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

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: seagull

So you're OK with a legislature doing your thinking for you? OK.

Are you okay with soda pop lobby making the decision for you?

No.

I am the parent. I make that decision.

We don't have pop in the house and our child very, very rarely gets any with his meal when we eat out. We've always defaulted to milk and/or a lemonade (no, not healthier but a more acceptable treat than pop).

I don't need the government to tell me I'm not making the choice well enough and to mandate it, and I'm not cool with anyone thinking this should be their responsibility. It's a parents' job. If we start to think that government needs to do this, what other, more important parenting jobs are we going to start thinking the government ought to take over?

I mean, we already have entire segments of society that have more or less replaced the father with government, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

a reply to: JasonBillung

Unless they really do things different in California you could always get them something else other than soda...

Literally anything( legal for a kid) an adult can get could be put in the cup in place of soda, which includes water, or tea, or milk (if that was on the menu), or juice.


Also I brought up exercise because fat kids were brought up in the first post I responded to, and getting the kids active would be 1000 times more effective combating the obesity problem than useless laws that will make a select few feel good and change squat.

a reply to: ketsuko

We don't have pop in the house and our child very, very rarely gets any with his meal when we eat out. We've always defaulted to milk and/or a lemonade (no, not healthier but a more acceptable treat than pop).

Good for you! In that case, this law wouldn't affect your choices at all, since you don't allow your children the "go to" sodas. Even if the fast food server asks, "Coke with that?", you'll say "No, milk please", and your kids probably won't throw a tantrum knowing what they could have had.

originally posted by: JasonBillung
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.

I drink very little soda. I do however like French soda and just had a little bit imported, 12 cans worth which will easily last me a couple of months. They're fairly large cans, I want to say 14 oz, and they're 35 calories per can.

The amount of crap put in American food is out of control, and I would like to see it regulated. I'm aware that I can cook for myself, but I enjoy restaurants. I've been finding it harder and harder to get medium calorie meals at a restaurant. If I goto Subway, a veggie sandwich is 420 calories. If I make it a wrap (which is promoted as the healthier option) it goes up to 900 calories. If I make it a salad it jumps to 600 calories.

I went out for lunch this past Satruday to one of my local hangouts. I had a black bean quesidilla, and it ran 1100 calories.

We are using way too many food additives these days that just promote empty calories.

How can people choose to eat better (when not eating at home) when every option is junk food? For that matter, 95% of the good offered in grocery stores is also junk food that has been loaded with sugar and fat. Even things like bread, cereal, and pasta sauce have so much sugar in them, that they're essentially candy.

I have found, over the years (72) pushing positive behavior results in positive behavior.

I've watched how schools have changed, for the better, in pushing all-encompassing positive behavior.

I didn't always think that way. I was very much against forcing non-smoking in restaurants/bars/office. I was WRONG.

originally posted by: JasonBillung
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?

Excuse me. I live in SC where the war of northern aggression(aka the Federal government) Who told our ancestors the 10th amendment was not viable and that we did not have the right to determine anything but what the federal government allowed so dont you dare tell me about states rights.

No i am not off topic in my previous post.
The US hasnt been truly free since lincoln rewrote the 10th amendment/added to it with a stacked Supreme court and not allowing the former confeds to have a vote.

Anyway Earlier in the thread i said to Seagull that we have had th eoption to get any beverage we want as well if we ASKED for it so why did they have to pass another law?

No you drew it off topic when you insulted me first.

a reply to: ketsuko

So you as a parent can make all decisions about your child? Not in this country. You can't send your kids to work in the fields anymore for 12 hours a day. Any you do have to feed them in a nutritional fashion. If you think different, go check your states social services and see how many kids they removed from homes because they were under nourished.

Go check up on parents that abuse their kids in other ways. Gone from the household. I have fostered many kids in my lifetime who were pulled out of homes because of all kinds of abuse - most of it mental, but much of it just parents who didn't clean their kids or give them a good meal.

This legislation is a good thing - default healthy drinks for kids. Want to give them crap fizzy corporate slime, ok.

How can anyone be against this?

Oh, I know, nanny state. Well, kids need a nanny when their damn parents can't or won't do the job.

If they really want to use the think of the children cry to pass garbage like this, they need to see about educating the growing group of people that push their children into bad behaviors.

I worked at a Convenience store for a while, it was actually a pretty good job even though it was in a poor part of town one of the last straws to me was when I saw a mom come in with her son and daughter, the girl grabbed a bag of chips, the boy wanted an apple.

When he insisted on the apple, the mother took it out of his hand slapped him on the butt and said go get a bag of chips like your sister, I have very rarely ever wanted to slap a woman but I could see the start of that kids life and the likely hood he would end up diabetic from his garbage diet.

Its a weird paradox for me, I want the govt out of my life as much as possible but at the same time I fully understand that some people need to be pushed to do the right thing for their kids.

a reply to: ketsuko

No offense to your kids food choices, I'm sure you're making what you feel is right, but most of your options are unhealthy.

Tortillas for sandwich wraps run nearly 800 calories each due to the amount of lard used to make them supple. Pasta sauce has more sugar in it than cupcakes. Old Fashioned Donuts have less sugar than off the shelf bread. Juice gets extra sweeteners. Then we have all the products that say reduced sugar in them, which instead make up their flavor by adding unhealthy levels of salt.

You should be able to make food choices, but you should also be presented with good options. I had a Cobb Salad the other day that came in at 1200 calories. 1200 calories for a salad is utterly absurd, but that's where we're at these days.

There needs to be a push to start getting more healthy foods on the market, so that people can make the choice to purchase them. A loaf of Wonderbread should not be worse than a box of donuts, but it is.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: JasonBillung

Unless they really do things different in California you could always get them something else other than soda...

Literally anything( legal for a kid) an adult can get could be put in the cup in place of soda, which includes water, or tea, or milk (if that was on the menu), or juice.


Also I brought up exercise because fat kids were brought up in the first post I responded to, and getting the kids active would be 1000 times more effective combating the obesity problem than useless laws that will make a select few feel good and change squat.

Gave you a star for that!

a reply to: yuppa

Now we are on to how the SC folks are still reliving the civil war? The one where they attacked the united states, and the constitution? and you are not off track on this thread?

So what are your reasons again for feeding kids a default drink of corporate fizzy crap versus a heathly drink?

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: ketsuko

So you as a parent can make all decisions about your child? No in this country. You can't send your kids to work in the fields anymore for 12 hours a day. Any you do have to feed them in a nutritional fashion. If you think different, go check your states social services and see how many kids they removed from homes because they were under nourished.

Go check up on parents that abuse their kids in other ways. Gone from the household. I have fostered many kids in my lifetime who were pulled out of homes because of all kinds of abuse - most of it mental, but much of it just parents who didn't clean their kids or give them a good meal.

This legislation is a good thing - default healthy drinks for kids. Want to give them crap fizzy corporate slime, ok.

How can anyone be against this?

Oh, I know, nanny state. Well, kids need a nanny when their damn parents can't or won't do the job.

I am VERY PRO LIVING CHILDREN.

Children are not and should not be responsible for idiot adults.

originally posted by: Annee
I was very much against forcing non-smoking in restaurants/bars/office.

The smoking issue, at least how it was presented 10-15 years ago, was completely opposite of this, though. They banned smoking because of second hand smoke, people impacted by smoke who weren't, themselves, choosing to smoke. I don't think you can successfully argue that dictating how a restaurant packages their food on the menus is in that same category, nor do I think you can argue that this is going to be that impactful in the overall picture. It just reeks of a busybody law designed to allow more fines and meddling in private business by the government.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ketsuko

We don't have pop in the house and our child very, very rarely gets any with his meal when we eat out. We've always defaulted to milk and/or a lemonade (no, not healthier but a more acceptable treat than pop).

Good for you! In that case, this law wouldn't affect your choices at all, since you don't allow your children the "go to" sodas. Even if the fast food server asks, "Coke with that?", you'll say "No, milk please", and your kids probably won't throw a tantrum knowing what they could have had.

It doesn't matter. I am still losing a choice I could make on my own because thinks I am too stupid to be smart enough to make it.

What part of "I DON'T EFFING NEED OR WANT THAT HELP" do you and others who are applauding not get? I don't care if it changes things for me or not.

PS - I don't care if my kid would throw a tantrum (not that he would, he long ago learned that no means no) if he was denied. If we say no, we mean it, and we don't have any problem saying it, and we also don't have any problem removing him from public if he acts up.

Responsible parent here...

When we go to McDonald's or any other fast food joint and get a kid's meal, we always get apples/yogurt instead of french fries and milk or juice. If a parent is too lazy to know what is included in the child's meal, then CA ought to call DCFS and take the kids away.

This is nothing but nanny state legislation.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Annee
I was very much against forcing non-smoking in restaurants/bars/office.

The smoking issue, at least how it was presented 10-15 years ago, was completely opposite of this, though. They banned smoking because of second hand smoke, people impacted by smoke who weren't, themselves, choosing to smoke. I don't think you can successfully argue that dictating how a restaurant packages their food on the menus is in that same category, nor do I think you can argue that this is going to be that impactful in the overall picture. It just reeks of a busybody law designed to allow more fines and meddling in private business by the government.

Doesn't matter.

I was against it because of government control.

I was WRONG!

originally posted by: Edumakated
CA ought to call DCFS and take the kids away.
.

Oh Lord, don't bring that modern day Gestapo arm of state control and malfeasance into this.

a reply to: Aazadan

Curious ... you know my personal menu that I feed my kid or are you assuming he's eating fast food most nights of the week? I agree with you on that. Fast food is bad for you which is why we don't eat it very often.

a reply to: Annee

It does matter. Doing the wrong thing for the right reasons is still the wrong thing.