Ever heard of ski lifts?

And who cares? The government isn't regulating what we eat, its stopping a very successful marketing plan. And honestly its kinda clear that when given the options a lot of people make the wrong choices when it comes to eating or exercise.

It will be interesting to see what effect it has. Will there be a decline in happy meal type of food (nuggets, burgers, fries, soda...) by children?

What about us advlts who want happy meals and its toys? :sadvaultboy:

Yup, and that's why I don't have any problems with it. They can still sell the toys separately (maintaining a hook for children), and parents can buy the kids whatever they (parent or child) want while still getting a toy. That wouldn't restrict customers, that would give customers more options/flexibility.


This is not censorship; it has nothing to do with published works. It doesn't even place much of a restriction on what businesses can sell, only what they can combine with toys.

Drop "censorship" and find an appropriate word .

No you.

...

Really, I've been up for about 2 days now due to homework, just do me a favor and pretend I said the right word.

So, now they just sell the toy and give the food away for free. Instant loophole.

Is there any question as to why? Seriously, ignorance and laziness is not divine. What happened to a good old fashioned home cooked meal? Now, it has come to the point of fast food joints telling your children what is good to eat? Are parents really this freakin' dumb? Freedom is costing us more and more slowly but surly.. :angry:

Pfft this is [censored]. Theres like hardly any calories in happy meals they aren't even a snack. At the moment I'm really enjoying haveing some sweet and sour chicken tenders and 2 double quarter pounders (I'm pretty sure that equates to a pound of burger) and man oh man is it good. Don't worry theres no chance of me getting fat. I am the opposite of most people and have to make sure I get enough food (cos I am very focused and so can go very long periods of time without food).

I'm not one for wanting bigger government, but this I KIND OF support, depending on how far it goes. Just go outside and look around in any average American city. It is obvious that parents of today can't control what they eat and are putting it on their kids now as well.

'S okay, these things happen. I have an influenza at the moment .[/mini-Lair]


That'd clearly go against the spirit of the law.

... Can't tell if serious?

If you are being serious:

There are 24 variants of a happy meal listed on McDonalds' website. 1 has over 700 calories, 4 have more than 600 calories, and 11 have more than 500 calories. The rest are 300-500 calories. Only 2 out of the 24 have fat levels that aren't in the double digits, and even then they're only 1 away. 2 meals have 460 and 470 mg of sodium while everything else has anywhere from 570 to 1060 mg of Sodium.

Saying these have "hardly any calories" and "aren't even a snack" is just flat out incorrect.

http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritionexchange/Happy_Meals_Nutrition_List.pdf (Warning: PDF)

Yep, when 1/3 of the population is obese the it starts becoming clear that something needs to be done.

Fat is the new black.



I definitely think the government is overstepping bounds with this little piece of legislation, but at the same time I don't think I could force myself to care enough to do anything about it. Oh yeah, and if people were to exercise and eat healthy, I guess that would be cool too.

I can't say I'm too happy about this. I dare say I eat pretty healthy, but sometimes the craze about "healthy food" goes too far. For instance, in my sisters school they don't get ketchup anymore. Why? Because apparently, there's too much sugar. Doesn't help though, since I still see fat children running around.

And bad or not, it's the parents responsibility, not the governments or any of its branches. It's not some "sell your soul to Satan" marketing strategy. And if it turns out that a child isn't faring too well, then take care of that case instead! Like they've always done when it comes to childrens health.

Overall, I think that this kind of approach is usually the wrong one. Forcing the "holy" stuff onto people never ends well. It's always better to make the "best" alternative the most appealing one.

My opinion too.

And whose fault is it that the parents give their children unhealthy food? Certainly not the government's fault, so why should it be the government to take responsibilty for it? The burden of raising healthy children should rest on parents, and raising healthy children includes making sure that they eat healthy food. If you're going to leave it up to the government to do that, then you might as well just say they should take children away from parents and raise them according to whatever lifestyle they feel is best, because even if you don't let McDonalds distribute free toys with Happy Meals, there are still other ways parents can ruin their children's health, such as letting them eat McDonalds too much anyway even when no free toys are involved. The only way to ensure that parents can't possibly let their children live unhealthy lifestyles is to take not let them raise their children themselves at all.



I can agree there, but trying to force healthy lifestyles on people is not the way to do it. It's up to parents to decide what they let their children eat, as long as no laws are broken, and the government's responsibilty in this regard should be to make sure that whatever decision parents make is an informed one. Maybe instead of trying to force parents to live the way they tell us is healthy, they should try to make parents aware of what's in the food they're giving their children and what it might do, if they eat too much of it. Sure, this certainly won't make all parents have their children live healthier lifestyles, but that's to be expected, or maybe they could use the money needed to enforce a law like this on finding ways to make healthy food that's just as appealing to children as unhealthy fast food is, but I guess it never occurred to them that maybe there's a problem with obesity because the food children want to eat is the kind that can cause such problems. Whether to live a healthy lifestyle or not is a choice people need to make themselves, or if they're not ready to make an informed choice on the matter, the people who are responsible for them, in the case of most families, the parents, should be the ones to make the choice, yet it seems that there are those who want the governmnt to make that choice for them. I say people feeling that way is precisely why the problem they're trying to fix is there, instead of taking responsibility for themselves or their children, they want the government to fix everything for them.

Now, it doesn't effect me much if McDonald's can't distribute free toys with food to children anymore, seeing as I don't live in San Francisco and never get Happy Meals anyway even on the occassions when I eat at McDonald's, in itself, it's not even that serious, since it's not like they're banning Happy Meals altogether or forcing fast food restaurants to stop serving unhealthy food entirely, but the idea makes me feel uncomfortable because it's yet another example of people in authority trying to take it upon themselves to take care of children, it's similar to why I generally object to any attempt to pass laws regarding violent video games even if it won't stop me from playing them. When people in authority start trying to do the job of caring for children in place of parents, it establishes an uncomfortable precident. If this legislation does what they want it to, how much further will they go? I don't know, but that's just why I don't like this idea.

Yes, the onus is on the parents to watch what their children eat. But who does the duty of care fall on when the parents are negligent?


If you're worried about civil rights, I'd be more concerned about the failure of Proposition 19, though obviously that's something we can't go into on these forums, for a multitude of reasons.

Yeah, sure the obesity isone thing, but Mcdonalds puts so much more crap in, chemicals, hell in another thread I read about something like lighter fluid goes into that stuff. MCdonalds causes to many problems.


:lol: If only.

I never sawthe appeal anyway, ate there as a kid, didnt really like it, I havent been to a mcdonalds in 2-3 years, I had something like 1 year ago, when a friend sbrought something up, but I felt it was rude to say no, so yeah this dosent bother me, I dont care for fast food at all, kfc, burger king etc, I have never even eaten at.

This is silly.

Big people are still gonna be big, big kids are still gonna be big. lazy parents who don't care or cook at home are still going to go there. They are still gonna find some way to sell the toys, and people are still gonna eat there.

What does this change? nothing, thats what! Well besides it shows that the government can pass a law deciding what people can and cant get with food.

Not trying to be harsh, but its the truth.
All this does is make me want to go get a happy meal to protest, if anything is a lot of free ads for them.

I am 5'7 and 170 Lbs, I eat what I want, when I want and where I want. I can run a mile fairly quickly, I think I had it down to ten minutes last time I was on a tread mill.
I can eat a whole "hot-n-ready" pizza by me self.

I would rather die knowing I ate lots of very tasty food (and a good salad once in a while) then miss out on all the good things in life.

This health craze is silly, there always has been large people, like me. I can;t get under 155Lbs no matter what I do. Even when I worked in the deep mines I still could not drop under 155, eating once or twice a day and doing hard labor 12 hours a day.

I just don;t care any more, I eat until I am full then I stop. Regardless of if its good for me or not.




Unless you raised it by hand w/o anything not natural, ANYTHING you eat has who knows what in it.

I'm sorry but a 10 minute mile is most assuredly not 'fairly quick'.

I'm still not really clear on what this law hopes to accomplish. Sure, the toy may be attractive to kids, but they aren't the ones who decide where the family eats. If they do end up eating at McDonald's, they'll likely order a Happy Meal anyways because there isn't much in the way of kid-sized options available.


600 calories for one meal is still an awful lot of food for a child.

It is for just getting on a t/m for the first time in years right?

Take in account that I am OVER weight, and for the entire year and 1/2 before I touched the t/m I was working a desk job doing nothing.

I eat what I want, and at times whole pizzas at one sitting.

My BMI was at that time over 28, right now its 26.6. When I worked in the deep mines it was 23.5.

Not bad for a 5.7 guy weighing in at 170Lbs wearing steel toe boots with zero workout history before.

Fairly sure in a few weeks I could have gotten well under 10 mins.

So, I guess I am fairly quick for a fat body, thats about average times right there.

The toy can be bought separately.. I'll get my son the toy, but I'll burn in hell before he gets to eat there, or me for that matter.

I mean, have you seen what they're serving these days?? :yuck:

Haven't read the thread, so exuse me if this has been covered...

The gov't here mandates seatbelts and morotrcycle helmet usage for the safety of people, to cut down on medical costs, and to please the insurance companies. I see this as the same vein. Those who fear gov't will balk and claim it as infringement and creep, the majority won't give a flip becaus eit doesn't affect them.

Actually, the government (in the USA) has an influence on what people eat via different low income food money programs. There gov't gives out stamps, vouchers, etc that can only be spent on certain kinds of foods, in theory the more nutritious kinds. IN theory, this keeps healthier food going to the families and kids in low income situations. Yes, it's still a choice for the individual family to participate as opposed to a ban.

Yes, it's up to the parents, but I wonder how big of an influece a ban would really have? My kids go to fast food about 1 every other week as a treat. How much of an impact does skipping one big meal like that make over a period of 14 days? And when we do go, it's not usually at a place that gives a toy, but the place also has a playground to burn off some excess calories

Then again, I remember hearing about some intersting numbers about socio-ecomonic levels, inner citties, and nutrition.

Out of curiosity, my friend and I went to McDonalds last night and got some chicken nuggets (I haven't been to a McDonalds in 5 or 6 years and I really cant remember much about them). So we get the nuggets and bite into them and they taste like burnt rubber. It was awful. I ended up throwing the rest out, they were that bad. I cant understand why people would willingly go there all the time for food. Because its quick? Im in college and when I need to get to class, but want to eat first, I can microwave some chicken nuggets in about 3 mins, and they taste fine (well, sort of. They are way better baked but in a pinch 'waving them isn' too bad)

I have found a thread that youmay want to see read the op.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.241280-Poll-Ingredients-in-a-Chicken-McNugget-or-You-Want-me-to-Eat-What-Now
the bolded parts are best.

I honestly never had a problem with my kids wanting the happy meal. Quite possibly because we took them to sit down resturants where the food was of higher quality, fresh, and varied ethnically. They also were introduced to fruits and veggies in infancy. It was more of a treat to go grocery shopping than it was to get fast food. In fact, the son tossed his fries, the daughter her burger, and they only wanted the toy.
Neither one of them has weight issues, both are quite healthy.
Had a busy day last Friday, asked the kids what they wanted me to pick up for dinner, and they unanimously replied: A Publix sub, roast chicken, mayo, mustard, lettuce, black olives, bell peppers, banana peppers, tomatoes, cukes, mushrooms, onions, provolone on a mulitgrain baguette.



While heart disease and obesity begin in childhood, fast food resturants are not the only culprits. Go stand on the breakfast cereal aisle and look at all the premiums offered in boxes of sweet, sugary breakfast meals.
Parents need to learn to say no, be firm, and introduce their child to varied cusines and healthy foods.
Becasue complications from obesity don't just affect the individual, they affect the entire family. Medications, physical therapy, and assistance to individuals suffering from heart attack or stroke must be provided. Diabetes also is associated with depression.
While I don't condone the San Franscician desicion, I completely understand why they did it.