Is it just me, or is all this talk of liberties rather missing the point? There is nothing forbidding the sale of Happy Meals to children, only the discouragement of marketing unhealthy foods to children.


I am a staunch defender of human rights. This is not an infringement of human rights, it's a local government exercising its duty of care to children.

Liberty is the point. Whenever a government exceeds its authority it is violating fundamental human rights of self-governance. Government does not have a duty to care for children, parents do.

Government has a duty of care to children when parents neglect their own. That is why we have child protection agencies. I also still don't see how this infringes on liberties? There's nothing forbidding the sale of Happy Meals to kids.

Yep and more legislating of morality and telling folks how they "should" be or we will brain wash you is offensive to me. Freedom to choose how I live and others to do the same is huge to me.

Again, we need not delve too far into that however or we will both get a warning.

The definition of neglect does not include diet choices, toy choices, or anything even remotely related to where a parent chooses to buy food for their children. Therefore the government does not have any legal authority in this regard.

Again, any time the government tells anyone that they cannot do something, they are infringing upon liberties. In this particular case they are forcing a business to change a product which in turn restricts product availability to consumers. They are infringing upon the liberties of both.

I beg to differ. Infringing poor diet on children is damaging to both their short- and long-term health, and IS a form of neglect. I'll say again (trying to stay within those "politics" limits), that this legislation does not impact at all on the consumer's right to buy the product. It is business legislation in the same way in which alcohol and cigarettes may not be sold to those under 18 (or 21, in your parts). People are still as free as they were to buy Happy Meals for their kids, or indeed for their child to go up and purchase a Happy Meal by themself. I just don't see where human rights can possibly factor into the equation. It is a business regulation to protect the wellbeing of the consumer. If the affected "restaurants" improve their food quality to a standard which is no longer deemed to be a danger to consumers' health, they will be able to promote them with toys aimed at children. In the mean time, people are still as free as ever to buy the meals. No one has lost their rights as an individual.

Exactly. I don't see what the problem is. CSR, baby.

If it is neglect, the parents can be charged with neglect. Would be hold Mothers to the same? "Eat all your bacon and pancakes dear and I'll give you a piece of candy afterward for dessert."

:facepalm:

Once again, my point is that the people of San Francisco have not vested this power to their government, therefore the government is exceeding its authority by making such a rule. The benefits and impact of the rule are completely irrelevant and serve as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_(idiom) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion.

People have lost the right to sell a product. People have lost the right to buy that product (because it no longer exists).
Government interference always results in less rights.

Earlier this year (or possibly last year), children in Dundee were taken into care when their parents were deemed to be consistently and deliberately compromising their health by feeding them unhealthy foods.


I refer back to the point you made on giving away toys as a reward for healthy eating, which I agree with. The other side of the coin is the discouragement of unhealthy eating, which I think is what this legislation does. It discourages, but it doesn't criminalise.

Then there is no way you two will agree, because you've got a very different opinion on the subject.

I think the problem is that we are talking about different subjects...

The problem is that it is a free country and we are allowed to eat as we please. Yes it's unhealthy but that decision should lie with the people demanding it of McDonalds and not wanting to make a law about it. If enough parents wrote angry letters or boycotted McDonalds to make those changes, it would change. The enforcement of it should not lie with the government to make laws but in the negative reaction of the people who buy the products. That is how free market works. It should be consumer driven.

See my edit above, where I believe I addressed the issue you raised. The key point I make is that nobody has lost the right to buy a product, there has just been additional legislation passed to discourage an unhealthy activity. As I said, no rights have been lost, and no one has been criminalised for buying Happy Meals for their kids. Does this address your concern, or am I still off the mark? As I said, I take a strong position on human rights and liberties, I just don't see how this legislation affects them?

So what if I want to eat a sloppy greasy burger!!?! Soon, the goverment will ban my video games!

They are prohibiting the sale of Happy Meals. That means that McDonalds cannot sell them and people cannot buy them unless McDonalds complies with an unnecessary regulation that the governing body does not have the legal authority to impose. They are not "criminalizing" them, they are making them completely disappear from the market.

Again, the real issue is not what they are prohibiting, but rather that they are prohibiting something without the legal authority to do so. If this was a debate about a ballot issue where people got a chance to vote on this rule, then we could discuss the merits of imposing a healthier diet or to what degree the imposition should reach, however, since the bill is not up for vote it is not up for discussion on merit or reach. The are of discussion should be focused on whether you agree with government making rules beyond their authority or not. I say not and as a supporter of human rights, you should also say not. One of the most fundamental rights of all is Self-Governance. Whenever a government body makes a decision for you without actually having the authority to make that decision your right of Self-Governance is being infringed (even if you never notice it or care about it).

As an interesting tangent, what is your take on (I really can't think of the proper way to phrase this) under-18s being deemed unable to make fully informed and responsible decisions? Would you have children tried for crimes in an advlt court, or do you take the same position as I do, that juveniles have diminished responsibility? I look on the food issue as an extension for this - children, especially those young enough to be taken in by a toy in a Happy Meal, can not be expected to make an informed and balanced decision. Thus, I'm sure we all agree, responsibility falls on the parent to look after their children.

Now, human life is something I place extremely high value on. "Life's too short to make another's shorter". The affects of eating unhealthy food are well documented, so I strongly believe that, if parents do not show due concern for the health of their children, it is the place of others in society to step in. "You can't tell me how to raise my kids" is a viewpoint I couldn't disagree with more.


You want to eat a sloppy, greasy burger? Eat one then. No one's stopping you. A similar approach already exists in video games - age ratings.


But they're not? McDonalds can still sell Happy Meals, there's nothing stopping that sale.



EDIT: With regards to the governance of San Francisco, I can't claim to have any knowledge of how it works. If there was to be a referendum on EVERYTHING though, nothing would get done. Only Switzerland has a referendum on everything.

The toys svck anyway.

From the story:

"Under the ordinance, scheduled to take effect in December 2011, restaurants may include a toy with a meal if the food and drink combined contain fewer than 600 calories, and if less than 35% of the calories come from fat."

This requirement means that it will be illegal to sell Happy Meals as they do not meet the nutritional requirements.

Yes, they do, but to little kids, they are awesome, I mean really, parents are still probably gonna be buying their kids Happy meals, the only ones losing are the kids.

No, they can sell Happy Meals, just without the toys.

I wonder, what would your opinion be if I were to give away free toys with cyanide pills I sold to kids?

I beg your pardon. I :wub: my little shrek baby and my donkey I got there. Of course I would rather starve half to death than to eat most of their stuff.

th3undon3on3, I think children should never be tried as an advlt. But I also think we have to be very careful legislating how we raise our children. What I may find unhealthy in food, environmental or emotionally harmful may be part of someones culture or religion and thus I would never be one to remove "muktuk from an Inupiat child's mouth".

Which means it is not a Happy Meal... haven't you ever heard the expression "He's a toy short of a Happy Meal"?


If there was not already a law on the books for that, I would certainly petition that there be a ballot measure banning the sale of cyanide, regardless of toy status.
I never said that I was in favor of the Happy Meal, only that I am against the government exceeding its authority.

No



Now, as I see it, the key difference, health-wise, between cyanide and Happy Meals is the immediacy of effect. One cyanide pill can send you to the starry city in the sky (or the furnace room in the basemant, if Dante is to be believed), while one Happy Meal wont have a great effect. However, consistently feeding Happy Meals and such like to children does have a marked effect on their health, leading to problems in later life. The end result is the same, the effects just aren't as visible and immediate.


As an aside, I think the legislation could have been better phrased. Banning the sale of unhealthy food with toys would probably have been a better approach than the other way round, though it's all to the same end.