Don't see the problem, buy the kid a toy at some other shop. Some parents are stupid, that's a fact. And they don't know where to draw the line with their kids, so the government does need to step in sometimes. For people saying the government shouldn't dictate, well, you are in a democratic SOCIETY...too late; just be thankful, and don't be ignorant of the health benefits such policies will bring.
In Britain Maccy D's has had a health overhaul, subject to concern from the public. Mainly started by the Supersize documentary. In America, I believe, the changes have been less.


A pizza is great, but it isn't something I'd write in my diary.
advlts should be allowed to do what they wish, long as they are not harming anyone. But children are different and it is incredibly irresponsible to have such a lazy attitude towards a kid's health.

Well, no, that's just not true at all is it?

I don't really think it's a horrible idea getting rid of Happy Meals. My parents didn't really like them for us when I was growing up. I think I ate at McDonalds maybe 3 times a year and that was when my grandparents took us.

Now should they get rid of Happy Meals, yes. Should they be able to, no.

True cereal is bad too, but you can swap things for mcdonalds, dont hear of many cereal alternatives, theres toast and thats about it with breakfast. Cereal is hard to swap/replace mcdonalds is easy.

Why on earth would you run in steel toed boots? Get a decent pair of running shoes before you injure yourself.



As for all the people irked that the governement is trying to regulate this, think of it this way:
All those obese kids will most likely suffer from heart disease, diabetes, high cholesterol, and other issues. If they can't hold down a job with health issues, who is going to foot the bill?
That's right, the PUBLIC.
We can't even get on the same page with healthcare in the US, and with a generation showing signs of future health issues in childhood, we are going to be screwed.

Its all I had on my feet at the time, I didn't own a pair of shoes at that time either.
9 out of 10 times you are gonna catch me in steel toe boots, my next goal is to get a good pair of combat boots.
My job kind of requires them, I just use a gel insert.

Yes, I am gelling like a felon.

You'd be better off running barefoot than running in steel-toed boots. This is starting to sway pretty far from the topic of the OP, though.

Oh yes, there are direct correlations with poverty and lack of available nutritious food. Most folks living in poverty cannot afford things like fresh fruits and vegetables.
Instead, they have to settle for things like hotdogs, ramen, mac and cheese, those gnarly frozen pizzas, all of which have high content of fat, salt, carbs and calories.
They are calorie dense, nutrition poor, and the lack of fiber doesnt help with a feeling of being satiated after eating.
Food assistance moneis are supposed to used only for nutritious foods, that the recipient has to prepare. Not fast or premade foods. Not candy, chips, sodas, or junk.

There are plenty of cerals that contain fiber, and are enriched with niacin, folic acid, and other vitamins. Things like unsweetened shredded wheat,or bran cereals, rolled or steel cut oats, kasha, farina, low fat granolas, and those that contain fruits and nuts.
They will not be offered by top banana cereal firms, like Purina, General Mills, or Kellog. They will not be cheaper. Healthy food is more costly.
Sugar is added for taste, to increase caloric value, and to pad the product. Not nutritional value, and parents need to say "No, you cannot have your Lucky Charms!"
Lucky Charms has marshmallows in it, and last time I looked, marshmallows were candy.
When the first ingredient on the list is sugar, you know there is a problem.

I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't get a little political, but speaking seriously I agree. It is the job of the parents to parent the kids not the government and not other people. Lately I see the POPK (Parenting Other People's Kids) thing where TV shows need to be heavily regulated, food needs to be heavily regulated, and any form of electronic entertainment needs to have mr. floppsy the happy bunny who helps out other people. Truthfully this kind of [censored] makes me freaking sick to no end and just ticks me off beyond belief. If you don't want to parent your damn kid then you should have had one in the first place. bliviongate: :flamethrower:

There are people out there that want kids seeing them as nothing more than dolls to play with. When they are done with them they want to put them back up on the shelf ignoring them. These people are the ones that disgust me to no end and when their kid gets hurt or screws up they are immediately on the scene "I DEMAND $5 MILLION DOLLARS OR I"LL SUE THE *BLEEP* OUT OF YOU!!! GIVE ME MONEY NOW!!!". My post will probably get edited here, but I want to see a program instituted by the government which pays people $100 to get their reproductive organs turned off permanently (I'll say that nicely). This way there's less chance for some of those idiots out there to breed.

I also think a ban on bad food related advertising is in order. Like the Tostito's Fiesta Bowl. I really don't want my children to be subjected to that kind of advertising while watching a college football BCS game. The government should fund a committee to deal with this problem immediately. And there's no way they should be selling Coca-Cola at my checkout aisle at Toys R Us. What if little Anti were to see that? Could I honestly look into his baby blues and say no?? No f'in way man. No shouldn't be in a parent's vocabulary. I shouldn't be responsible for anything. My government will do it all for me.

And Cracker Jacks should get rid of those stupid little prizes too. We shouldn't be creating any incentives for children to be eating that garbage. In fact, maybe we should subsidize the broccoli growers of the country to include those stupid little toys with their product (unless it has cheese in it, of course). That would be OK with me. Yeah, they should ask me what's OK and what's not. I know what's best for everyone else. It'll be for all of the Children! I promise.

"I want my Jolly Green Giant doll NOW, Mommy!!! All the other kids have one. He lives with the Little Sprout and Honey Mustard at the Hidden Valley Ranch!
ALL THE OTHER KIDS GET TO EAT BROCCOLI!"

I don't really care for "nanny state" laws. Laws that protect public health and safety from obvious threats are one thing, but this does border on silly. The ironic thing is kids in San Francisco are much more inclined to get exercise - this isn't your typical suburban community centered around the automobile. A car is almost a liability there and most people walk and use buses, trams and subways to get around. Much more like New York and Europe in that regard. Plus if you've ever walked even a few blocks there you quickly realize every outing is a http://www.datapointed.net/media/2009/11/street_big.jpg

I love the comment a poster put on that site. So now instead of the kid having a smaller portion of food, so they don't eat what their parents do, like a small, fries, small burger, small drink and a toy, they will have what their parents are having, a large fries, larger burger and lare pop. Yeah what a way to fight obesity.

It's simple logic. Kids want what their parents want. So if you can't have a toy, why do you want smaller portions then?

I think that quoting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson sums up my position here:
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it."

However that can be quite opinion based to the degree that at what point is it an "inconvenience" and others a "serious problem". Not saying there shouldn't be any laws, but there needs to be a point where the government says "no you as the parent hold the responsibility" in certain circumstances like these. Already seeing those commercials for those healthier happy meals with apple dippers or whatever they are called.

It's just a toy in a happy meal dude...

Why? What makes a legislative body's opinion of what is right more correct than the opinion of a parent?
If the parent is in fact responsible for their children then the government should never have any say in how the children are raised.



Freedom is Freedom. It is not limited by the scope of options or the merits of the question.

Yeah, San Francisco is about the most "anything goes" place a person could live in in spite of the missing toy.

It's generally the principle of it. They could ban, say, yellow cars. For being ugly. The "impact" would be nonexistent, since cars run the same regardless of their color, but if the government can freely ban something that trivial solely to police personal opinion, there's no barrier between that and them deciding any number of other arbitrary rules on how you're "allowed" to live. People don't like that.

There are easy extremes like "murder is bad for everyone, that's illegal", but most of this stuff is a foggy area. There's no clear line between beneficial "for our protection" and dangerous thought-policing, and people all have their own opinions on where that line is and how close things are allowed to get to it.

Freedom to do what one wishes results in unordered chaos, and our society would be ruined. So your argument that removing a toy from a happy meal is yet another liberty gone is flawed, we are in a society where there will always be rules. And rules which help keep children healthier by removing the novelty of an unhealthy meal is beneficial for us and our future.
You quoted Jefferson, I'll quote Lincoln:


-----------------------------------------------

It can be the same principle with any governmental decision, but one must look at the reasons - this specific one is for health, not the aesthetics of cars.

Society is simply surrendered freedoms vested as power into a governing collective. There are two sources of power 1. Divine Right and 2. Consent of the Governed. In a Divine Right structure, the governing collective tells the members what rights to surrender. In a Consent of the Governed structure, the members tell the governing collective what rights they are willing to surrender (usually in the form of a Constitution or Charter). All governments in the United States are required to operate under a Consent of the Governed structure. If you check the city Charter of San Francisco you will not find "choose what to buy for a child's diet" listed as a surrendered right. Of course, if the citizens of SF decided to put the measure on a ballot and it passed then they would have elected to surrender said right. Since they haven't you cannot make any logical argument in favor of this measure, only an emotional one (the "law is beneficial" argument is an appeal to emotion logical fallacy).



Whenever a law is made that restricts anything a liberty is gone, regardless of the scope or merit of the law. My point is far from flawed. It is 100% valid in every case. Of course there will always be rules. However, here in America those rules have to fall within an area that the governing body has authority.



Again, arguing that a law is beneficial is an appeal to emotion. The merit of a law is no excuse for violating the natural rights of the population. If the governent can make such a law with regard to happy meal toys, then there is nothing stopping them from making such a law in any area of day to day life.

I wouldn't mind if kids got a toy each time they make a "healthy" choice in selecting food but the only reward for eating unhealthy should be the flavor. That alone is enough to eat unhealthy meals or at least it is for me.

Take a kid to McDonalds or any other restaurant and when they order peas and carrots, apples and lettuce and grilled chicken or fish, slap a toy on him. Something to reinforce healthy eating habits might just turn around the weight problems of a new generation. It's worth a try.

That said, I do not believe in legislating morality but I won't get into that because quite frankly...I can not.

Logical? A child's diet has a profound influence on the child's health. Health is not 'emotional', health is obvious and transparent and can be simplified with reference to studies of daily fat intake, calories and vitamins, the entirety of a plate of food can be reduced to values to indicate if a plate of food is healthy. So it is logical, clearly not emotional...
Also, I am not saying the 'law is beneficial', there are vast amounts of how we are governed that I disagree with, thankfully sanity keeps me from seeing the removal of a toy from a happy meal to a prerequisite of an Orwellian state; whilst also understanding the benefits.


A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The legislation was passed by San Francisco's Board of Supervisors, which have all been elected by the people of San Francisco. I don't know how it works in America, but in Britain we elect people to make these kind of decisions for us, and we call this democracy, limited yes, but the best we have managed so far.

Again, in a Consent of the Governed structure all laws made by the governing collective must be allowed by a Constitution or Charter. The beneficial effects of a good diet are not on trial here. The authority of a Board of Supervisors is. Arguing that the Board is justified in taking away a liberty (any liberty) simply because the result will be good is an appeal to emotion logical fallacy.

Also, I can't help but point out that a tax on tea was also a minor thing, but it led to us Yanks kicking the Redcoats to the curb.



A Board of Supervisors is given some authority, yes. However, there is a city Charter that tells the Board where their authority begins and ends. Electing people to make decisions for you is part of a Republic (not Democracy, which is another animal altogether) and is a useful tool for governance, however, when those people who are elected choose to ignore the limits of their office, they become tyrants (even if to a seemingly miniscule degree) and once someone has a taste for power, they will constantly seek to indulge in more of it.

Such arguments are tiresome and fruitless and I don't have time to wedge back in anyway, but I just have to say, health is NOT obvious and transparent. The human body is a broken Lovecraftian machine powered by sugar and gremlins for which a manual was never produced and which generations have gone mad trying to write.