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

originally posted by: neo96

Existing law, the California Retail Food Code, establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for, and provides for regulation by the State Department of Public Health of, retail food facilities, as defined, and requires local enforcement agencies to enforce these provisions. Under existing law, a person who violates any provision of the code is guilty of a misdemeanor with each offense punishable by a fine of not less than $25 or more than $1,000, or by imprisonment in a county jail for a term not exceeding 6 months, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

This bill would require a restaurant, as defined, that sells a children’s meal that includes a beverage, to make the default beverage water, sparkling water, or flavored water, as specified, or unflavored milk or a nondairy milk alternative, as specified. The bill would not prohibit a restaurant’s ability to sell, or a customer’s ability to purchase, an alternative beverage if the purchaser requests one. The bill would make a violation of its provisions an infraction, but would make the first violation subject to a notice of violation. Under the bill, the 2nd and 3rd violations would be punishable by fines of not more than $250 and $500, respectively. By imposing additional duties on local enforcement agencies and by creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

So if the restaurant served a coke they'd get fined more than $1000 and JAIL TIME for six months.

Oh and what the EFF is the difference between water and 'sparkling' water?

Commies live up to their names.

The food police!

Umm, that is the existing law, which you are conflating with this new one.

In case you didn't know, some 'sparkling water' (e.g: tonic water) contains salt and sugar in significant quantities. That is why the law clarifies the definition (if you read down further).

If the restaurant promotes a carbonated sugar drink as the default, they will be fined. If the parent purchases the fizzy, no fine.

originally posted by: JasonBillung
So are you for or against the new legislation?

Opposed. It's overreach and, ironically, overreach from a state with a track record of busybodying which seems to routinely fail to reach it's stated goal. leading me to the conclusion that they meddle in everything purely because they can and they will. Leave the business decisions to the businesses, the parenting decisions to the parents, and the government can butt the hell out of matters which do not pertain to them (which would trim their workload and expenses by at least 90% in a state with so many overreaches as CA)

a reply to: burdman30ott6

OK, you have ended this discussion with me. You don't want to talk about the specific legislation, make unsubstantiated claims that are all over the map, and are full set on derailing the OP. I am sure that the mods can see what you are doing to this thread, and wish you a good night.

I am not responding to you on this topic anymore.

originally posted by: DictionaryOfExcuses
This just doesn't fire me up. They're changing the default beverage to water in kids' meals because of all the fat children. Should have done it a long time ago. If you still want fat children, you can still legally give them candywater.

The point is that they think people are so stupid that changing a default beverage will change anything.

A responsible adult doesn't feed their kids at McDonald's in the first place.

The other adults will just order their kids a Coke.

It changes exactly nothing, won't change obesity rates and is just a feel good bill.

ETA... of course this IS California we are talking about, so maybe my first line doesn't apply.

originally posted by: JasonBillung
make unsubstantiated claims

LOL!!! Do you need me to source the list of laws I used as examples of CA's longstanding track record of sensible law making? They're all on the books, friend. Not sure what word you meant to use there, but "unsubstantiated" was likely not it.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

But if you don't specify, you get what they've, in their infinite wisdom, have decided what is best for you.

You don't see a problem with that?? That is govt. reaching into areas that do not, and should not, concern them.

What's next? Or further down the line, if a line isn't drawn...?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Oh, I don't doubt you're right.

It just struck me funny, that's all.

Don't most fast food chains have contracts with either Pepsi or Coke, to provide their soda? I've never seen a fast food place that offers both...it's usually one or the other.

Slightly off topic, maybe, but I"m curious.

a reply to: seagull

So, child welfare is not in the interest of the state? Go read some law. The state can and will promote child welfare in every state, to protect children from unfit and abusive parents. It also protects children from parents who do not have the capacity to protect their kids. That is why we have laws against lead painted toys and cribs, and make kids ride in car seats. Because parents often do not think of these protections themselves. We as a society have decided this. If you want to feed your children crap, and place them in unsafe conditions, the state will step in. Suck it up. It is called the social contract of living in a civilized society.

This is good legislation, will save kids lives, and maybe make parents responsible for their actions (or lack thereof).

a reply to: seagull

Hers another one for ya to ponder. why pass this law when you have been able to pay for a drink and then get whatever you want out of the dispensers after buying said meal. Its totally stupid,but this is california so its par for the course.

originally posted by: DictionaryOfExcuses
This just doesn't fire me up. They're changing the default beverage to water in kids' meals because of all the fat children. Should have done it a long time ago. If you still want fat children, you can still legally give them candywater.

Soda from a kids meal at a fast food joint is pretty far down the line of reasons for a fat kid.


Inactivity is much more the cause of fat kids than bad diet, a kids body can process just about anything but they need to stay active to stay at a healthy weight, not come home sit in front of the TV or on their phone, or laptop, tablet whatever, they need to be outdoors being active, or in sports or something to get their heart rate up to burn off the excess garbage they shoved in their pie hole.

a reply to: yuppa

In my state you can't get milk out of the dispensers. What about yours?

No, all you can get is the corporate fizz crap they push on you to make money.

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: seagull

So, child welfare is not in the interest of the state? Go read some law. The state can and will promote child welfare in every state, to protect children from unfit and abusive parents. It also protects children from parents who do not have the capacity to protect their kids. That is why we have laws against lead painted toys and cribs, and make kids ride in car seats. Because parents often do not think of these protections themselves. We as a society have decided this. If you want to feed your children crap, and place them in unsafe conditions, the state will step in. Suck it up. It is called the social contract of living in a civilized society.

This is good legislation, will save kids lives, and maybe make parents responsible for their actions (or lack thereof).

People not thinking for themselves IS THE PROBLEM HERE. DSS in SC was caught taking kids away for the federal money they got for each childs support at one time in a few counties.

Its nto a social contract when it breaks the rights to live your life as you see fit in the constitution. Only a moron lets the government run their life like that.

You and people like you may want things run that way nationwide but thank goodness we dont have a democracy that allows mob rule.

a reply to: Irishhaf

There are 140 calories in a 1 can serving of Coca-Cola Coke (12 oz). Calorie breakdown: 0% fat, 100% carbs, 0% protein.

Source

That is a big amount of cals for a kid. Emply cals that make the liver and kidneys work overtime, not to mention caffeine.

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: yuppa

In my state you can't get milk out of the dispensers. What about yours?

No, all you can get is the corporate fizz crap they push on you to make money.

You can get milk if you ask in all the ones around here in SC too. try again.

Oh and Oh noes!! carbs! most kids who run around outside burn off those in a jiffy.

a reply to: JasonBillung

What do you think my generation (I am 45) drank growing up, coke or pepsi, koolaid, tang etc, and lots of it, yet fat kids wasn't a problem back then.


What has changed we didn't have so many game consoles, or smart phones, or Laptops etc, so we were out side typically from the time we got home from school till the street lights (if you had them), or sunset occurred.

You can eat perfectly (according to the "experts") but little to no activity and you are not going to be healthy.

a reply to: yuppa

State constitutions are given by the 10th amendment. Read it. Child welfare has always been recognized by the federal constitution as the right of the state.

Do a little law research and check it out.

And how come you are being unconstitutional by denying the rights of the states and the people respective to the 10 amendment?

Or you just ignorant of the constitution?

But you are off topic, as usual, with deflection.

Do you think it is a good thing that parents can choose what drinks there kids have, or do you want corporations to tell them?

a reply to: Irishhaf

I don't think the OP was about lack of exercise. It was about the merits of the law. Do you support parents being able to have an option for kids meals to have healthy drinks or corporate fizzy crap?

originally posted by: Metallicus
I truly don’t understand why any freedom loving American would still live in the Progressive cesspool of a State. Maybe their goal is to drive out as many people as possible so they can protect the environment. I really can’t think of any logical reason to inflict this much Government on American citizens.

ETA: personally I only drink bottled water, but that isn’t the governments business.

I'm fine with this, but I would allow for unsweet tea as well.

As a nation we need to start seriously addressing our diets. Personal responsibility is nice, but when I buy food from others, I expect it to have reasonable calorie counts. Capitalism demands restaurants act in our interests, and they currently do not.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Soda pop lobby? Seriously?

That's original, anyway.

I would interpret that as sugar lobbyist and no, it is not original at all.

How the Sugar Lobby Skewed Health Research

Sugar lobby paid scientists to blur sugar's role in heart disease – report

50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To Point Blame At Fat
You're an ATS moderator and didn't know this? WOW, now that's original!

I can see some reason for concern here, you don't want more laws created. Nothing wrong with that but to get upset and call California a "nanny state" over this is odd. I mean this is what gets you upset? Of all the things going on and you get mad because you might have to ask for soda pop for your kinds crappy meal drink if you ever happen to drive through California. I would like to say, "choose your battles".

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: yuppa

In my state you can't get milk out of the dispensers. What about yours?

No, all you can get is the corporate fizz crap they push on you to make money.

You can get milk if you ask in all the ones around here in SC too. try again.

Oh and Oh noes!! carbs! most kids who run around outside burn off those in a jiffy.

You have to ask, and pay more. Meanwhile, the corporate fizzy crap just flows.