Happy Meal Ban: McDonald's Outsmarts San Francisco

[RandySF]

On Thursday, Dec. 1, the city's de facto ban of the Happy Meal commences. San Francisco has accomplished what the Hamburglar could not. Or has it?

In order to include a toy with a meal, restaurants must now comply with city-generated nutritional standards. Those are standards that even the "healthier" Happy Meals McDonald's introduced earlier this year don't come close to meeting. (As SF Weekly noted in January, the school lunches our children eat aren't healthy enough to qualify, either).

And yet it seems McDonald's has turned lemons into lemonade -- and is selling the sugary drink to San Francisco's children. Local McDonald's employees tell SF Weekly the company has devised a solution that appears to comply with San Francisco's "Healthy Meal Incentive Ordinance" that could actually make the company more money -- and necessitate toy-happy youngsters to buy more Happy Meals.

It turns out San Francisco has not entirely vanquished the Happy Meal as we know it. Come Dec. 1, you can still buy the Happy Meal. But it doesn't come with a toy. For that, you'll have to pay an extra 10 cents.

Huh. That hardly seems to have solved the problem (though adults and children purchasing unhealthy food can at least take solace that the 10 cents is going to Ronald McDonald House charities). But it actually gets worse from here. Thanks to Supervisor Eric Mar's much-ballyhooed new law, parents browbeaten into supplementing their preteens' Happy Meal toy collections are now mandated to buy the Happy Meals.

Today and tomorrow mark the last days that put-upon parents can satiate their youngsters by simply throwing down $2.18 for a Happy Meal toy. But, thanks to the new law taking effect on Dec. 1, this is no longer permitted. Now, in order to have the privilege of making a 10-cent charitable donation in exchange for the toy, you must buy the Happy Meal. Hilariously, it appears Mar et al., in their desire to keep McDonald's from selling grease and fat to kids with the lure of a toy have now actually incentivized the purchase of that grease and fat -- when, beforehand, a put-upon parent could get out cheaper and healthier with just the damn toy.


http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/11/happy_meal_ban_mcdonalds_outsm.php

[MADem]

1. You catch more flies with honey.....

The city meant well, but their Nanny-ing made a bad situation worse.

[RandySF]

2. Eric Mar is not the sharpest tool in the shed.

What makes it worse for him is that he previously served on the School Board and did nothing to make lunches healthier.

[MADem]

4. He should take advice from that Jamie Oliver guy! nt

[KittyWampus]

9. Protecting children from corporate mindfucking isn't "nannying". It's human.

[Luminous Animal]

18. Advertising to children is child abuse.

[MADem]

31. Don't leave your little darling unsupervised in front of the telly all day, then.

You have a great deal of control over what little Fauntleroy sees, you know. Push the off button on that remote. Remember that the tee vee is not a babysitter--and if you use it as such, don't be surprised if the sitter tells the kids about the latest toys and crappy foodstuffs on offer.

It's not the government's job to shield your kid from stupid ads.

It's YOURS.

[JackRiddler]

38. This is an outrageous misrepresentation of what Luminous said.

Commercial advertising to children is an abusive manipulation.

That some parents enable it, doesn't change that.

And you could shrink-wrap them and keep them in the closet, advertising to children would still be omnipresent in all environments outside your own home, including the school to which they are required to go.

[MADem]

45. No it isn't--"Advertising to children is child abuse" is what was said.

If you don't want children to see ads that target them, turn the frigging tv off. Use your TIVO. Be proactive.

Don't expect the boob tube to be your babysitter.

YOU have the power. Use it, instead of blaming the advertisers because you cannot find the on-off switch on the damn remote.

Here's another idea--when Fauntleroy asks for that Happy Meal, tell him NO. How hard is that? He's not going to buy it with his AMEX card, now, is he?

Talk about abrogating responsibility!

You don't have to "shrink wrap them and keep them in the closet"--why not tell them to "go outside and play?" Such a concept! They won't be fat, either, if they're running round the back yard or playing basketball in the park.

I don't know too many schools that have the TV blaring all the live-long day--they're challenged enough to teach the children to memorize the crap they have to know to pass the NCLB test.

Your arguments simply aren't cutting it. If you are a parent, DO YOUR JOB and RAISE YOUR KIDS. Don't blame "advertisers" if you fail to impart important lessons about media manipulation and shitty food to them. Look in the mirror, that's who is at fault.

[JackRiddler]

53. I'm sorry, your rant is unrelated to the subject of advertising to children.

No one here is saying parents should not "do the job" and "raise their own kids."

No one here is blaming advertising as the cause of parenting failures.

These issues are raised in your own off-topic reaction to a concept you apparently don't want to deal with:

There are battalions of "creatives" hired by commerical advertisers to do all that they can to manipulate and condition the most vulnerable, the children. They think all the time about ways to circumvent parental authority, and how to worm their way into both the home (whether or not the TV is on) and the school, and every point in between. Parents can protect against most of this (which is one part of the story), but why should they have to at all? Why are these business practices tolerated?

If you can't use deception and manipulation to sell some kinds of poison to little children, why are you allowed to sell other kinds of poison?

[MADem]

61. I'm sorry but you're entirely wrong.

The product is legal. The advertisement breaks no laws. Your insistence that the government nanny your kids by telling advertisers and producers that they cannot make money legally, because you can't bring yourself to do your job as a parent, is bogus.

If you cannot bring yourself to disappoint your child by saying "No, you cannot watch that tv show" or "No, you cannot have that Happy Meal" or "No, you cannot have that stupid toy," then YOU are the one with the problem--not the government.

What the hell do you think the goal of advertising is? I mean, really? To inform and educate?

Hell no--the job of those "creatives" is to push product out the door. To manipulate. To condition. They aren't running a fucking charity. They do this by crafting ads that create an urge to BUY.

Bottom line--you don't sell SHIT to "children" unless weak-minded parents give in and BUY said shit.

It's on YOU, and YOU ALONE. Not the advertisers, not the kids. Parents need to grow the fuck up and learn to say NO.

[JackRiddler]

80. You're right about one thing...

The practice of endeavoring to manipulate and condition vulnerable little children into desiring what is bad for them, entirely for commercial gain and without any regard for their interests, is legal.

It should not be.

[MADem]

103. Well, that's just absurdly wishful thinking on your part. You can solve the problem, though...

TURN OFF the TV!!!!

:eyes:

[Luminous Animal]

108. Why do you advance the silly argument that TV is the sole conduit for advertising?

To take your simple-minded proscription to its logical conclusion, we'd not only have to TURN OFF the TV but we'd have to TURN OFF the internet, TURN OFF the RADIO, REJECT SCHOOL CLUB MONEY, SHUT DOWN SPORTS PROGRAMS, GET RID OF TEXT BOOKS & SCHOOL BUSES, TOSS OUT VENDING MACHINES, BAN ADVERTISING FROM OUR CITY STREETS, DON'T GO TO THE MOVIES.

[MADem]

109. Why do you advance the silly argument that parents cannot say NO?

Why do you insist that a thirty second ad can "drive a wedge" between a healthy parent-child relationship?

If you're on the computer all the time, and leave junior in front of the boob tube, maybe he WILL like the boob tube better than you.

But YOU control the purse strings. You have a mouth that can form the word NO.

Try being a parent. Really--it's not that hard. Talk to your kids, impart your values.

If you cannot do that, and the TV, or the "sports programs" or heaven forbid--the MOVIES!!!-- have more influence than you, you have failed as a parent. FAILED. You should go to social services at once and put your kids in care, because you are INCOMPETENT.

[JackRiddler]

112. Why do you think parents saying no excuses the behavior of commercial marketers to children?

[MADem]

113. Their behavior does not need to be "excused." They are not breaking any laws.

They pay to have their commercials made, they do the market research to get the most bang for their buck, they hire the actors, the set decorators, the wardrobe and makeup people, the post-production people, etc. and they pay for the air time on the tv.

If you don't want your little darlings to see the commercial, turn that tv off. If you want to "adult up" and discuss how some marketers try to sell shit to little kids with your little Fauntleroy and Petunia, and talk to them about how tv ads are sometimes crap because they want to try and get your money, go on and have that conversation. Or don't--be a wuss, and blame the tv, blame the corporation, blame the government, blame anyone but YOURSELF for not teaching your children your values.

Kids can understand more than you apparently give them credit for. They know what a rip off is when you explain it to them. They can spot a con once you show them how it works. They can also discern the meaning of the word NO if you'd only use it on occasion.

Hucksters and snake oil salesmen have been around since the dawn of time. TV is simply a new medium to sell the same old crap in a different way. What's laughable is you insisting that it's the government's job to raise your kids and cover their little ears so you don't have to. It's not government's job--it's YOUR job.

Either hop to it, or give those kids to child services, and they'll find someone who will be up to the task.

[Luminous Animal]

128. As if laws are written to advance the interests of the corporations and not the people.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

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

[JackRiddler]

147. Not everything that is wrong is illegal.

Your first couple of paragraphs are a great summation of the idea that money makes right and everyone else should shut up. You seem to have internalized the ideology of unrestrained capitalism well. The argument works just as well if applied to Citizens United.

The rest is more insults directed at parents you don't know, projecting your highly detailed, defamatory image on to them because they don't agree that commercial advertisers should have the unlimited right to approach and manipulate little children. It's a disgusting display.

Hey, if you don't want your children to see the billboard, tear it down!

[MADem]

153. Not everything that is illegal is wrong.

Raise your children to understand your values. If you do that, you will have created strong human beings who can resist the temptation of a shiny tv ad. Let the tv raise them and you get what you get.

Get off the "money makes right" train. Take responsibility. Raise your children. If you can't have enough influence in your kids' lives to stop them from screaming down the walls to get a Happy Meal, and if you are AFRAID to say NO to them for fear they will hate you, you are a lousy parent and your children will grow up to be unprepared for the real world.

[Luminous Animal]

117. Indeed. Because all a child sees is one 30 second ad on TV their whole entire lives.

Really, though. How many children do you have? Do they consider every purchase on the impact it may have on the environment? Do they consider every purchase on whether or not it had made by children? Do they shop at local farmer's markets?

Do you educate them beyond the word NO as to the consequences of their decisions? When you say NO, do they understand that your NO means it is detrimental to their health, the health of the people who labor to supply the food (pesticides, ungodly hours, fear of deportation, fear for their own children), and the environment?

Do your children and their friends make decisions based on their carbon footprint?

[MADem]

121. Who cares if they see the ad a thousand times, if a parent has shown them how to watch it.

You just love playing the helpless, hapless ninny, don't you? Oh, poor me, I can't raise these young 'uns, because the TEE VEE will tell them to love the Happy Meal more than me!!!

It's none of your business how many kids I have, but it's more than four and less than ten. They've been well raised and they are responsible members of society. I didn't have to homeschool them to hide them from McDonalds or Hotwheels or Nintendo, they went to public school, we watched television as a family for the most part, and they were brought up to QUESTION any time someone wanted their (or my) money. If I said NO, and they said WHY, I TOLD them why. It's called having a conversation--if you do that with your kids, you end up with good ones.

They were brought up to conserve resources, if that's what you're wondering (though what the fuck that has to do with the topic of Happy Meals, I have no idea). We were early adapters of florescent lighting, and we turned down the heat and wore sweaters when Jimmy Carter asked us to. They didn't get cars from me because I couldn't afford that shit--they rode nice Xmas bikes and saved to buy cars with their after-school and summer jobs. They were smart and got scholarships to college for the most part. The ones who aren't nearby love coming home, the ones that are close like being near the rest of the family. No one was traumatized by "NO--you can't have that shit." Really.

So yes, we make decisions based on "the carbon footprint"--but that has shit-all to do with your complaints about tee vee commercials and lead paint.

You failed on this one. Parent your kids and they will share your values. Let the tee vee raise them and you get what you get--fat little selfish whiners who will hate their parents for not buying them a Happy Meal, who will pitch a fit until they get what they want.

[Luminous Animal]

125. You don't happen to work in advertising, do you?

Never once played hapless or helpless or even ninny. In fact, I am a food activist. I am the "finge" that people will be writing about 50 years from now.

I've little doubt that any child will love their parent more than T.V. Most abused children, even horribly abused children, love their parents. Odd that, but true. And I was thinking that you had no children but glad you have less than a clown car. But more than four reveals that you have little regard for the environment and not quite the good role model that you purport to be. I mean, really, how do you broach that conversation with your children? What values are you teaching them? Shiny apples are a lie but over population and the stress on the earth isn't? So your kids will share your shiny apple values and also share that over population is a-okay and the hell with our carbon footprint? Stellar parenting there. Nice that you brought up that they all own cars. Not one of us in our family do.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackRiddler]

111. Very presumptuous of you. I did turn off the TV.

I didn't keep my child locked in a closet, however, which would be the only way to avoid the incessant corporate marketing to children via all venues: school, street, peers, toy market, Internet and broadcast media. Do you have children?

[MADem]

115. Are your kids dull of comprehension? Mentally deficient in some way? Unable to comprehend basic

concepts?

If they aren't, then you're doing them a real disservice by treating them as though they are.

Here's what you do--you TALK to them. You TELL them why some ads are BS con jobs. You explain to them that the manufacturers of these things spray them with oil to make them shiny, photograph the stuff close-up to make it bigger, and heighten the color to draw their little eyes. Point this stuff out to them--they're sharp, they'll get it. Believe me--a five year old can grasp these concepts.

They might appreciate being spoken to like sentient human beings, and not talked down to like moronic little sponges who will soak up the shit that is spewed at them from the TV and "school, street, peers."

Your words suggest that you have abrogated any responsibility for your kids--you do know that you, yes YOU, can limit their access to their peers--don't let Eddie Haskell come over for that play date, capisce? And the internet--you do know that YOU can control a child's access to it? Such a concept!

Yes, I have kids, and they didn't grow up to be grubby little name brand consumers, because we had these talks over the years and they were treated like the intelligent little darlings that they were and are. These lessons are being imparted to the next generation as well.

You actually can raise kids that aren't fixated on consumer crap. It can be done, so long as you talk to your kids, spend time with them, and set a decent example yourself.

Really, you should try it--it's called PARENTING, and it takes a little work. If you have a spouse, clue them in, too. It always helps to speak from a united front. But stop blaming the government--blame yourself if you don't have the basic abilities to influence your children in a positive way. It's on YOU, unless, of course, they were born with an unlimited debit card in their hands.

[JackRiddler]

139. This is completely pedantic and off-topic. Once again, you tell us the obvious about parents...

as though they are the ones responsible for the commercial predators who put the effort into manipulating children.

It doesn't matter that good parenting can contravene such attempts. I don't need to hear your lecture, as though you know anything about me or my child.

The advertising predators are still wrong.

[MADem]

152. No it isn't. That's your standard response when you've lost the bubble. nt

[KittyWampus]

40. #1. I agree about not leaving toddlers in front of tvs/computers all day.

#2. It most certainly is part of the job of government to shield children from mindfuckers.

But then, you apparently wouldn't have a problem with cigarette ads aimed at toddlers either.

[MADem]

46. But then, you apparently wouldn't have a problem with cigarette ads aimed at toddlers either.

I'm sorry, but that's probably the stupidest and most illogical comment I've seen here in a long time.

Sure, sell 'em booze, too, while we're at it. Never mind that there are laws in place WRT age limitations for those products--let's be dramatic, instead, and suggest that because I think parents have the duty to raise their kids and not expect the government to decide what's bad for them, that I endorse drinking/smoking children.

:eyes:

I'd rather the government worry about decent school lunches than worry about what a corporation, selling a legal if crappy product, chooses to do when they craft an advertisement for their crappy product. You have the power--turn that fucking tv off and stop expecting "the government" to do it for you.

You know, there are plenty of parents who allow their child to have one of those shitty Happy Meals once or twice a year, as a TREAT. Not as a food staple. If a parent doesn't have the discipline to keep the child from the Happy Meal, that's on the parent.

I don't want a government that decides what's "bad" for us and prevents us from getting it to the extent that you do, apparently. I'd rather use my own brain to make those decisions for myself and the minors for whom I am responsible. Like I said, it's called "taking responsibility." You might try it--it's empowering to make your OWN decisions, and not have them made for you.

[Luminous Animal]

78. Kids can't drive either but advertising is directed at them in order to create brand loyalty.

So, why not cigarettes and booze? For that matter, why not porn?

Government through public advocacy regulate items that are bad for us all of the time. Really, that is one role of government. That is why lead paint is illegal.

[MADem]

104. And the reason kids see these ads is because people like you bemoan them

and don't turn off the damn TV.

Do you think little Jebediah the Amish Boy has a "brand loyalty" to Ford?

Come off it--do your job. Raise your kids, and stop demanding that the "gubmint" do it for you.

If your kids grow up to be stupid tools who eat fast food and drool at the sight of "brand name" goods, YOU--yes YOU--are to blame. Not the government, not the advertisers, not the burger sellers....YOU. You would have failed as a parent.

You want to raise kids to be decent adults? Behave like an adult. Assume a little responsibility instead of whining about shit that you have the power to prevent them from seeing. Use your brain to impart your values.

I am astounded at the whining, frankly.

A tv ad is NOT lead paint. FAIL.

[Luminous Animal]

114. You seem to know a lot about me. My kid was raised without TV and as she

used to say when people would remark on how tall she was, "That's because I am organically grown!" She went to McDonald's once in her life with her aunt when she was 5 and, after smelling her hamburger and licking it, she removed the meat and ate the bun. At the time her favorite snack was "freezin' peas" and apples. Her favorite restaurant food Thai and sushi.

She grew up shopping at thrift stores, and wore clothes we found on the street, and clothes that I sewed. She went to the mall for the 1st time when she was 12 when we were visiting relatives in Delaware and that was the 1st time she found out that if something didn't fit her, she could try on another size! (This was a mind boggling concept for her and confused the sales girl to no end.) And if you didn't like the color, there might be another! She's 22 now and hasn't been back to a mall since. She still gets her clothes from thrift stores and off the street and she alters everything and she sews some of her own. From about ages 5-10 she wore the ugliest outfits that you could ever imagine a child putting together. She only wanted to be comfortable in her clothes and would immediately go to the grandma section for theme sweaters and glitter sweatshirts. Her favorite pants were leggings and, because she was so skinny and tall and wanted the leggings to reach her ankles, the waistline was 2 sizes too big and the crotch half way to her knees (I'd take in the waist but there was nothing I could do about the crotch), and her shoes were a size too big Keds. Strangers would lift their eyebrow and look me as if saying, "Really? This is how you dress your daughter?" Friends and relatives would say it out loud.

From age 2-5 she thought the Toys R Us catalog that we got in the mail was fiction and she'd read it for week making up stories about the toys in it. Then one day she squinted at me and slowly said, "Hey, wait a second. I've seen these ponies at the thrift store." And when at the thrift store she was not allowed to ask for any toy but she was allowed to pick up something that she liked and carry it around until we left when she would have to return it to the toy section sometimes with long protracted good-byes. Starting at age 3, at Xmas, she was allowed to ask for presents that were equal her age (that is, 3 presents at age 3... 4 presents at age 4... etc. and we capped it with 9 at age 9.) At age 7, she asked for 7 guitar lessons. At age 11, the year I was diagnosed with breast cancer, she asked for 9 nights of songs like I used to sing to her when she was little. Of course, she got more that 7 guitar lessons and more than 9 songs.

When she was 11, Dave Eggers was reading her poetry on the air. When she was 13, she horrified an audience of adults with her reading of a story she wrote about cannibalizing pets. Back stage apologies were demanded and she refused. Not only did she refuse but she and her best friend fashioned silver teeth out of gum wrappers and clicked their tongues and winked as they strutted out the door. (She wrote that story as a result of a writer's workshop that she took with Michael Chabon who invited Stephen King to speak. King encouraged her to reach to that darkest place.)

Starting at age 12 she's been scouted by modeling agencies at least a dozen times a year. Once, a super model, seeing her walk down the street, directed her limo driver to pull over in order to give my daughter her card and exhorted her to go in the business. 99.99% of the time, people who meet her for the 1st time, tell her she should be a model. She fucking hates it but she always smiles and says, "Thanks, but I am so much more than that."

And, we homeschooled her.

At age 16 she spent a year or more angry at me and screaming that I raised her as a freak. It broke my heart but I never let her know. By age 18, she thanked me for raising her as a freak.

Oh, and marketing a dangerous product, like unhealthy food, towards children, is no different than what the lead paint industry did. They also directed marketing of a dangerous product towards children.

[MADem]

116. Well, two points. Your lead paint analogy still sucks, and you proved my point.

You PARENTED your child--according to your account--and you raised a child who isn't soaking up the consumerist shit and chowing down Happy Meals hand over fist.

You proved my thesis, though I realize that wasn't your intent.

PARENTING--it's what people who give a shit about their kids do.

Let the TV raise your kids, and you get what you get.

[Luminous Animal]

118. No. I had to go through extra-ordinary efforts that I had the resources,

the knowledge, and the commitment. I wasn't poor, I had access to healthy inexpensive food, I had the luxury of time and the education. That is, I am the "fringe" that warns the rest of the population similar to the "fringe" that, for decades, warned the rest of the population to the dangers of lead paint.

[MADem]

124. You are preaching to the choir. Anyone who has time to fart around on DU

can use the google to learn about nutrition....and lead paint, if they don't know about these things already.

They can also use a little of their computer time to talk to their kids about values and priorities instead of being afraid to say NO to them.

[Luminous Animal]

127. The vast majoirty of people do not have that luxury of time. Thus the necessity of the fringe that

does.

[MADem]

130. I have decided that you are a complete idiot. Your offensive comments with regard to my family

are intolerable and show you to be a total asshole.

So go fuck your fringe self--you have one hell of a nerve. You're a moron. Go insult someone else's kids, why don't you? Nitwit.

[Luminous Animal]

132. Well, Jack Riddler's kids are dull of comprehension, mentally deficient & unable to comprehend basic

concepts. I'm going to insult them for a while.

[MADem]

133. You can't READ either. Obviously the difference between a question and a statement

is beyond your moronic and hateful grasp. Go back and try again, you professional fringe failure.

Nitwit.

[Luminous Animal]

134. I don't understand the concept of a question? Moi?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2401053&mesg_id=2408754

"I mean, really, how do you broach that conversation with your children? What values are you teaching them? Shiny apples are a lie but over population and the stress on the earth isn't? So your kids will share your shiny apple values and also share that over population is a-okay and the hell with our carbon footprint?"

Are these not questions? Am I not littering my questions with question marks?

???

[MADem]

135. Go back and read the "dull of comprehension" post you referenced earlier.

It wasn't a statement, it was a question.

But here's a statement--you ARE dull of comprehension. And offensive, too. Shameless. Despicable.

[Luminous Animal]

136. Actually, you said I insulted your children. Nope, just asking questions. Just like

you asked Riddler questions.

Really, you and I should wrestle. I'm skinny but strong and wiry.

[MADem]

138. Piss off. nt

[JackRiddler]

150. Enjoy your burger

[MADem]

151. I don't eat them--I know how to say NO. Try it sometime. nt

[JackRiddler]

156. No.

[Cid_B]

141. It's a total abdication of responsibility...

"Not my fault" should be tattooed on quite a few foreheads around here.

I wish they would so I would know who to watch out for. Either way MADem, you have it right.

[MADem]

154. TY. nt

[Hugabear]

79. Who said anything about allowing them to watch TV "all day"?

Kids get bombarded by corporate propaganda even if they only watch 30 minutes of TV per day. And I suppose parents should also blindfold their children whenever they take them anywhere? After all, it's a parent's job to shield their children's eyes at all times, right? Doesn't matter if corporate propaganda is everywhere we look, virtually inescapable.

[MADem]

105. If you are incapable of talking to your kids about what they see around them, you need

to send them to foster care where someone who doesn't give a shit about them but takes the money to feed and shelter them will do a better job than you apparently are able to manage. If you passively plop them in front of a tv without monitoring what they're seeing, you are going to get little consumers because YOU played a major part in failing to guide them by allowing the television set to raise them.

If you're only letting them watch thirty minutes of tv a day, watch it WITH them and impart your values during the "commercial" time.

Or don't. Spend that thirty minutes on the internet, away from your kids, telling everyone how horrible the government is for not doing YOUR job for you.

And when they come to you, whining "GIMME GIMME GIMME CUZ I SAW IT ON TEEVEE!!!" say "Oh sure, Punkin, whatever you want, because I just don't know how to say NO to you!"

Lame.

[RandySF]

19. Then let me ask this.

Why didn't Supervisor Mar, who introduced the original legislation, push for healthier lunches when he was on the school board? Why is he now preoccupied with making new buildings safer for flying birds when we have a host of more important issues to deal with?

[Luminous Animal]

22. He did focus on healthier lunches. He pushed for healthier vending machines...

and salad bars. Both are now part of district policy.

[Mimosa]

20. Parents can choose whether to take kids to McD's.

Seriously, I never ate at a McDonald's until I was 15 and could decide for myself.

[Recovered Repug]

26. If you let the parents choose,

they may make the "wrong" choice. Can't have that now, can we?

[EFerrari]

29. What bs. That garbage is not marketed to the parents.

[Codeine]

34. So tell your kids "no".

I do it all the time. In the time my kids have lived with me not a single McDonald's meal, Happy or otherwise, has crossed their lips. They may see the commercials, but the debit card is mine.

[Recovered Repug]

37. The truth is sometimes painful to hear.

There are far too many on the Right and Left with an overpowering desire to control the public's actions. The Right justifies it under the umbrella of "morality", the Left under "for they're own good".

[JackRiddler]

39. This isn't about controlling the public's actions. It's about stopping McDonald's...

from brainwashing children.

It's an ineffective approach, to be certain.

[Recovered Repug]

42. How is it "stopping the brainwashing of children"?

The ads were still run. The children were still "brainwashed". Parents had the audacity to make the "wrong" choices was what had to be controlled.

[JackRiddler]

44. But I agree: It's an ineffective, even counterproductive approach.

A complete failure as legislation and as PR.

A debate should be opened up instead about banning commercial advertising to children, like in Sweden.

[Luminous Animal]

86. I agree.

And decades of science is on our side.

[JackRiddler]

101. Decades of social science, unfortunately, is also on the advertisers' side.

Otherwise, they wouldn't be spending $500 billion a year, with such a large chunk of it devoted to inhabiting the mindspace of the little future consumers. Contrary to their own usual PR protestations (gosh, we just provide information and advertising can't really influence you!), they know what they do works. If any of the smarter ad and PR people are reading this thread, they can see how well it works in the way some of the responses peddle their line of bullshit - for free.

[LanternWaste]

48. Precisely. Upton Sinclare's 'The Jungle' was little more than...

Precisely. Upton Sinclare's 'The Jungle' and the resultant was little more than nanny-statism, and the overwhelming desire to control the public's actions. Even T Roosevelt called Sinclare "a crackpot"; and a Federal Dept. at the time reported that what Sinclare wrote was intentionally misleading and false, willful and deliberate misrepresentations of fact, and utter absurdity.



Stupid, over-controlling nanny-state Meat Inspection Act, Pure Food & Drug Act & FDA!!! If we want to purchase spoiled meat, we should be able to without government interference-- regardless of whether it's for our own good or not...


:eyes:

[MADem]

51. That's asinine. Sinclair exposed practices that were hazardous and

poisonous.

A frigging ad for a Happy Meal is NOT that. It's simply an effort to get children to try to con their parents into purchasing a product that isn't the best food choice on a daily basis.

:eyes: indeed. That's the hyperbolic overstatement of the week, right there.

Parents need to grow up and learn how to say NO. It's quite simple, actually. Try it.

You'd likely be the first one on the barricades when the Nanny Government decides that it wants to take away your (weed/booze/contraception/access to abortion/ice cream/fill in the blank), for your "own good," of course.

You can't have it both ways. Take responsibility. Don't buy the crap if you don't want your kids to have it.

[MADem]

50. Now, there's a powerful truth.

People need to grow the hell up, use their brains to make logical conclusions, and take responsibility--not demand that the "government" be mommy and daddy to and for them.

I suppose it's easier if the bossy old government tells the kiddies that they can't have the junk food--that way, the parents don't have to be adults and be the "meanies" in the equation. It's just not too cool when the bossy old government decides to ban something that the parents happen to like--then it's "Waaaah, they're infringing on my RIGHTS!"

[Xithras]

67. Marketed to kids, but bought by parents.

I don't really care who it's marketed to. Last time I checked, very few American children are employed or have money to buy anything. The purchase, and the decision to make it, is performed by the parents. My kids ask to visit McDonalds on a halfway regular basis. I can count the number of Happy Meals that my 7 year old has consumed, in his life, on one hand. The total number of McDonalds made meals consumed by my college-bound daughter, in her life, might require me to throw a few toes in as well.

As a parent, it's my job to determine what's acceptable for my kids, and when they ask for something unhealthy, it's my job to tell them no. Any parent who uses "marketing" as an excuse for their childrens junk food consumption is simply a bad parent.

"No" is an incredibly easy word to say. One syllable. Two letters. If needed, it can be emphasized by prefixing it with "Hell", "F$#%", "Oh god", or "Why would you even ask me that?" I use it on a regular basis, and it's easy to do. I highly recommend it to others.

[MADem]

72. +1,000,000. Now THAT's parenting! nt

[AlecBGreen]

77. bravo

many kids have heard "no" far too little in their life

[Luminous Animal]

87. I never claimed it isn't easy to say no but parents shouldn't have to be constantly

struggling with their children who have cultivated desires through a medium with which I only have limited control.

[MADem]

30. It didn't work, though, did it? In this case, it is ineffective nannying.

The goal was admirable, but now, instead of buying the little rugrats some apple chips and a damn toy, mom or dad will have to buy the meal and donate ten cents to get the toy. Interference--what I am terming "nannying"--produced this result.

As I said, you catch more flies with honey. Better to work with businesses and encourage them to do good and praise them when they do, rather than lower the boom and tell them what they can't do. Better still to encourage good nutrition through education and PSAs.

The work-around McDonald's came up with in this case is a total "F You!" The situation has been made WORSE, not better.

Human, all right--human error.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Truly amusing to see Mar hoist on his own petard

[Luminous Animal]

5. This article makes no sense. Kids can still get a free toy with the healthier version

of a Happy Meal which actually exists. If the parents chooses to feed their children pure junk, the parents have to pay an extra 10-cents which goes to Ronald McDonald house.

And it does not surprise me that the article comes from the asshole corporate owned media that uses predatory practices to drive out independent owned weeklies. Our own Bay Guardian won a multi-million $$ settlement against the weekly for predatory practices.

[Recovered Repug]

6. As I read it, the healthier versions don't meet the required

standards for a toy to be given. From the article:

In order to include a toy with a meal, restaurants must now comply with city-generated nutritional standards. Those are standards that even the "healthier" Happy Meals McDonald's introduced earlier this year don't come close to meeting. (As SF Weekly noted in January, the school lunches our children eat aren't healthy enough to qualify, either).

[Luminous Animal]

8. Well there you go. Parents can, with full knowledge, buy their kids crap and thow in the extra

cents for charity. McDonald's have won nothing. In fact, its going to have a negative impact managing that 10-cent donation. Parents can capitulate with full knowledge that they are feeding their kids crap or they can say no.

And really, this is what it is all about... Educating people that what they are feeding their children is crap.

[Imajika]

What will this accomplish?

Parents in San Francisco will just end up paying 10 cents more for the same thing. I suppose it is good that the 10 cents will go to the Ronald McDonald house, but it is not going to do a thing to deter parents from buying the same thing for the kids that they always have. Why did San Francisco supervisors believe this was a good use of tax payer time?

[rpannier]

11. Because it placated a loud, fringe group of people

Most parents tell their kids "No!"
That's what we do.
It works surprisingly better over the long term than giving kids whatever they want

[Luminous Animal]

16. Hahaha! Most parents say no! Hahaha! And that is why Happy Meals are wildly successful!

It is a public health issue, akin to lead paint which the "fringe" groups fought for 70 some years before it was banned in the U.S. Meanwhile, the lead industry advertised TO CHILDREN to expand their influence.

[rpannier]

24. Yeah sure

Because Happy Meals cause brain damage, cancer and birth defects

Learn to tell your kids no like reasonable people do

[MedicalAdmin]

144. Actually the emerging field of epigenetics says pretty much just that.

Every bite we eat is a message to our genetics. The WHO has said that metabolic disease is the number one health killer in the world. Unless tort reform is achieved the next industry to get their egotistical asses handed to them will be the "food" companies.

[MedicalAdmin]

145. Actually the emerging field of epigenetics says pretty much just that.

Every bite we eat is a message to our genetics. The WHO has said that metabolic disease is the number one health killer in the world. Unless tort reform is achieved the next industry to get their egotistical asses handed to them will be the "food" companies.

[dionysus]

35. yes, lead paint is just like happy meals... it's funny the people who wail about

authoratiarian evil have no issue telling people what food they can buy...
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[MADem]

52. I am with you--the hypocrisy--and it seems to be unwitting--is astounding. nt

[dionysus]

59. when i was kid;

ME: LET'S GO TO MCDONALDS!1!!1
PARENTS: no
ME: :cry: WHY NOT? PLEEASE!!1!!!
PARENTS: no.
ME: ok (forgets 5 minutes later)

blaming corporations for lack of parenting skills is not only just lazy, it's fucking sad.

[MADem]

60. +1,000,000.

No one wants to be the "bad guy," anymore, it seems. Kids don't need overgrown, over-eager parental "friends" with houses, cars, and debit cards, anxious to please their little darlings so that they will "like" them, they need mature parents who know how to set boundaries and educate their children in the ways of the world.

It's not rocket science! Love means sometimes having to say "NO, Junior!" (To riff on a schlocky movie tag line from many decades ago...).

[WolverineDG]

74. Don't forget, it's child abuse too

I'd :rofl: if I hadn't had to deal with *REAL* child abuse in my line of work. "Advertising is child abuse" is so full of stupid, it could fill up the universe & still spill over.

dg

[MadHound]

7. All this because parents can't say no to their kids

How very sad.

[Luminous Animal]

15. Yes. Because that is all parents want to do is say no to their children.

Forget about being a positive force in their lives. Rather lets allow billion dollar advertising campaigns to propagandize our children's still forming brains. Bubble gum yogurt! 6 shelves of sugary cereal! And on and on and it is everywhere. All pitted against one and/or two people whose job is not to affirmatively guide their children through life's experiences but to say no... over and over and over again.



How would you feel if the porn industry (like the auto industry is doing now) threw billions of dollars advertising to children? After all, a parent need only no.

[RandySF]

21. I don't mind saying no.

Like I didn't mind saying no to my then three-year old son when he begged for some candy in Walgreen's. Nor sis I mind carrying out over my shoulder as he smacked me on top of my held.

[Luminous Animal]

23. I don't mind saying no either. I minded that, if I allowed it, my child's head would

be was filled with more opportunities to put me in the position to say no, than to say yes. Commercials aimed at children are designed to pit children against their parents and studies have revealed that parents will give in at least some of the time because they want to please their kids. Parents who don't get to see their children often (that is, poor and working class parents who do not have the luxury of time) are even less apt to say no. It's an odd thing but most parents like to see their kids happy.

I refused to allow the abusers into my home.... That is why I did not allow her to watch commercial TV. Never took her to the mall or Walgreens or Safeway, etc. I wanted my child and my experiences with her to be filled with me saying Yes! Yes! Yes! I refused to allow her, and by extension me, to be manipulated, propagandized, and brainwashed. I refused to allow them to get into her brain. I refused to allow them the opportunity to pit her against me.

[Cid_B]

28. So what happens when she grows up...

... and has to deal with advertisers and the "evils" of a Big Mac?

That girl is gonna explode when she gets a taste of freedom.

[JackRiddler]

55. So McDonald's is the taste of freedom?

Or is freedom the right of a four-year-old to be manipulated by commercial enterprises that don't care about four-year-olds?

When she's older, she's older.

And I'm sure she's had plenty of taste of freedom - freedom from conformist culture, for a start.

[MADem]

62. That four year old will not be "manipulated" unless he or she has shitty parents. nt

[JackRiddler]

81. Absolute bullshit.

[MADem]

102. No, but thanks for playing. nt

[Luminous Animal]

119. It is amazing that MADem cannot see the tyranny of the market place that

compels him/her to spend so much time "educating" his/her children about that tyranny rather than spending some great fun time with her/his kids. That is a whole pile of wasted time.

[MADem]

126. It is amazing that Luminous Animal cannot understand that you do not HAVE to OBEY the TV.

And it is actually possible to teach your children this simple lesson, too. Quickly!

The tyranny is IN YOUR HEAD. Don't be weak-minded.

You don't have to spend "so much time" teaching your kids. All you have to do is say "What a load of crap!" when the commercial comes on, and then tell 'em why. In no time, they'll be telling YOU why a commercial is bullshit "Look, he's holding that with his hand--it can't really fly! It looks cheap if you look close! That thing isn't as big as they want us to think it is!" and stuff like that.

Believe me, the kids will enjoy deconstructing the crap ads and enjoy your approval when they point out inconsistencies in the advertisers' arguments. They'll also grow up to be sharper, smarter, and more observant than the Happy Meal Demanders.

And I gotta tell you something--if having a conversation with your children isn't fun, you're doing it all wrong. I feel sorry for you, and more importantly, your kids, if you could possibly think exchanging ideas with them wouldn't be anything but a complete joy.

[JackRiddler]

140. This is self-evidently untrue. Luminous constantly shows this understanding...

and you just ignore that and keep acting as though Luminous must be some kind of bad parent, subject to the 14th repetition of the same high-handed, low-bran lecture from you.

Advertisers are targeting vulnerable children with manipulative marketing of unhealthy goods. That makes them wrong, whether or not it works, whether or not all parents protect their children.

You're defending that.

[MADem]

149. And you know this how? One of your alter-egos?

Turn off your TV. Solve your problem. Don't ask the government to do it for you.

I defend nothing. I point out that advertising is a legal activity, and if you are so weak minded that you can't take steps to explain that to your sentient children, then you are at fault.

Raise your children. Teach them how to live in the real world, otherwise, they'll be tempted by everything they see when they prance down the street, because you have done a poor job preparing them for the real world.

[Luminous Animal]

82. She is grown up. She has been at the age of reason for quite some time now and has the

cognitive skills to assess advertisement.

Children do not have those skills. They cannot distinguish between reality and advertising thus, for children advertising is deception. Purposeful deception.

"In 1978, the FTC formally proposed a rule that would ban or severely restrict all television advertising to children. <31,78> The FTC presented a comprehensive review of the scientific literature and argued that all advertising directed to young children was inherently unfair and deceptive. <31> The proposal provoked intense opposition from the food, toy, broadcasting and advertising industries, who initiated an aggressive campaign to oppose the ban. A key argument was First Amendment protection for the right to provide information about products to consumers. <31> Responding to corporate pressure, Congress refused to approve the FTC's operating budget and passed legislation titled the FTC Improvements Act of 1980 that removed the agency's authority to restrict television advertising. The act specifically prohibited any further action to adopt the proposed children's advertising rules. <31> "
http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/1/1/3

[dionysus]

36. so you blame advertising because you can't say no to a child. about a happy meal. gotcha.

:rofl:

[JackRiddler]

43. That is a nonsequitur with no bearing on anything Luminous Animal wrote. Outrageous misreading.

[Luminous Animal]

83. No. I blame advertising towards children for driving a wedge between the parent/child

relationship.

I blame advertisers who knowingly craft their propaganda in order to drive that wedge. They do so because they know that in some to many cases, a parent will capitulate. And they know this because they have done extensive psychological studies on what tactics will hook children and what tactics will turn children into nags and how much guilt or annoyance a parent is willing to take.

[The Straight Story]

54. Well, the Amish don't seem to have this problem, and didn't need SF to pass laws to help them

:)

[MADem]

63. +1. Gee, I wonder how in the world they manage such an impossible task? After all, those

evil hamburger sellers at McDonalds are doing such a swell job manipulating all of the other children!

Maybe we could learn a thing or two from those folks!

[Luminous Animal]

90. The Amish have their own laws. They live in a repressive closed society in which

the men rule absolutely over the women and children. They take the biblical admonition "spare the rod, spoil the child" seriously. They've no TV, radio, internet, corporate sponsored school books clubs or events. Schooling is limited enough to keep the children ignorant.

Yay, Amish!

[Lyric]

32. Correction: SOME parents can't say no.

Plenty of us don't have that problem.

:hi:

[JackRiddler]

58. The problem is not parents who can't say no. It's advertisers who can't resist manipulating children

At least, that is the subject of this discussion. McDonald's irresponsibility is supposed to not matter, and is even blamed on parents.

Should strangers who have no interest in children, except to exploit them commercially, be allowed to approach children with the intent to manipulate and brainwash them into demanding things that are bad for them?

On the street, the stranger who does this gets arrested and is blamed - even if you want to argue the parents shouldn't have "chosen" to living in that neighborhood.

Long as the stranger who wants to exploit your child is a corporation doing it by TV* then it's okay, right? Because parents can turn off the TV - assuming they're even present - and fuck the children of the parents who don't.

* Or by school sponsorships, or by billboards on every street corner, or by flooding the world with merchandise with the intent to generate peer pressure, or by Internet, or by any one of the other means that advertisers constantly devise to manipulate children.

[MADem]

65. Oh, nonsense. Turn off the frigging TV. As Straight Story pointed out, the

Amish don't have this problem--think it might have something to do with how they raise their kids?

How would you like the government telling YOU what you could or couldn't eat or drink? For your OWN GOOD, of course.

I can't believe how obtuse these arguments are. It's pathetic.

Raise your damn kids, teach them truth from bullshit and right from wrong--don't demand that the government do it for you.

[CreekDog]

70. it's not a crime to say what you can sell and how you can sell it

:eyes:

[Luminous Animal]

91. To suggest that U.S. parents raise their children in Amish manner is ignorant.

Contrary to the romantic version of the Amish lifestyle, it is a sober and stifling life in which women and children are treated like chattel. The children are not only raised without TV but also without radio, internet, vending machines, and modern schooling (all conduits for advertising). They've no modern school books, no school clubs, and no school sports - also, regular conduits of advertising in the U.S. Hell, even report cards and school buses have advertising in some districts. Advertising directed towards children is ubiquitous.

[MADem]

106. No -- just do one thing the Amish do. Don't let the kiddies control the remote.

Your problem is solved if you would just get off your ass and PARENT--instead of demanding that the government do your job for you.

If you can't manage to parent, you shouldn't have kids.

Enough with the whining about women and children and the Amish....you want another example? Go talk to anyone who has lived off the grid--they don't have "Happy Meal Whiners" like you apparently do, either....and they know how to tell their kids NO.

The secret is this--MONITOR what they watch on the idiot box. Why is that so hard for you? Why can't you manage to do it? Because you're spending too much time on the internet, while the television raises your kids?

PARENT. Be proactive. Monitor your kids' TV viewing. Stop complaining because the TV advertisers aren't going to raise your kids, EITHER.

Turn off the TV. Get off the computer. Talk to your children.

Try it sometime, and stop whining to the government because you are a poor parent who is too frightened that your children will hate you if you dare to refuse them a consumer product.

[WolverineDG]

71. Not "can't" but "won't"

We're supposed to make things easier for parents so they don't have to be the "bad guys" & say "no."

dg

[Luminous Animal]

93. That that's not the rugged puritan way. Life is supposed to be a joyless struggle

full of self-denial. McDonalds are doing parents a favor by giving them the opportunity to train their children to become adults accustomed to doing without. Without safe working conditions, without safe food standards, without vacations, without adequate health care, etc.

[WolverineDG]

98. OMG

Just learn to say "no" to your kid & stop blaming McDonalds for lousy parenting skills.

dg

[Luminous Animal]

99. It was a joke. So when parents painted their homes and cribs with lead paint,

were they being lousy parents or just victims of propaganda and bought off politicians?

[cherokeeprogressive]

10. And the nannies get stomped once again. Go figure.

All this for a dime. No one wins.

[JackRiddler]

41. Yay! McDonald's wins! Go team!

[flvegan]

12. Thank the food gods they've found a way to continue to feed shit to kids.

Health and nutrition be damned, they have money to make. And folks here will cheer it.

[Luminous Animal]

17. It took "fringe" groups 70 years to get lead out of paint. Thank Hank for "fringe" groups.

[uppityperson]

13. Yrs back they had an "All American Meal" which was a happy meal minus toy for 50 cents less

[Erose999]

73. The other part of the Happy Meal used to be that the box had games, puzzles, and jokes on it.

But I reckon they probably gave up on the boxes at some point and just put the crap in the same bag as everything else now.

[apocalypsehow]

14. Hmmmm. n/t.

[JCMach1]

25. Idiotic laws will always have idiotic work-arounds...

[jberryhill]

27. Yes

[Zywiec]

33. K&R n/t

[LanternWaste]

47. The profit motive seems to trumps good intentions far more often than not.

The profit motive seems to trumps good intentions far more often than not. Yet that trump appears to be our largest, collective comfort zone...

[KamaAina]

49. Work-around for the work-around

the many corner stores throughout the 49-square-mile kingdom could start selling similar toys right at the counter. Most are down the block from fast, inexpensive, locally-owned restaurants like burrito joints, pizzerias, sandwich shops, gyro/falafel joints, or noodle shops. Plus there'd be an opening for a company to import the toys from China!

The only thing remotely San Franciscan about Mickey D's is the Chinese lettering on the familiar garish sign at their Chinatown location. :-) This is, after all, the chain whose Haight-Ashbury location stopped selling the dollar menu because too many of the "wrong" (homeless) people were ordering and eating from it.

As it happens, I work with Supervisor Mar's brother, a good progressive indeed, on domestic worker issues. I do believe I shall send this thread to him for comment. :-)

[Enrique]

56. I don't trust this account

i'm having trouble making sense out of it. It seems like the author has an attitude, which is fine, but I think they are clouding his analysis of the new law.

[chaska]

57. Dear GOD, I hate stupid-America! (yes, they are now a hyphenated subset)

If it weren't for morons, we could revoke the corporate charter of these bastards (McDonalds). But because of stupid-America we have to put up with this abuse of our community mores.

[kiva]

64. If the community hates McDonalds so much,

how can the franchise exist in the city? Could it be that a substantial number of residents don't share that particular community value of hating the place, or do you just blame "stupid-American" tourists who flock to McDonalds when they travel? :eyes:

[KamaAina]

66. A lot of McD's customers in SF are poor

particularly around mid-Market (Tenderloin) and the Haight. As I mentioned above, the Haight McD's stopped selling the dollar menu because too many homeless people were ordering from it and then eating on its front steps. There's community values for you! :sarcasm:

[kiva]

84. That (to me) is a great reason to boycott McDonalds.

Thanks for the info.

[KamaAina]

96. It's just that particular McDonald's

that one's owned by a franchisee.

But seriously, don't go there. The Haight, like most SF neighborhoods, offers plenty of inexpensive, interesting, and healthy dining options. If nothing else, get a hot dog or something across the street in Golden Gate Park.

edit: You have a point, though: you'd think that corporate would've slapped them down for not offering the full menu, but they did not.

[WolverineDG]

143. That's because it's an option

and the dollar menu was eating into that particular store's profits to the point where she was going to have to shut the whole restaurant down. That would have meant laying off employees who probably depended upon their paychecks to pay their bills (including rent/mortgage). But I suppose no one cares about them, dirty capitalist pigs with jobs & all.

The items on the dollar menu were still available; they just cost the regular price. I remember the ***OUTRAGE*** about this on DU, which of course ignored the fact that the store was slowly going under. Heaven forbid a business owner would actually want to make money.

dg

[Luminous Animal]

88. If the community of the U.S. hated lead paint so much, why did it exist in the U.S.

for decades during which its dangers were well known.

[kiva]

110. Because the majority of Americans did not know

that exposure to a relatively small amount of lead can cause major damage to infants and children - brain damage, damage to the nervous system, hearing problems, learning problems, and slowed growth. If a hamburger and fries caused these sorts of issues, people would not buy them for their children...and no, the fact that these items are not healthy choices for anyone on a daily basis is not the same thing.

The fact that you equate a substance known to cause this sort of damage in tiny quantities to kid's meals is, to be polite, not a sign of brilliant critical thinking.

[MedicalAdmin]

146. Neither is your ignorance of metabolic disease

And the contribulting epigenetic factors that lead to it.

[kiva]

148. Are you agreeing with the above poster

that Happy Meal = lead-based paint? If so, then you may wish to reread your subject line and take it personally.

[MedicalAdmin]

155. No I don't seem them as equivalent...

... however I do see strong similarities.


Working at a clinic that deals exclusively with serious chronic disease has opened my eyes to the power of a clean and appropriate diet. We really are what we eat.

Thanks for keeping your reply polite. Things are getting kinda rough around here again.

[kiva]

158. Know what you mean,

sometimes I think we're edging back to the 2008 primary mentality and have started ducking down before I open replies :hide:

[MedicalAdmin]

159. A friend once told me that I argue like a combination ...

ninja / sushi chef. First I chop up the opponent and then I make sushi out of the pieces. So if I came across as abrasive I am sorry.

:toast:

[kiva]

160. No, it's all good and we're on the same side of most things,

or we wouldn't be here...:toast:

[Fumesucker]

68. Subset?

:rofl:

[Raine]

89. Yeah we all know it's just "stupid-Americans" that go to McDonalds

in the rest of the world people never eat at the McDonalds that are in their countries. People in the rest of the world are so much smarter. :sarcasm:

edit: corrected spelling of McDonalds

[lynne]

123. Most obviously are NOT the community mores -

- as long as the community continues to purchase food there.

[WolverineDG]

69. K&R

[seabeyond]

75. once a week. my kids got a happy meal once a week when they hit 4 or 5

they ate healthy and at home the rest of the time. we didnt eat out much. it was a special treat. who is SF to take that away from a responsible parent. i am on mcdonalds side with this one.

[Luminous Animal]

85. Kids and parents can still get a Happy Meal. Nobody is taking anything away from anyone.

[Book Lover]

92. That is strictly speaking not true

McDonalds is now taking ten cents from me that it did not before. And before you cry out, "It's just a dime!" let me say that the amount is irrelevant to the point being made here.

[Luminous Animal]

95. You still get the Happy Meal.

[WolverineDG]

142. You could grow up & say "No" to your kid on occasion

& let everyone else decide for themselves whether or not to get their kids Happy Meals without being harassed by nanny-staters who claim it's child abuse.

dg

[Mosby]

76. happy meals are not unhealthy

A mcdonalds hamburger and small fry are barely 500 calories. Fairly low in fat and sodium. I don't get why people demonize food like this, do any posters in this thread eat at mcdonalds? I do all the time and many of the kids I see are not eating happy meals, they are eating off the "adult" menu.

I think its really telling that the school lunches in sf don't conform to these standards, obviously someone has a problem with mcdonalds.

[PeaceNikki]

94. 18 grams of fat and about 700 milligrams of sodium isn't quite "healthy" either

[Mosby]

100. Sure it is

The only thing lacking is fiber.

check out the chart on page 4 and 5, 18 grams of fat and 700mg of sodium are about 30% of the daily intake for kids older than 9.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/112/13/2061.full.pdf+html

As the op article notes, most school lunches in SF don't make the grade either.

[MADem]

107. If they put that burger on an oat bran bun, they'd be on their merry way in the fiber department. nt

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

97. Good

Focus on making school lunches healthier, and teaching kids to avoid McDonalds and that kinds of food, instead of interfering with outside entities.

[Beacool]

120. Good for McDonald's

I hardly ever eat their food, but I like the nanny state even less.

;)

[lynne]

122. McDonald's Toy = $0.10. Sticking it to the Nanny-State = PRICELESS!

:applause:

[christx30]

161. I wish it was

always that easy to get around more Nanny state laws. We need people working around the clock to find ways of doing it.
Intrusive laws need to go.

[Raine]

137. GOOD, I HATE McDonalds but I HATE the food police even more

I'm glad they outsmarted that stupid ridiculous ban. Just to state again I DISPISE McDonalds (I'm a vegetarian) but I also HATE & DISPISE the nanny state.

[truedelphi]

157. I had to wade through countless comments, including a huge

"I know how to be a good parent - and you don't" type of keyboard warfare to come to the one comment that I agree with.

Thank you.