San Francisco Council Votes to Ban "Happy Meal"

[KansDem]

Source: Democracy Now

And San Francisco is poised to become the first city to ban the high-calorie children’s "Happy Meal" served at the McDonald’s fast-food chain. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has voted to bar restaurants from giving toys with meals containing excessive fat and sugar. Under the rule, restaurants would also have to serve fruits and vegetables alongside any meals with toys. The measure awaits a full vote next week. It would go into effect as early as December 2011.


Read more: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/4/headlines/san_francisco_council_votes_to_ban_happy_meal

---

If you have to "bribe" customers to buy unhealthy food, then you needn't be selling it.

[Skink]

I never had a happy meal when I was a kid.

[dogknob]

13. Yeah... and look how YOU turned out. ;) n/t

[saigon68]

62. I liked this Guy

[saigon68]

63. Another good time guy

[dogknob]

95. Ol' Dicknose! n/t

[Skink]

119. what

:beer:

[obama14]

20. A bet the toys have more Nutritional Value! n/t

[Ginto]

1. Next, ban the toys in cereal and cracker jack boxes. nt

[NoNothing]

2. They should also ban

Not going outside and playing when the weather is nice. Also, ban slouching and forgetting to take the garbage out.

[KansDem]

4. Playing outside when the weather is nice is not unhealthy

Eating a lot of sugar and fat is...




http://www.lavidalocavore.org/diary/3230/soda-consumption-vs-diabetes

[Robb]

9. That soda per capita map tracks roughly to elevation.

It is less fun to drink fizzy things on the Continental Divide or in the Olympics. :D

[boppers]

127. Elevation....

[Sentath]

145. Oh My Word

It Does!

Thats neat.

[John Kerry VonErich]

14. It could be a constitutional issue

of goverment running private business. SCOTUS refused to hear the trans fat issue, so maybe they might hear this if and when it comes

[KansDem]

17. Government gives huge subsidies to the meat and diary industries...

...not to mention more subsidies for McDonalds to advertise.

McDonalds needs to clean up their act. Self-regulation in CorpoWorld does not work.

The government needs to get involved. After all, not only are American taxpayers giving welfare to corporations like McDonalds, we're also picking up the costs of health care due to their unsafe products.

[cstanleytech]

59. I agree but

we have a thing called the constitution and its questionable if the court would agree that it grants the government that much power.

[ronnie624]

15. In no way does this interfere with your right to feed cheeseburgers to your children.

It simply restricts big corporations from targeting other peoples children with propaganda and advertising gimmicks, to entice them into eating 'food' that everyone knows causes myriad health problems. The personal freedoms of people are not affected, in the least, by this measure.

[Ginto]

24. They really need to ban commercials then.

It's not the toys, it's the constant commercials adding toys. They also should get rid of the playgrounds at all McDonald's. It just serves to entice children to go there.

[KansDem]

34. I agree with all three of your points!

No commercials
No bribes
No playground

If you can't sell your product without this three "come-ons," then close-up shop.

And get rid of the clown, too...

[Ginto]

44. I mean all commercials for all toys.

Let's stop kids from wanting the latest tickle me elmo or remote control helicopter.

[saigon68]

61. THIS CLOWN

[jmowreader]

150. Maybe we should MANDATE playground use instead

The problem isn't high-fat, high-calorie, high-sugar foods. It's eating those things then sitting on your ass for the next four hours.

It would be far better if we told parents, "if you're going to buy Junior the cheeseburger/fries/cola Happy Meal instead of the (say) salad with grilled chicken and vinaigrette plus 100-percent juice Happy Meal, you have to send Junior out into the playground for half an hour to sweat off what he ate." That playground stuff looks pretty damn aerobic to me.

[ronnie624]

39. Only if ordering a milkshake was required in order to have access to the playground.

But playgrounds are irrelevant. A playground could be built at a restaurant that serves only healthy foods. Deliberately targeting children with propaganda and gimmicks that are directly associated with unhealthy 'food', is what the measure attempts to prevent.

[Ginto]

41. A playground is a gimmick. It's worse, you actually have to go inside to use it. nt

[ronnie624]

50. Ah, I understand now.

Your purpose is to distract from serious discussion.

See ya. :hi:

[Ginto]

51. And your purpose it to not respond to rational debate?

How do you feel about cartoon characters on cereal boxes?

[Sirveri]

123. They already DID ban commercials. For cigarettes, on TV.

It's pretty similar, and if there was any legal challenge there that case will be used as a precedent here.

[urgk]

85. Well said. +1 n/t

[John Kerry VonErich]

109. Though it is a corperation....

Many franchises are privately owned.

[Renew Deal]

156. It interferes with my right to be targeted by propaganda and advertising gimmicks

If I don't want to buy a happy meal, I won't buy it. I don't need a legislative gimmick to prevent me from buying it. In my case, I'm not buying it either way. But McDonalds should have the right to package toys with their food.

[ProudDad]

116. You picked a telling DU name... (n/t)

[brendan120678]

3. San Francisco is fast becoming...

quite a totalitarian state.

The Board of Supervisors need to learn how to mind their own f'ing business.

[DoBotherMe]

7. SF provides universal health care

So they try to mitigate future loss. It's a business decision. Dana ; )

[Ginto]

8. Then they should ban all fried food. nt

[KansDem]

23. Not all. Just the food that contains harmful ingredients.

What Keeps a McDonald's Burger from Rotting

We recently posted an article about photographer Sally Davies’ “Happy Meal Project,” which documents the life of a McDonald’s hamburger and fries as they steadfastly refuse to rot. The project is not the first of its kind, and there are reports of burgers that looked about the same after four and even 12 years after their date of purchase. The idea is this: most healthy food will eventually spoil, so how long a food goes without going bad is an indicator of unhealthy ingredients.

So what’s behind the miraculous preservation? As far as the beef patty is concerned, it’s not from preservatives. According to the ingredients list published by McDonald’s, the patty contains 100 percent Angus beef, prepared with a “grill seasoning” that consists of salt (we wonder how much) and black pepper. The high fat content and the high cooking heat are enough to account for the burger’s resistance to decay. Over time, the moisture in the burger will evaporate and the fat will harden, much like it does in arteries of people suffering from atherosclerosis.

The fries and the bun are a different story. A regular bun contains the following:

“Enriched flour (bleached wheat flour, malted barley flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid, enzymes), water, high fructose corn syrup, sugar, yeast, soybean oil and/or partially hydrogenated soybean oil, contains 2% or less of the following: salt, calcium sulfate, calcium carbonate, wheat gluten, ammonium sulfate, ammonium chloride, dough conditioners (sodium stearoyl lactylate, datem, ascorbic acid, mono- and diglycerides, ethoxylated monoglycerides, monocalcium phosphate, enzymes, guar gum, calcium peroxide, soy flour), calcium propionate and sodium propionate (preservatives), soy lecithin.”

Diets in Review

High-fructose corn syrup is terrible. Not only does it lead to weight problems, it also creates the sensation of wanting to eat more. Great for corporations, but not for people.

Take a look at the film, "Super Size Me." Another disastrous CorpoWorld "promotion."

[NoNothing]

27. Every single ingredient is harmful in excess.

Every one.

[Ginto]

29. Try getting pepperoni to rot.

I agree though all places that specialize in unhealthy food need to be highly regulated and shut down if necessary. Steak houses have to be looked at. High fat meat often cooked on high carcinogen charcoal and accompanied by fried sides such as onion rings and french fries.

[NoNothing]

32. Of course pepperoni doesn't rot

It's a cured meat!

Seriously though this fascist crap about banning restaurants in order to control peoples' behavior (I notice, always ones that lower-class people eat at - hmmmmm....) makes me want to puke.

[KansDem]

46. You don't mind your tax dollars going to subsidize McDonald's?

I sure as hell do!

[NoNothing]

54. Yes I do

End all subsidies right now I say! But banning them? No.

[KansDem]

60. Ending subsidies will have the same effect as banning them.

When people are required to pay for what hamburgers really cost, they won't be able to afford them.

Ban subsidies to the meat industry, and subsidies to the corn industry (corn is used to feed cows). Also, ban subsidies to the fossil-fuel industry, whose product is used as corn fertilizer:

Corn is central to agriculture in the United States, where it is grown in greater volumes and receives more government subsidies than any other crop. Between 1995 and 2006 corn growers received $56 billion in federal subsidies, and the annual figure may soon hit $10 billion.

But in recent years, environmentalists have branded corn as an icon of unsustainable agriculture. It requires large amounts of fertilizer and pesticides, both of which require large amounts of fossil fuel to manufacture.

Most of the resulting corn is fed to livestock who didn’t evolve to subsist entirely on corn. In cattle, eating corn increases flatulence emissions of methane — a potent greenhouse gas — and creates an intestinal environment rich in e. coli, a common cause of food poisoning. That necessitates mixing cow feed with antibiotics, in turn producing antibiotic-resistant disease strains.

Many of those livestock end up in high-calorie, low-nutrition franchised fast foods, which have been repeatedly linked to obesity, diabetes and heart disease. Fast food’s biggest selling point is its low price — and that, say industry critics, is largely possible because of corn’s ubiquitous cheapness.

"We’re seeing that corn is the number-one reason that fast food is so cheap and available," said Meredith Niles, a food policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety who was not involved in the study. "U.S. programs are subsidizing obesity in this country."

Jahren’s team analyzed hamburgers, chicken sandwiches and french fries from multiple McDonald’s, Burger King and Wendy’s restaurants in six U.S. cities.

In both types of meat at every location, a telltale configuration of nitrogen and carbon traces showed that the animals had eaten corn-heavy diets; in the case of beef, 150 out of 162 samples came from animals that ate nothing but corn. Fries were prepared in corn-based oil.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/fast-food-anoth/

Finally, ban subsidies to McDonald's to advertise their hamburgers.

One wonders how much the "Happy Meal" would increase in price without all this welfare.

No doubt the "Lesser Government" Teapublicans will take this on next January...

[ronnie624]

68. Banning restaurants?

Good grief.

[onpatrol98]

137. "Of course pepperoni doesn't rot...it's cured meat"

"Of course pepperoni doesn't rot...it's cured meat"

:rofl:

[Mosby]

87. It's not a mystery how much salt is in a mcdonalds hamburger

http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritionexchange/nutritionfacts.pdf

Hamburger: 250cal, 9g fat, 250mg sodium

[ronnie624]

47. Who are "they", and why should "they" ban all fried food?

This is not an attempt to limit personal freedoms. You are forever free to feed your children fat and sugar, if that's what you want.

I cannot understand why people believe that corporations have a 'right' to target children with propaganda, for the purpose of luring them into consuming things that are clearly unhealthy.

[Ginto]

49. The council is they.

I totally agree with you. All advertising of all unhealthy food must be banned on all mediums.

[Renew Deal]

157. If universal health care also means laws about what people eat

Then it's never going to fly in this country.

[EFerrari]

10. I think you're pretty safe from them out on the East Coast.

lol

[bigworld]

12. This won't help one bit.

People should be able to make their own choices. Will this result in kids eating better? No, they'll just get the happy meal without the toy -- and instead of punishing McDonalds, you've just helped them financially. And although the meal might come with veggie slices or whatever, you know most parents will order an extra side of fries for the child.

This micromanaging and specific banning will NOT work. Spend the money on educating folks about nutrition instead.

[urgk]

36. Bull. Absolute bull.

You want to know why people don't have the absolute right to make their own choices? Because sometimes those choices interfere with the rights of other Americans to make their own choices. It's up to the educated part of the public (and I don't mean those with degrees only, I mean those with clear rational thinking) to decide that the "right" of KRAFT, McDonald's, etc. to profit by feeding our kids garbage does not trump our right to have affordable health care and a culture where obesity isn't rising at epidemic levels.

It's incredibly clear that, while parents *should* make better health decisions for their children, they are *not* making better health decisions for their children.

From the CDC - "Results from the 2007-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.... indicate that an estimated 17 percent of children and adolescents ages 2-19 years are obese." 17 f***ing percent! Nearly one in 5 is more likely to develop diabetes, cancer, asthma and other obesity-related illnesses. Demanding that McDonald's and the rest of the SugarFat industry has the "right" to make billions of dollars by making the rest of us pay billions in increased health costs is ridiculous.

This may not be *the* answer, but some sort of regulation is the answer and SF's law is certainly driving the conversation we NEED to have.

[urgk]

26. Do you realize how stupid it is...I mean egregiously, earth-shatteringly dim...

to let corporations earn profit by ensuring the rest of us subsidize them by cleaning up the mess they make?

We all pay for the f***ing Happy Meals, Oreo's, Cheez Wiz, and all the rest of that garbage in the form of higher health care premiums, a greater percentage of the GDP going to health care, government sponsored health care for the poor. For sh*t's sake, why are Democrats rallying to save the right for ANY corporate entity to do harm to the general population so that the rest of us can absorb the costs of their externalities?

You realize what's happening right? The lack of government regulations allows corporations to earn profit by putting more money into indoctrination than we can put into education. Look at the advertising budget that goes into sugar-fat every single day, versus the time and money that health educators can say "whoa...stop! You're killing yourselves and we're all paying for it!"

There is plenty, and I mean PLENTY of money to be made in this country by following minimal health standards. Of course, to be able to pay for it, we need to give people a living wage, but the pro-profit-at-all-cost crowd doesn't want that either.

[gtar100]

138. ++1000

[Gormy Cuss]

66. Cigarette commercials were banned from TV based on a public health argument.

What the board of supes is doing here is restricting Happy Meal toys on a similar basis.

[ronnie624]

131. Excellent point.

For some reason, I completely forgot about the banning of cig ads on TV. So there is a clear precedent.

[Kievan Rus]

128. I'm no fan of McDonald's, but I agree 100%

Don't like McDonald's? Fine. Don't eat there!

[oldsneakers]

5. Is that crazy clown still in the picture?

Sorry for the seemingly stupid question but I spend 90% of my time in Britain and yes, I have always despised that gruesome looking clown.
Even as a youngster I wanted to beat the snot out of it for ruining my entire childhood.

[KansDem]

11. You mean this guy?

http://www.mcspotlight.org/people/interviews/guilliano_geoff.html">Confessions of a Corporate Clown

Here's a snippet of the interview:

Was being Ronald a full time job?

Oh, yeah. It was full time. I worked at an ad agency in Toronto. I was way up on the 30th floor and had my own window office. One of the first things that struck me was that the executive core of McDonald's and their advertising agency don't eat McDonald's food. They had a cordon bleu chef - you called them up and they would make you whatever you wanted!

I also had to do a lot of travelling to gigs.

What was the background to you being Ronald McDonald and was there a particular moment or time when you realised that you'd had enough?

When I went I was pretty much fresh out of drama school and I really had big ideas, that the Ronald McDonald Safety Show would help children not to drink bleach and set themselves on fire and things, so I learned it and I did it.

And then one day, as I was getting dressed in the dressing room I found a memorandum from one of the McDonald's executives and it said: 'To all personnel re: The Ronald McDonald Safety Show, the purpose of this show is to increase the public's awareness and especially the young peoples' awareness of McDonald's goods and services'. I thought, gee, I thought it was to help kids.

The whole act was pretty corny and unbelievable from the start. The story as we told it was that hamburgers have nothing to do with a dead cow, that they grow in a happy little patch and you just go and pluck them away with the purple guy, (Hamburglar) and all the other characters. They cloaked this wholesale slaughter of innocent animals in fairytales and PR. I once went to the McChicken plant where they "prepare" the chickens to make McNuggets. The chickens at one end are live and come out dead at the other end. It smelled terrible. And there was something slippery like goo on the floor and you knew that this was a place of death.

But make sure the kids get a toy in their "Happy Meal!"

[TroglodyteScholar]

106. The purple guy is Grimace, not the Hamburglar.

That's pretty difficult to get wrong....

[hughee99]

6. How does this "ban the Happy meal"?

I'm not in SF, but last time I got my daughter a happy meal, she had a choice of french fries or apple slices. In SF, they just won't give you the choice (or they'll raise the price and give you both). The problem with unhealthy food isn't that you need to bribe people to eat it. Far too many people PREFER it. You're bribing them to eat YOUR unhealthy food instead of someone else's.

Yes, but I'm sure they feel like they've done something good.

[urgk]

55. Considering that our health care costs are staggering....

What would you propose to stop 17% of American children from becoming obese? I think the SF regulation is a nice start. I think it drives the conversation and it makes people consider that maybe the government's constitutional responsibility to "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

Childhood obesity is epidemic. So is bad parenting. So is advertising that drives both. Why not start by regulating that? Why not start by demanding that corporations stop making billions by forcing the rest of us who DO make good decisions to absorb the external costs of their drive for profit?

[hughee99]

80. Other than "starting the conversation" I'm not sure what this will accomplish

McDonald's already serves a fruit (apple slices) with a happy meal. Currently, it's optional, they'll just make it mandatory. You can get your happy meal with apple slices, and for 20 cents extra, fries too. Children will eat the usual crap AND maybe eat the apples too. I'm not sure how much it really reduces obesity if children eat apples in ADDITION to their regular crappy diet. In the end, if parents are taking kids to McDonald's (or other fast food restaurants) so often that those restaurants are largely responsible for the child's obesity, making them serve fruit and vegetables isn't going to fix anything. The government can't really force children to eat healthy, nor can it force them to exercise.

Parental education might be one place to start and while it may not be as effective as other methods in the short term, it will probably get the least resistance on implementation. The other option is banning or taxing things to make them prohibitively expensive.

And even though it's "starting the conversation" may not be the conversation you want, as it may just make people consider the possibility of government and other interest groups using the "rising price of health care" as an excuse to get involved in every aspect of your daily lives.

No option will be completely effective, but IMHO this is an issue that will only be fixed by greater parental responsibility. Yes, the government may be able to help a little, but it can't fix the problem of bad parents and obese children at the same time.

[urgk]

82. There's just no way we can outspend the advertising....

...and counter it with education. No way.

I don't think the SF solution is the best way to regulate because it unfairly singles out McDonald's, rather than Coke, kids' cereals, donuts, coffee drinks, etc. And I think you're exactly right - they'll find a way around it.

I'd settle for banning Ronald and anything else that appeals directly to kids. That would give us time to raise them right and then let educated adults make decisions about their bodies. Right now, the concerted message to have us buy cheap, fast and unhealthy is just too much to fight without massive regulations on messaging.

[hughee99]

90. As far as banning marketing to kids, though, I'm not sure how you'd do it

Obviously, they can take action if they feel cigarettes or alcohol is marketing to kids, but both those products have minimum ages. How do you create a law that bans marketing to children for a product that children can legally have? Even now, McDonald's seems to have moved much of it's marketing to older demographics (I see far less of the Hamburgler and Grimace on TV than I used to), but children still go there in droves.

I 100% agree that it's a difficult fight with all the advertising money being spent, and in the end, I think education would be the only thing that can really resolve the issue. Sadly, I don't believe that the current system of health education can be effective in countering this advertising and I'm just not sure how you ban the advertising without winning what would be a very difficult constitutional battle.

The other option would be to enact very high taxes on such food, or outright ban it (like they have with trans-fats in some cities), but I'm not sure how well that would hold up in court either. Especially when you're not banning a specific thing (trans-fats for example) but a far broader "unhealthy foods". This also brings into play the "nanny-state" argument that repukes love so much.

[CanSocDem]

102. Public Health is the goal...

...in a democratic society. That trumps everything. Industry, advertising, media and education.



"I 100% agree that it's a difficult fight with all the advertising money being spent, and in the end, I think education would be the only thing that can really resolve the issue. Sadly, I don't believe that the current system of health education can be effective in countering this advertising and I'm just not sure how you ban the advertising without winning what would be a very difficult constitutional battle."

In the USA, what, exactly, do you consider "health education"??? Until you get an actual Public Health System, "education" might as well be corporate advertising.

True education would be exposing the litany of abuses inflicted on western culture by industrial food producers. Public health makes the society stronger.

.

[urgk]

111. Absolutely.

There is just no way the preamble of the constitution was meant to introduce a document that would let BP poison the gulf, McDonald's/Kraft/Coke endanger the health of 1/5 of our kids, and the Koch brothers sway a couple of Supreme Court justices into letting foreign companies pump money in into the elections - all in the name of making a profit.

The framers wanted this to be a better, more just, more equal nation, not one in which corporations essentially make kings out of the wealthy.

[onpatrol98]

16. Stupid Idea!

There are many parents who don't buy their children Happy Meals or even take them to McDonalds. That's the job of parents. It just makes SF look like they have nothing better to do with their time. Why not ban fast food establishments? Because they like the tax revenue.

[KansDem]

18. I agree...

But bribing children to pressure parents only reinforces the reality that McDonalds is serving unhealthy food...

I mean, why would McDonalds see a need to enlist children in their battle to get to mom and dad's bank accounts?

[Ginto]

19. Why does Red Robin give unlimited french fries? nt

[onpatrol98]

28. Battle for Mom and Dad's bank account...

LOL...that's no battle. We're bigger. We can "just say no". What age child wants a happy meal? It's predominately the 10 and under crowd. Just say no every time you walk in or drive by...and eventually they stop asking. You don't need any regulation for that.

"Mom, can I have a Happy Meal?"

"No, son."
--------------------------------

What are they going to do...wrestle you down and take your money?

And, I don't mean "you" specifically. You probably aren't the one taking your child to McDonald's in the first place. But, to buy the happy meal or not, is a part of parenting. If the food is really that unhealthy, it's the place that shouldn't exist...not the toy in a happy meal. But, even in that case...the cashiers aren't running behind cars to steal customer's wallets or purses. If the product is legal, it's purchase is up to the consumer.

[KansDem]

31. I agree: It's a part of "parenting"

So why the bribe?

Why does McDonald's seek a little help from the children? I doubt if the parents are swayed by a "toy."

And you're correct: my wife and I have never taken our two children to McDonald's...

[urgk]

52. But that's the rational parents. Sure, they can decide.

But we have an overwhelming number of non-rational Americans in this country. Look at the elections. Why is it such a stretch for us to understand that if FOX can successfully convince 66% that President Obama is not a Christian while they also believe he follows Reverend Wright, that advertisers can convince the population that buying garbage is a good idea?

Rationality is NOT the dominant driving force in our culture.

17% of our kids are obese. That's crisis level. And if we already spend around 18% of our GDP on health care, how the h*** are we supposed to sustain the cultural absorption of external costs so that McDonald's can be profitable? Make them earn money by feeding better food to our kids. Make them adapt. The pro-business types love Darwinian economics, let's make health regulations for our kids something that they can either evolve to survive...or simply fail.

[NoNothing]

58. You can make any choice that you want, so long as it's rational

You can have any color car that you want, so long as it's black.

[urgk]

64. You can over-simplify any idea into nonsense. As long as it doesn't take any real thought. n/t

[urgk]

21. When childhood obesity is epidemic...it's crystal clear parents aren't doing their jobs.

And it is the government's job to make sure that its non-adult citizens get its protection when parents refuse.

This law may not take care of all health-related problems, but it gets the discussion started. Why should ANY corporation get subsidies from the rest of the taxpayers, in the form of higher insurance premiums, higher private health care costs and higher cost to government-run health care so that McDonald's can turn a profit?

[Ginto]

22. They should really have fat testing at restaurants and ban any restaurants where the average meal

exceeds the guidelines that are set. So places that serve fried chicken, chicken wings, fatty burgers, etc would be a thing of the past.

[NoNothing]

30. When cheeseburgers are outlawed

Only outlaws will have cheeseburgers.

[urgk]

43. Or, just let that be the realm of adults. If an adult wants to damage his/her body, so be it.

Provided that adult has been properly educated and has had governmental protection from advertising until the age of 18, I say let them have all the fat they want. But that hasn't been the case. All of the incentives, from biologically-driven gratification, to the inherent manipulation of advertising, to the cost of food point us all to cheap, fast and value-less.

I'd settle for just educating and insulating the kids from crap that will kill them and indebt us all until they're old enough to know better.

[Ginto]

48. Exactly, ban all food advertising of food, tv, radio, web and billboard.

That will ensure that there is as little manipulation as possible.

[urgk]

53. Or just the clowns, toys and and giant, animate stuffed animals.

I'd settle for that.

[NoNothing]

25. Why beat around the bush then?

Just ban obesity. Fat? Go to jail. Kids are fat? Go to jail, lose your kids.

[urgk]

38. Because that's absolute nonsense. To the point of being ridiculous.

Businesses have rights. We have rights. When their right to make money interferes with our right to have a healthy population and a sustainable percent of our GDP dedicated to health care, we need to *regulate.*

Sure, educated adults can put whatever the heck they want into their bodies. But who's been doing most of the educating? BBDO, Leo Burnett, Y&R, Gray and the rest of the ad agencies whose job it is to create the demand for cheap crap that makes somebody rich. Parents who grew up on McDonald's choose McDonald's. Parents who can empty a bag of Doritos choose Doritos. Parents who grew up on particle board entertainment centers that fall apart when you try to move them to the other side of the living room will choose that same garbage.

The freedom to choose only has any value at all when the choice is being made by a rational, educated end-user.

[NoNothing]

57. No it isn't

It's actually a very modest proposal. We punish other socially destructive behavior with jail time all the time. If the harms of obesity are serious enough to justify controlling people with regulations and bans, then why be indirect about it? The harm is *obesity,* right? Not unhealthy food per se? After all, if I eat unhealthy food from time to time and don't become obese, there is no social harm whatsoever, isn't that right? Furthermore it is entirely possible to eat healthy and *still* be obeses, just from over-eating, and if I *am* obese, it doesn't really matter if I actually have been eating healthy in terms of the social costs, does it?

So you see, if the harms being addressed are caused by *obesity,* then these regulations and bans are both overinclusive, burdening non-obese unhealthy eaters, AND underinclusive, failing to burden the healthy-eating obese. A ban on obesity would be neither overinclusive nor underinclusive.

You might object that we have rights, but as you said, those rights *only* have any value when the person making them is rational and educated. By definition, anyone *choosing* to be obese is either uneducated or irrational, thus their right to make that choice is nonexistent. So, no problem there.

I really can't see what your objection is. Either the harms are serious enough to justify curtailing peoples' choices, or they're not.

[urgk]

65. All of that assumes there is one way to drive choice.

And it's a particularly silly way. If you do mean to give us a "modest proposal" then...well, great, it's satire. Woohoo.

But if you seriously believe that the best way to drive consumer choice is to indoctrinate them to make bad decisions, then punish them for those decisions, I don't think that's at all reasonable.

[NoNothing]

67. Not at all

Where am I assuming there is only one way to drive choice? I point out that regulation and bans are effective, but fines and jail time are *more* effective, and have *fewer* impacts on those who are causing no harm. Remember, we're not talking about "consumer choice" at all here, we are talking about preventing *harm to society*. That's *exactly* what criminal law was designed for!

*Why* do you think this is unreasonable? Is the obesity epidemic extremely harmful to society or not? Do we punish harm to society with criminal laws or not? Tell me where I am wrong!

[urgk]

69. Saying it doesn't make it true.

"I point out that regulation and bans are effective, but fines and jail time are *more* effective..."

Yeah, okay. You go ahead and believe that. It's just silly to talk about treating childhood obesity the same way we've ineffectively treated drug use.

[NoNothing]

70. You think drug use would be *less*

If it was *not* criminal?

I've heard a lot of arguments for decriminalization, but that's a new one for me!

I guess we should ring up MADD and let them know, if they *really* want to cut down on drunk driving, don't make it a crime! Just ban cheap beer!

[urgk]

71. Again, more silliness masquerading as thought.

We try to go after the distribution system. And give incentives to drug users who will help us do that.

Because throwing the users in jail is a waste of time and money. That's why you get more jail time for "intent to distribute" than for "possession."

Jeebus. Think before you type.

[urgk]

73. (commented in wrong spot - deleted) n/t

[urgk]

76. (arrgh..did it again...delete) n/t

[urgk]

93. It's too late to edit my other post to tone it down....

But on second reading, I agree with the reasoning, but feel the need to apologize for the tone. I'm still keyed up from Tuesday, but there's no excuse for being so confrontational and impatient.

So, my apologies for not disagreeing fervently in a more mature manner.

[valerief]

79. I love munching on my particle board entertainment center. Good roughage. nt

[urgk]

97. Of course it's not food. It's just cheap, fast and easy.

Which is, ultimately, unsustainable. I was using it as another example of unregulated products that we have a "right" to buy and sell, even thought the long-term effects hurt our economy, and eventually, our collective national welfare.

[alanquatermass]

132. Agreed, urgk!

When "adults" abdicate their responsibility then Government needs to take up the slack. A government of, by and (this above all, folks) FOR the people can and should occasionally nudge us -- ALL of us -- in the right direction.

Who could argue with that?

I love what SF is doing and wish Santa Monica (where I live) would follow suit!

[slackmaster]

33. If they had any real guts, they'd ban McDonald's

Most of the stuff they sell is terrible.

[Ginto]

35. Late night double cheeseburgers for 1$ get me every time.

:)

[slackmaster]

37. I used to buy their burgers when they were on sale, and hand them out to Hare Krishna kids

I was bad.

[urgk]

45. That shouldnt be funny.

But it cracks me up :)

[slackmaster]

72. The kids loved me. I know it went against their principles, but so did the heroin-dealing...

...that their parents were doing.

[Kievan Rus]

130. Don't like what they sell? Simple: don't buy it.

Attitudes like that are precisely one of the reasons we got beaten so badly on Tuesday, in my honest opinion.

[bitchkitty]

40. I have the solution!

Make all parents and prospective parents watch Food, Inc. Problem solved! McDonald's and the like would shut down from lack of business once people realized what it is they are putting into their mouths.

Ammonia-marinated downer cow, anyone? Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

[KansDem]

42. "Ammonia-marinated downer cow, anyone?"

Can I have that Super Sized?!

[Homer03]

56. More Ammo for the Right

Id rather we ban people that what to ban stuff.

[EFerrari]

75. No thanks.n/t

[tomm2thumbs]

74. no more prizes in Cracker Jacks, no more toys in Cereal

because really, those things are the most important things going on right now

really

[urgk]

77. There's nothing like seeing otherwise rational people defend McDonald's right...

to make billions selling us McSugarFat™ over our rights to have a functional, healthy, economically sustainable country.

There is a point where it is the government's responsibility to tell corporations that they cannot sacrifice the health of Americans for the health of their investor's portfolios.

Freedom is not the right to act outwardly in a way that interferes with the physical health of other Americans. McDonald's creates obese children. Obese children require medicine and doctor visits. Our insurance companies charge us more. Our government-run health services tax us more. the entire system eats the cost of selling burgers to kids and grossly uneducated or irresponsible parents.

[Kievan Rus]

133. Don't like McDonald's? Simple solution. Don't give them your business

Attitudes like yours are one of the reasons why I think we lost so many seats on Tuesday, honestly. The nanny state isn't all that popular with a lot of voters.

There's a lot of things we need to do in order to regain momentum leading up to the elections in 2012, but if there's one thing us Democrats don't want to do in the leadup to those elections, it's agitate for the nanny state.

For one, it would even further energize the Teabaggers and the right wing as a whole. You could guarantee that Beck and Rush would run with it and try to make us look as bad as possible.

In addition, agitating for the nanny state would likely alienate moderate and independent voters and push them towards the Republicans. Agitating for the nanny state is a bad idea. Because all I think it would do is turn people against us and put more Republicans into Congress, and possibly one in the Oval Office.

[valerief]

78. Since adjectives in our world are backwards, we know that Happy Meal

means Unhappy Meal in reality, so this is a very good thing. Children should not be eating Unhappy Meals. They should be eating real food.

[Mosby]

81. Mcdonalds is an easy target

As far as fast food goes they have some decent food choices. Food at places like Applebees and Outback are way worse. For the purpose of the discussion, does everyone know the nutritional value of a happy meal?

Cheesburger: 300cal, 12g fat, 750 mg sodium
Small fry: 230cal, 11g fat, 160 mg sodium

Yeah, that's just horrible. :sarcasm:

[Ter]

83. This is why we lose elections

They never learn.

[urgk]

86. Because we believe that a business has the constitutional right to help damage the health..

of an entire generation of kids?

I don't agree with SF that this will be effective legislation. But I love that they started the conversation.

Freedom comes with the obligation to refrain from knowingly and provably acting in ways that kill other Americans. I simply don't believe that any person or corporation has the right to act in ways that poison other people.

[totodeinhere]

94. But an occasional cheeseburger is not harmful.

If you have one cheeseburger every few months, you will be perfectly fine. Of course, if you eat at McDonald's every day, you will be in trouble. Just use some common sense.

And actually, I enjoy a meal at McDonald's once in a while, And since I do it responsibly, it has not impacted my health. And that being the case, would it be fair to ban McDonald's and deny me the opportunity to have an occasional meal there? I don't think so.

[urgk]

96. Oh, me too. But, I don't overdo it.

But 17% of our kids are obese. Those kind of numbers are going to kill us. We're already at 17% of GDP going to health care. Letting it increase so that somebody can make money by selling SugarFat to our kids just isn't sustainable. We're going to have to make a value judgment that says feeding crap to our kids is endangering the nation.

And I'm all for adults eating junk food in moderation. But there's no short-term, effective incentive for the undereducated to eat right. There needs to be. The American drive to meet its infantile wants rather than its long-term needs is just too strong.

And realistically, denying you a Big Mac isn't denying you any fast food. Nor is it denying you burgers. I'd be all for some sort of minimum health standards for burgers and then let Burger King and McDonald's fight it out in the market place.

I've said it elsewhere in this thread, but if the majority of Americans have been raised to think that cheap and easy are "good" choices, the free market in which they vote for their dollars is always going to skew towards things that are unhealthy for the general population. I mean, if 50% of Americans thought Bush was a good choice in 2004, with all we knew then, I just don't believe we, the people are educated enough to make sound decisions. Something is wrong systemically.

[totodeinhere]

98. Thanks. You make some good points. Perhaps it is selfish of me to not want to

give up my occasional Big Mac for the greater good. It's a tough choice. It's just too bad that parents cannot be more responsible.

[urgk]

103. Man, do I agree. I wish EVERY parent were responsible.

But I have friends who teach college telling me that parents of college-age students call in to argue grades and to make excuses for their kids. There seems to be a generation of kids raised according to what they want, instead of what they need.

I said it down-thread too, but parents raised to think cheap-fast-easy is a valid ongoing choice (as opposed to a once-in-awhile treat) are going to raise their kids to think that cheap-fast-easy is a valid choice. It's the problem Geoffrey Canada saw in the kids who were going to fail at education - parents tend to raise kids the only way they know how. His system is working partially because demand outstrips supply, so you have motivated parents who want educated kids, but I'm not sure what the equivalent would be nutritionally.

I just keep thinking - where's that money going to come from? We already have the vultures standing over education, social security, the arts...I'd just rather spend the money raising kids up over our shoulders than raising them out of the hole that obesity and unbridled consumerism have put them in.

[Kievan Rus]

134. I agree -- pushing for the nanny state energizes the right and alienates moderates

I'd even go as far to say that an anti-nanny state measure, Proposition 19, is one reason why we did so well in California. While it may have failed, many young people came out to vote and mostly voted for the Democrats.

[xor]

84. Parents who don't wish to cook will still buy their kids "happy meals" with or without the toys...

Not sure how useful this will be. Then again, I don't have any kids so maybe I don't realize how big of an attraction their lame plastic toys are. I don't recall their toys being of must interest to me when I was younger though. I'd have to ask my mom to know for sure.

[Crowman1979]

88. Rather than ban it, McDonalds should be force to post ALL of the ingredients of the Happy Meal...

at their restaurants. That's including the ammonia and other toxic elements you never see mentioned. Plus, throw in a free vomit bag as well.

[zen_bohemian]

89. its the same advert angle as when we were kids and we used to get toys in sugary cereal

never were there toys in the healthy whole grain ones, just the sugary sweet ones. At my house, the better the toy, that was my favorite cereal that week :) how DID we survive???

Toys being banned could be a good idea I guess, it has its merit in theory, it may work for some kids but not others. My kids wanted the toys, and if they had been giving the toys in a healthy meal, they more than likely would have ate the healthy one to get the toy.

The BEST solution to this is.....STAY HOME and fix your kids healthy meals, and stop eating out, it's expensive and it's unhealthy in most cases.

[proteus_lives]

91. Thank goodness there was nothing more important for them to do.

:eyes:

Nanny-State crap.

[Crowman1979]

92. I'd rather there be a public disclosure of the ingredients as opposed to an outright ban.

I mean look how that previous ban called prohibition turned out. Plus classrooms teaching either home-ec or nutritional science should teach children about reading the ingredient labels.

[urgk]

100. You think there will be cartels of Happy Meal providers?

Satesfull of backwoods operations, guarded by Felons with Tommy guns, churning out low-cost barrels of hamburgers? Secret, underground day-cares with secret door knocks and hidden passageways filled with cardboard totes and plastic figurines?

17% of kids in this country are clinically obese. Do you have any idea how much that's going to cost the rest of us in increased health care costs?

This may not be the best way to meet the problem, but it's a start. We all need to talk about the epidemic. It's a free market, right? If the conditions change to make "creating obesity" a failed business model, other businesses will step in to make gobs of money selling something else.

[Odin2005]

99. I think Nanny-State morons should be banned.

[urgk]

101. What about people who think their constitutional rights to live in a functional system..

...trump the rights of McDonald's (or Kraft's, or Coca-Cola's) stockholders to make money by selling garbage to children and undereducated or irresponsible adults?

Because there comes a point when a person's bad choice becomes a group's bad choice which the rest of us are forced to subsidize. Right now, 17% of kids are obese. I think parents *should* be better parents. But they're not. They're letting their kids get diabetes, heart disease, asthma and a host of other weight-related issues.

To be honest, I might be able to live with that if kids were allowed to get to 18 without being bombarded with messages to choose the cheap, unhealthy, fast, SugarFat over nutrient-rich foods. But McDonald's et al can afford to put more money into educating kids to make the unhealthy choice than the government can spend to educate them. Again, parents *should* know better, but parents that have also been raised to take the shortcuts - to get the immediate gratification brought by cheap and fast - are going to keep taking the shortcuts and teaching their kids to do the same.

[woo me with science]

104. Yeah, and banning one particular meal at McDonald's is going to accomplish that...

or is your goal to eventually micromanage ALL of what is sold in our restaurants?

People need to mind their own damned business.

[urgk]

108. People need to be more civil. And less likely to jump to conclusions.

I don't think the SF law was the right way to go, unless the intent was to get a dialogue going.

And it is my damned business that 17% of our kids are obese. Not just from a humanitarian standpoint, but that's just economically devastating, especially when those least likely to afford health care on their own are the ones who'll need the most help.

More thinking. Less vitriol.

[woo me with science]

113. LOL!

People burrow their noses into other people's lunches, and then cry vitriol when told to mind their own business?

:rofl:

There are a couple of important lessons to be learned here, my friend.

First, people should have learned in elementary school that poking into someone else's lunch tray, or even threatening to do so, is a very poor way to start a discussion. In fact, the kids who did so usually ended up eating lunch all by themselves.

Second, JUSTIFYING the poking and claiming some higher purpose for it, when that claim is ludicrous on its face, does not win you any more votes when you run for lunch monitor or a spot on the student council. It only makes people laugh at your campaign posters.

Third, I highly recommend that everyone rehearse a little maxim that might come in handy when picking causes and groups to support:

Focus on what is Important and Effective, and Beware ye fascists on the Left as ye beware fascists on the Right. :fistbump:

[urgk]

117. For you, I have a quote from Blazing Saddles.

"Now who can argue with that? I think we're all in debt to Gabby Johnson for stating what needed to be said. I am particularly glad that these lovely children are here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed the courage little seen in this day and age."

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[woo me with science]

122. Another maxim I have found to be largely true:

Those who seek the force of legislation to micromanage the personal choices of others are also the ones most likely to crave technology to shield themselves from the trauma of differing opinions.

Funny how that works. :evilgrin:

[Kievan Rus]

135. +1

[JCMach1]

153. Exactly, it also singles out one company when the problem is far bigger than McDonalds

[Codeine]

105. Oh who gives a flying fuck?

Only stupid people feed their kids that shit anyway. You'll all fucking live. There's plenty of equally unhealthy garbage in your fridge to ram down your kids' throats to make sure they grow up nice and obese just like mommy and daddy.

[NoNothing]

107. I'm convinced it is a form of neo-puritanism

This is proven by the fact that even though all the supposed harms and social costs stem from *obesity,* they invariably reject simply punishing obesity directly. Instead, they always prefer to regulate *behavior*, preventing people - even the non-obese - from making the wrong choice, i.e. "sinning."

[urgk]

110. It's pragmatism.

Believe me, there's nothing...nothing in any of my reasoning that points toward obesity as a sin. Statistically, it's a health problem. And an economic problem.

Eventually, we'll have to do something about it. If you think the answer is punishment, how has that worked for, say - theft? Speeding? Prostitution? Stopped those didn't it?

What are we going to do with 17% of the population added to our jails? It's just not mathematically reasonable?

In fact, like I said before, it's just silly.

[NoNothing]

114. It's not obesity that's the sin you wish to forbid

It's eating unhealthy. It's temptation. And it's providing people with the choice to hurt themselves. You point to theft, speeding, and prostitution. Sure criminalization hasn't *eliminated* those things. But do you really doubt there's fewer thefts, less prostitution, and less speeding than there would be if those activities were *not punished*? That seems plainly ludicrous. If *obesity* is the problem, that why not target *obesity,* instead of targeting advertising to kids, or tempting people with television advertisements, or offering plainly unhealthy food for sale? Because if someone wants to eat unhealthy sometimes without becoming obese, what's the harm? Why burden this group of people and reduce their freedom when there's simply no need to?

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mz Pip]

112. This is stupid IMHO

Nanny state run amok.

I really doubt people buy thier kids Happy Meals for the piece of junk toy included in the box.

[mindwalker_i]

126. I agree completely

This is one case where government should have deferred to parents, even though many parents aren't doing a good job.

[David__77]

115. I disagree with the way this was done.

There are other, subtler means to get the desired result, that won't look so odious to so many. I always prefer to make penalties look like benefits and not ban things but make them unprofitable. Every lawmaker must first and foremost be a good generator of public opinion and organizer.

[urgk]

121. For me, it depends on the purpose.

If the intent was to stir up controversy, well done. If it was to launch a city-wide campaign loudly, good job.

If it was actual regulation...um...it's a little sloppy.

[Pavulon]

124. Ban the PS3, XBox, and Wii, ride a bicycle

problem solved. How many fat cross country runners and cyclists do you see?

[K8-EEE]

125. Bad answer to a real problem...

I'm lovin' it!

Personally I don't believe in a Happy Meal ban but something has to be done re: the junk that people feed kids! What if you put toys in healthy food? Is that a "Happy Meal?" The fact is that unhealthy crap is more profitable. Corporate fast food is killing our health and our kids' health in this country, we are really so unhealthy since the advent of "Big Gulps" and all sorts of "Value Meals."

[rayofreason]

129. I wonder...

...how many people on this thread in favor of banning Happy Meals (or any other food that they deem to be "unhealthy") were also in favor of Prop 19?

There is a word for people like that - Hypocrites!

To anyone who wants to control what I eat, drink, smoke, etc....kiss my ass and then leave me alone. Legalize weed and KFC! (Apologies to South Park)

By the way, got to love those BK ads appearing on this thread. How ironic!

[urgk]

140. Are you under 18?

If not, there's no parallel.

[DoBotherMe]

141. This food will kill you if you eat it

It's not food. It's garbage.

[rayofreason]

142. Smoking is OK though???

Quit trying to protect people from themselves by coercion. Transfats and weed should both be legal.

[DoBotherMe]

144. It's the same thing, we don't let children smoke

as an adult you can decide.

[rayofreason]

146. And as an adult...

...I can also let my children have a glass of wine, or should that be banned as well?

[DoBotherMe]

147. Well, you can't in my state

[urgk]

149. Another false equivalence.

Whether it's true or not, the equivalence would be "Should they ban wine coolers for kids at my local restaurant?"

This law has nothing...nothing...to do with whether you can feed your kids happy-meal-like burgers in your own home.

[panzerfaust]

167. Yes. Smokers (on average) weigh less & die younger - Saving Health Care $$

Yes, there are always exceptions.

[Renew Deal]

158. I don't eat it, and I can figure out it's garbage on my own.

I don't need the city of San Francisco to explain it for me. If parents want to get their kid a happy meal, so be it.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

148. The food isn't being banned. It's the coupling of toys+food to entice children that's been banned.

You're still perfectly free to buy the same food AND then, if you wish, buy your kid a toy at a toy store.

People's freedoms aren't being infringed.

[Unvanguard]

165. Um, nobody is banning food.

What is being banned is a particular advertising practice that, disgustingly, encourages kids to eat food that will harm them.

Prop. 19 banned minors from using marijuana altogether. This measure doesn't even go that far--even though fast food is almost certainly far more harmful than marijuana smoking.

[ibegurpard]

136. ban something like this is foolish and counterproductive

It simply makes it more attractive and engenders a lot of ill-will on the part of a public who don't appreciate having government micromanage their private lives.

[Jennicut]

139. The real issue is that when I was a kid in the 80's we had Happy Meals only

in a very limited way. A once in awhile thing. Maybe once a month. Now, my kids ask for it weekly (due to their Grandparents...uggg!). Best solution is make kids watch Jaime Oliver's Food Revolution and see if they really want that mechanically processed chicken next time.

[ItNerd4life]

143. SF decides to ban donuts, coffee and breathing because of excess C02 emmissions.

In their infinite wisdom (not) SF doesn't allow anybody to have freedom at all. We must all bow down to the all knowing all powerful all righteous government.

Anybody who supports this, please explain what else they should ban?

Too bad we can't ban stupidity.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

151. Nanny state

All you who cheered when smokers rights were taken away HEED
They will come for you next in one shape or form

[urgk]

152. I cheered. Because no smoker's right to kill himself trumps my right to breathe clean air.

And to think that it does is a combination of selfishness and ignorance. You have constitutional rights that end where someone else's begin. Non-smokers have a right to breathe oxygen, rather than the carcinogenic cloud that belches out of the lungs of the egocentric idiots who believe that the American version of Freedom allows you to harm other people.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

154. you missed my point

:crazy:

[urgk]

162. I don't think I did.

Your point was a sort of slippery-slope argument that we should have supported smoker's rights, because, look, now they've gone after the rights of...what? McDonald's to give toys away with their Happy Meals?

[The Straight Story]

161. You have a right to not go to a smoking bar, but hey, your body, your choice means nothing

to most I am finding out, except for abortion. People don't really believe in the principle.

[urgk]

163. I don't believe in your right to smoke in public.

Just like I don't believe in my "right" to take a tray of perfume atomizers filled with:

1. benzopyrene, (carcinogen)
2. phenol (promotes tumor growth)
3. nicotine
4. benzoanthracene (carcinogen)
5. catechol (carcinogen)
6. Cadmium
7. Nickel
8. Pollonium
9. N-Nitrosodiethanolamine (carcinogen)
10. o-Toluidine (carcinogen)

And spritz them around some public gathering, declaring how "refreshing" they are. I'd be hauled away in handcuffs. Imagine I had a bar that I declared pro-asbestos. And I dusted the place with just enough to bring the cancer risk per employee and per customer up to that of smokers. I'd be shut down in a heartbeat. Or imagine I lined 100,000 people against a wall and shot enough bullets to equal a cancer risk. Again, I would be thrown in jail.

There is no "right" to smoke in public. No matter who elects to go there or how badly some set of egocentric masochists wants to do it. The very idea is ludicrous.

[The Straight Story]

171. If you had such a bar, would people be forced to go there or work there?

Do you drive? Does Obama fly in a plane and cruise around in a gas hog limo spewing poisons into the air that people don't have a choice to breathe in?

Grocery stores, hospitals, etc, are all places people need to go - so I am fine with banning things there, but bars and fast food places and such? No one is making you go there.

Let adults be adults and have choices, or we could be more like china and force abortions because of the carbon footprint/pollution each person contributes to the world. Maybe that is what you are going for.

[urgk]

172. Yes - If we can't give each other cancer in public, this is China.

And you're right, smoking is exactly the same as flying a car. And yes, of course, I'm all for forcing people to have abortions to lower the carbon footprint.

Where do people around here get their "logic"? Cereal boxes? Is it on the back of fast food menus? I mean false parallels, inordinate leaps, bizarre strawmen, short-sightedness. No wonder we lose elections.

Part of being an adult is to put the needs of others ahead of our own, infantile wants. You want to smoke? Waaaanh. You want to feed your kids hamburgers with toys? Waaaaaanh. You want to kick your feet and hold your breath and demand not only the right to buy cigarettes, but to smoke them indoors when you eat or drink? Waaaaaaaaaaaanh!

We all need a functional economic system and a country whereby some a-hole's right to take pleasure doesn't impinge on *anybody's* right to have healthy lungs.

[Renew Deal]

155. What's the opposite of freedom?

San Francisco

[slackmaster]

160. What's the opposite of gravity?

Comedy.

[Unvanguard]

166. If manipulating kids into harming their health is your notion of "freedom"

good riddance to it.

[urgk]

170. +1. To paraphrase comic books, with great freedoms come great responsibility. n/t

[slackmaster]

159. This was mentioned in a funny way on the NPR news quiz "Wait! Wait! Don't tell me" this morning

It was given by a contestant as an initial, incorrect answer to a question about what the voters of Oklahoma had just voted to ban. (For which the correct answer was "Sharia law".)

[24601]

164. From now on, we'll have to settle for the reasonably content meal

or the angry voter meal (no toy without raising the debt ceiling). In her home district, Nancy gets a (your description here) meal.

Edited to fix punctuation.

[Creative]

168. As long as a Happy Meal is what they say it is, what is the problem?

White boneless chicken, water, food starch-modified, salt, chicken flavor (autolyzed yeast extract, salt, wheat starch, natural flavoring (botanical source), safflower oil, dextrose, citric acid, rosemary), sodium phosphates, seasoning (canola oil, mono- and diglycerides, natural extractives of rosemary). Battered and breaded with: water, enriched flour (bleached wheat flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), yellow corn flour, food starch-modified, salt, leavening (baking soda, sodium acid pyrophosphate, sodium aluminum phosphate, monocalcium phosphate, calcium lactate), spices, wheat starch, whey, corn starch. Prepared in vegetable oil ((may contain one of the following: Canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil, hydrogenated soybean oil, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, partially hydrogenated corn oil with TBHQ and citric acid added to preserve freshness), dimethylpolysiloxane added as an antifoaming agent). Water, high fructose corn syrup and/or sucrose, citric acid, ascorbic acid (vitamin C), potassium benzoate (to protect taste), modified food starch, natural flavors (vegetable source), glycerol ester of wood rosin, yellow 6, brominated vegetable oil, red 40. Potatoes, vegetable oil (partially hydrogenated soybean oil, natural beef flavor (wheat and milk derivatives)*, citric acid (preservative), dextrose, sodium acid pyrophosphate (maintain color), dimethylpolysiloxane (antifoaming agent)), salt. Prepared in vegetable oil ((may contain one of the following: Canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil, hydrogenated soybean oil, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, partially hydrogenated corn oil with TBHQ and citric acid added to preserve freshness), dimethylpolysiloxane added as an antifoaming agent).

[urgk]

169. But, I have a right to feed dimethylpolisiloxane to my kids!

If McDonald's wants to earn billions by encouraging my children, with asia-made toys that add to the trade deficit as well as polluting the environment both in production and as permanent landfill, to eat glycrol esther of wood rosin, I have a RIGHT to let them.

But, as other people in this thread seem to forget, I also have a responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen.

Thanks for the list, Creative.