California Legislature Bill SB-1192 Children’s meals. Say hello to more nanny-state.

a reply to: seagull

Soda pop lobby? Seriously?

When I was working in food and beverage, our restaurant, (owned by Marriot) had a deal with Pepsi, and we were required to ask "Would you like a Pepsi with that?". One time a huge group of Coca-Cola representatives came in and threw a fit when asked, demanding Coke! HAHA! It was a staged reaction, but it made me well aware of the soda pop lobby!

a reply to: seagull

Maybe the Crapafornia Legislature should instead be voting all the human s#it off their streets and sidewalks.

a reply to: seagull

Good thing we always specify what kind of drinks we want anyways, amirite? Because the bill says nothing about forcing a choice on anyone.

a reply to: seagull

So you are ok with deciding if your kids play with toxic toys, or have asbestos in their schools, or PCBs in the drinking water? Because most parents didn't even know those things were harmful toxins until the government passed laws against them. But if you want the restaurants to rip you off paying more for unheathy drinks to water your family, and can hold your head up high as a "free" American by being forced to take a defualt cup of industrial crap, you can still order one.

This is drama queen rhetoric at its finest. No nanny state for children because... uh got nothing.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Pretty sure it’s says an alternate to H20 and non-flavored milk (A. Curious in itself as we are the only species that sips on another’s juices, if you exclude ants and aphids)
(B. See ya chocolate and strawberry) May be provided upon customer request...

Sure it says some other stuff, but I feel like may be an angle towards schools in CA, which is already a thing.

No Soda For You!!!

Wonder what research was done with regards to the population in question and the choices their folks make concerning their childrens’ health

a reply to: Metallicus

Have you seen our Redwoods?

Should instead fine these "restaurants" for selling such crap food.

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a) From 1990 to 2016, inclusive, the obesity rate in California increased by 250 percent. While the increase was greatest from 1990 until 2003, recent trends suggest a continued increase in obesity among children. In 2009, 10.9 percent of children zero to five years of age, inclusive, and 12.2 percent of children six to 11 years of age, inclusive, were overweight. In 2015, the percentage of children who were overweight or obese for their age increased in both groups to 13.7 percent for children zero to five years of age, inclusive, and 16 percent for children six to 11 years of age, inclusive.

(b) Obese children are at least twice as likely as nonobese children to become obese adults. Obese children and adults are at greater risk for numerous adverse health consequences, including type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, certain cancers, asthma, low self-esteem, depression, and other debilitating diseases.

The only thing that makes me want to weep, is the exorbitant rate in which children are becoming obese due to ill-equipped and ignorant parents who feed them junk food as a steady diet because it's easy, and the kids 'want it'.

There is not much difference it this and the state's requiring people to wear seat belts. If the parent's can't or won't help these children, then perhaps intervention is needed, as in the case of seat belts, vaccinations, mandatory education, and the like. It can easily be gone around, and I doubt anybody will go to jail for non-compliance.

"Mama June" on Honey Booboo comes to mind. All those children were obese, and awaiting poor medical diagnoses including diabetes type II.

Just a thought.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: seagull

Maybe the Crapafornia Legislature should instead be voting all the human s#it off their streets and sidewalks.

We're in a drought over here.

We don't have enough water to undertake such a task.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: neo96

Ah, yes... The fines. Good of you to mention those.

Fines and jail time. So, who is it that gets to pay the fine? That poor 16 year old part time worker, the manager, who might not even be at work that day, the CEO of the company? All of 'em?

I wonder what happens if you give 'em a straw, too?? Oh, dear...

it's not if they served coke theyd get fined...
if they only serve soda to children they get fined. ...as in no alternatives. nice spin...

find a dirty toilet and pour a can of Pepsi and leave it overnight and see if that's the only beverage you want available for your kids....

the real crazy thing here are parents who would rather have soda than milk served to their kids with no alternatives...

a reply to: odzeandennz

It is never nice to call out bad parents.

But sometimes parents don't really behave in a ways that is in kids best interest. My experience with parents who put their kids out for labor to farmers during the summer is extensive. In the mid-west you could start your kids out on slave labor at 10, working in fields for 12 hours a day 6 days a week. And I am only 56, so this is not something that happend back before electricity.

Sometimes our government has to make laws to protect people (and their kids) from themselves. I am not going to give examples, but you know what they would look like. The argument presented by the OP has been debunked by the majority of fair-minded folks here. However, I am pretty sure that some folks don't care about what is right, and would rather be right.

originally posted by: JasonBillung
Oh yes, the nanny state. Give that tired meme a rest. Children need nannys, or at least a sensible adult

So, let me ask you this, where the CA legislature is concerned... when do they find the time to be considered sensible? Is it after they're done defining the dangerousness of a projectile firing weapon based on what type of foregrip it is equipped with, after they've wrapped up saving the world's environmental woes by banning straws, before they finalized their law mandating dairy farms capture their cow farts, ensuring felons have the right to vote, or maybe they found sensibility while discussing the merits of turning the whole GD state into a sanctuary for illegal alien criminals? Perhaps sensible appeared as a foil to the legislature's passing of a law infringing on resident's right to purchase ammo outside the state of California? Was sensible hiding under the rug while they passed a law declaring "safe space" requirements be provided where residents could shoot up IV drugs safely? Oh, I know... sensible was captured while fleeing the room when CA changed intentionally infecting an unknowing partner with HOV from a felony to a misdemeanor earlier this year. California is America's #hole, pure and simple... it is not a sensible place and is, in fact, a state where sensible fled with all the smart people who abandoned the #hole years and years ago.

originally posted by: seagull
Hello!!

This should come as a shock... Should, but doesn't, really. It is California, after all.

Read it, and weep...literally, you should be weeping.

Ah, me... I could go on a multi-page rant, well...multi-paragraph, anyway, but why bother?

Too many are going to think this not only a good idea, but a great idea. We are, apparently, incapable of deciding what we'll even order at McDonalds...or Burger King. That choice must, in large part, be made by a state legislature, if you're so unfortunate to live in the formerly great state of California.

Isn't it nice to know that they, the State Legislature, feel that you are incapable of making your own choices, or choices for your kids?? So incapable, in fact, that they'll make it for you.

...and, yes, I'm aware that you are allowed, wasn't that nice of 'em, to choose something else, so long as you want to pay extra for it...

Once more, with feeling now:

HOO-RAY for the Nanny-state.

You've had too much red fizzy drink. No more sugar bombs and H@@py M3@lz for you.

Tell me, what rights and limitations on your liberty does this cause?

Children are notoriously un-discerning and will prefer mass produced ultra cheap crap in a brightly colored box with a malformed plastic nubbin 'toy' rather than good quality food.

Childhood Obesity Incidence in the United States: A Systematic Review - NCBI

... and the bill doesn't stop anyone from buying whatever they want, it just covers the promotion side of things in regard to beverages.

It sounds like good civic responsibility to me. I would support the bill too, were I in that position.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: seagull

Maybe the Crapafornia Legislature should instead be voting all the human s#it off their streets and sidewalks.

...then who would vote for the legislators?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Uh, the OP is about kids menus. I am sure this deflection represents all you find deplorable with the state, but you might want to take them up on another thread that is more appropriate.

Care to add to the topic, or do you want to talk about other things that have no bearing on what is being discussed. As it stands, it looks like the OP was hyperbolic Reeeeeee!. Now you want to take it into more off-topic discussions?

Queen for a day in the nanny state!

a reply to: JasonBillung

You were the one who foolishly and erroneously attempted to protray a CA decision, on any matter to be frank, as being rooted in "sensible." My post demonstrates but a small handful of factual examples of why California is not, and cannot be considered "sensible" where laws and lawmakers are concerned. Feel free to fondle your reeees in whatever thread you wish, but it was neither off topic nor a deflection, it was identifying a trend of suckage stemming from California (of which the OPs topic is but one more on top of a large pile sitting somewhere over Sac-town.)

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Soda pop lobby? Seriously?

That's original, anyway. No, you see, I can make up my own mind, I don't need a legislature, at any level, deciding what's in my best interests.

The choice is still there. My question is why would the legislature, in its infinite "wisdom" waste time with something so banal?

If I want my kid to have something other than soda with his/her Happy Meal, then I am perfectly capable of handling that my own little ol' self. Done it many times with various nieces and nephews, and cousins, etc...

Do you feel the need to have a legislature make your decisions for you? Or even the Soda Pop Lobby?

[SNIPPED]

If this saves a single child from going down the path towards obesity, it is worth the 'banal' legislature.

Do you know how much the medical consequences of obesity cost? Who bears that cost? The US government doesn't.

Wake up!

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: seagull

Maybe the Crapafornia Legislature should instead be voting all the human s#it off their streets and sidewalks.

If they were really concerned with childrens health.

originally posted by: JasonBillung
This is a very specific thread about the relative merits of an act by the state legislators. How are any of your points directly related to the OP?

They demonstrate a deep seated and long standing failure by the California legislature to go in a sensible direction. It pertains to this topic as follows... would anyone within their right mind look for parenting advice from someone who's entire lineage of offspring are either dead, in prison, knocked up dropouts, or addicts? No? Then don't look to California's legislators for sensible laws or sensible adult decisions where nourishing children are concerned... their track record is abysmal as demonstrated by the laundry list of sample prior inane "head up own anus" laws they've recently passed, none of which were even remotely "sensible."