking outside of that context though because smoking harms people around you. As far as I'm concerned, if I can't drink a beer outside in public (which harms no one), why can someone subject me to secondhand smoke (which harms me and everyone else in...nose-shot?) with no rules against it. As far as I'm concerned smoking should be allowed in smoking bars for 18+ and that's it. But anything that doesn't affect others, like cheeseburgers, go for it. But if someone winds up obese, I'd expect them to pay a higher health premium because it costs more to treat them than it does someone in better shape like myself :cool:. That's freedom, they can still do what they want.

 

And unlike "sugary drinks" obesity DOES have a direct correlation to health risks, so what I'm saying is legitimate.

 

But anything that takes away from individual liberty is un-American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Forest Glen

Forest Glen

Posted
Posted

I'm 6 feet tall and 195 pounds. Before I started running a mile and a half twice a week, I was 220. The majority of the time, I eat healthy (though I do eat large servings). I usually eat roasted chicken with rice and broccoli for dinner. However, once in a while I like to eat burgers. You're not going to become morbidly obese if you eat at McDonalds ONCE A WEEK. People don't understand the concept of moderation. I don't need Emperor Bloomturd or some fairies from San Francisco telling me what to eat. I have a fundamental right to make my own decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
East New York

East New York

Posted
Posted

Soooooo.... Burger King gets to keep their toys??

 

 

I'm 6 feet tall and 195 pounds. Before I started running a mile and a half twice a week, I was 220. The majority of the time, I eat healthy (though I do eat large servings). I usually eat roasted chicken with rice and broccoli for dinner. However, once in a while I like to eat burgers. You're not going to become morbidly obese if you eat at McDonalds ONCE A WEEK. People don't understand the concept of moderation. I don't need Emperor Bloomturd or some fairies from San Francisco telling me what to eat. I have a fundamental right to make my own decisions.

 

I see nothing wrong with eating whatever you want. Being obese is a choice 95% of the time. People have gotten too lazy! I can eat fast food 7 days a week and still be 150 lbs., because I remain active, and I would never let my body just go like that.

 

This law seems a bit unconstitutional to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shortline Bus

Shortline Bus

Posted
Posted
The city itself is nice, but the problem is the nutcases are running the city when they should be in the asylum.

 

 

 

SF as a city scenic wise is maybe the best in America and even in the top 10 in the world. Nothing beats the Golden Gate Bridge and the great views of Downtown SF including the historic cable cars and landmark bulidings/homes.

 

Back to topic, this banning of happy meals is government getting way too invloved. Instead maybe a 'warning sticker' like those on cigrattes and beer on the risk of eating them would be a better solution IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept