It's a sad day for Happy Meals in Santa Clara County

reply to post by chise61

Its not a punishment, its a guideline for an evil corporation to abide by - and its a crappy one at that.

I wouldn't care if they had regulations on everything - as long as they were logical and benevolent in motive and practice.

It was less than a hundred years ago that we didn't even have this stuff, and we managed to get by, probably better than now. You raised your kids right, good for you *pats on the head*

A massive portion of Americans would eat McDonalds, and would take their children to McDonalds (because they have been advertised to) so I'm still having trouble seeing the correlation between making a small-beneficial change in a regulation against an evil corporation - and

"OMG teh Nw0 iz comin 2 getz m3!!!1!!"

_______________________________________________________________
ETA:


[edit on 29/4/10 by ghostsoldier]

For those that truely believe the government is concerned about the health of our children and they're only doing this to force McDonalds into providing children with healthier meals, why don't you do some research into what our government is feeding our children in their school lunches, see how healthy those things are

They feed these kids nothing but processed food laced with all kinds of chemicals, grilled cheese sandwiches and pizzas that have been cold for hours before they are served and the cheese is all hard and coagulated grease all over the place, I tell you it's disgusting. Whenever I walk into my grankids school at lunchtime the smell makes me nauseous. And let's not forget about the soda machines that they have in schools now to load these kids up with all that high fructose corn syrup.

But hey you keep believing their quise that they "care" about the health of our kids, and they're doing it for them.


Edit for spelling

[edit on 4/29/2010 by chise61]

reply to post by chise61

What you say is all true, but that doesn't negate this particular regulation being a good thing.

Alot of you in here are right on, however the ones who think they know what's best for others peeve me. I bet those same people will plop their kid in front of the tv to keep them busy. Food regulation is bad, end of. At the end of the day it's a choice. Some will make the choice, others won't.

Anyway back onto the McDs and other bad foods. I enjoy a Big Mac once in awhile. It's not healthy but neither is alot of things. Infact growing up our family didn't even have much money to go and eat McDs or whatever restaurant food you'd find. I'm a big person now though, but it wasn't from McDonalds. I'd say it was from a bunch of things. I eat a combo of unhealthy and healthy foods today. Garden veggies that are grown in our yard, also used to be big wild game eaters here. There was a time where our only meat was venison burger.

I love pretty much any kind of food. Vegetables, noodles, whatever. If it's edible I'll pretty much eat it. It seems alot of people on here associate people who eat mcdonald's as people who only eat mcdonald's. Which isn't true.

Funny thing, my cousin and his mom for many years used to eat nothing but fast food all the time. Literally like every day, the only time they made a real meal was when his dad was back in town. The kid was as skinny as a beanpole. Was eating all that fast food all the time healthy? No, it wasn't. But the irony in it was that my Aunt is the kind of person who has the attitude of my way is best. And if you don't do it my way you're wrong. It's almost funny to hear her throw out advice on handling children only to have her spoil her son rotten and never use the word no around him, for fear of the brat throwing a temper tantrum.


For 2 years I took care of my two nephews while my sister was at work in the evenings. From 2-midnight almost everyday during the week. I never went to get them fast food(it's kindof hard with a 3 month old infant in the dead of winter here in North Dakota EDIT:Obviously I didn't feed my 3 month old nephew that stuff haha, I had to feed him formula, like any other great uncle would But I'll admit they also ate alot of soup and stuff of that nature. I took care of them at my sister's house. It wasn't a very easy place to set up a home cooked meal, considering I was a 20 year old male caring for two little brats That weren't even mine! They turned out fine though, they aren't obese.

I don't even know what I wanted to post, and I forgot what I all posted about.(Imagine that!) But I hope anyone posting here on out doesn't start throwing out the my way or the highway attitude. Because remember, you're probably the same type to plop your youngin in front of the tube and turn on blue's clues.

tl;dr: Just read the damn thing

[edit on 29-4-2010 by Judohawk]

[edit on 29-4-2010 by Judohawk]

reply to post by Judohawk

So people who look out for their childrens best interest diet wise - are most likely to drop their kids infront of a television ey? - Nice logic, if anything the polar opposite would be true.

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
reply to post by vkey08

 

Actually this is prob. the best thing to happen in the favor of the kids future possible.

No child should be eating that poison anyway. Good to start them early.

I don't care what label that puts on me. Kids still shouldn't eat that #.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by GreenBicMan]

I am of healthy weight, actually I'm in very good shape, and I loved McDonald's when I was a kid....and I still eat it occasionally if I'm in a hurry. So basically, It's the fault of the parent for taking their kid and letting them get fat, it hasn't a damn thing to do with McDonald's itself. The government is trying to parent, because the parents won't parent...the parents have turned over their parenting to the public schools and the television. Can anyone actually honestly tell me that this is not a violation of the first amendment? Even getting rid of Joe Camel is a violation, the government is stupid. People who are defending this are stupid, think about it for a second...it doesn't even make sense.

Here is a brilliant quote that can also apply to food.

"I think that parents only get so offended by television because they rely on it as a babysitter and the sole educator of their kids."

[edit on 29-4-2010 by yellowcard]

reply to post by ghostsoldier


I know my government all to well and if we allow them an inch they will take more than a mile. We don't need to have everything regulated for us, we need to regulate ourselves.

If they are really doing this out of concern then they are regulating the wrong things, they are going about it the wrong way. Regulate the pricing on foods so that peole can afford to feed their families healthy foods. It's a shame that in this country people feed their families crap because it's cheaper than good foods like fresh fruits and veggies. Junk foods and fast foods shouldn't be cheaper than good healthy foods, that's a big part of the problem.

If they are truely concerned then start the change from within, regulate that they feed our children only healthy foods in school, take out the soda machines, start teaching children about nutrition in kindergarden, etc. Explain to them exactly why they need to eat fiber, how it lowers cholesterol, etc. That would be of more help than anything they can force McDonalds to do.

They claim to be worried about childhood obesity. Well here in Chicago, most of the schools don't have recess anymore, these kids sit in school for almost six hours with no physical activity at all. Not only do they need recess for physical activity they need to be in the sun for at least 15 minutes a day for their body to create vitamin D. But yet the government says they're concerned about our children's lack of vitamin D. When the weather started warming up the principal informed the teachers that they could take their students out for a whole 10 minutes. You know how many teachers bring their students outside for a measley 10 minutes, four teachers. And I know this because I live across the street from the school and I see what teachers bring out their students.

My grandkids school started a new policy last year, they have alternating years for gym classes, so if your child had gym last year they don't get it this year. Now this year they changed it again, my granddaughter only had gym class for half the year this year. Mind you we're not talking about gym class everyday, or every other day, but a 30 minute class once a week, So this government that is "worried" about our children's health believes that one 30 minute gym period a week for half of the year is sufficient.

So while they proclaim to be worried about our children's health, what they do shows me otherwise. They need to regulate themselves before they regulate others.

I have to get up in a few short hours to get the grandbabies ready for school, so if you have any other reaponses for me I'll see them tomorrow.

reply to post by vkey08


This will increase the number of happy meals that are sold because without the toy McDonald's will be able to market it at a lower price.

Then the parents will be able to take the money they saved and go to one of those California pot stores and buy some dank weed.

See?

California creates wonderful healthy families.

reply to post by InfaRedMan


I can agree that corporations exploit the baser traits of humankind. I don't like it, either.

But our nation was founded on the principle of Caveat Emptor. Let the buyer beware.

It is very admirable that some would like to legislate what i am allowed to consume, as a supposed free man in America.

I have told this story before, but will retell it here....


....when i was in college we used to donate blood plasma for a few extra bucks. Extra bucks is something a college student can always use. Before you could be seated they would take a set of vitals and grill you ("Have you been to Haiti in the last 12 months", etc).

On one occassion there was a guy next to me that was obviously mentally challenged, and he seemed to live by himself based on what he was saying. They weren't going to allow him to dontae because of his blood pressure. The nurse was trying to counsel him on a good diet to help improve his BP, but he was frantic because he was depending on that money to be able to eat that night.

The nurse told him, "You need to improve your diet. Quit eating food high in salt." He was somewhat puzzled, so she went on with, "What did you eat last night?" He told her, "A pack of weenies". She said, "See, that isn't good for you. Fattening, high in salt and phosophorous....."

He said, "Well, what am i supposed to do? I don't have enough money to eat what you tell me. I only had 1.50. Should i just not eat"

when you talk about thing like diet, you have to address the fact that the people in the poorest health are usually the poorest people, and they cannot afford to eat decent food.

If you want to improve Americas health, there are so many steps to take that should be taken before we start to deconstruct the freedom that our forefathers died for. People who were complete strangers to you have laid their lives down so you could live free. We owe a debt to these people to protect that freedom with OUR lives, too.

If you want to make our food better, legislate the environment so my salmon no longer has mercury in it. Or my water no longer has prozac in it. With McD's, i have a chocie. But the poison in my water is something I am going to have to ingest...there is no choice. and i would think Prozac is more of a poison than Big Mac.

reply to post by GreenBicMan


Doesn't really label you..... But if I lived there, I file a petition with the county child support court for them to start paying child support since the "People of Santa Clara County" want to take over as parent to my child.

Originally posted by pyrael
reply to post by GreenBicMan

 

Doesn't really label you..... But if I lived there, I file a petition with the county child support court for them to start paying child support since the "People of Santa Clara County" want to take over as parent to my child.

ROFLMAO That's a good one, and I'm sure that someone along the way will end up trying that in CA especially since it is a very litigious state..

Originally posted by ghostsoldier
Anyone who protests this, isn't fit to have children.

I usually don't get THIS infuriated by comments like the above. But I'll tell ya now, calling me "unfit" because I Think the government has overstepped their bounds is fighting words. My kids eat happy meals once or twice a month, sometimes more if we have a long trip. Oh and wait!!!! The doctor has repeatedly given them a clean bill of health, NOT overweight; as a matter of fact my daughter is a bean pole.

If parents are stupid enough to overfeed their children on this stuff, then let a doctor call CPS or something.

If you think YOU are such a BETTER parent than those of us who allow our children to eat them, then start sending us child support and we'll comply!!!

Next you'll want a law banning toy commercials for baking sets.

reply to post by vkey08

The sad truth is that since I live in the "Peoples Socialist Republic Of New York", I watch and worry about what the other socialist Republics are doing. NY and Cali have been in a contest to see who can out tax and spend, who has more "for the children" laws, and who has more welfare for a very long time. Apparently, Mass. are trying to take away our eastern division title.

I'm just tired of the "oh it's not MY fault my kid did this... it's the advertising. They did it!" mentality. It's the same with cigarettes. I quit smoking 10 1/2 months ago, but not because Obama and the state increased taxes on them, because I wanted to quit. The freaking state taxes were supposed to go to education, guess what? Our after school programs were cut anyway! They spent almost all the revenue on those stupid NY Quits advertisements that they probably paid out the wazoo for just to tick us off a bit more. This is basically the same thing. But just remember, if it flys in CA, NY will make TV and radio commercials warning people of the "danger" and offering a "helpline" and will add a tax on it ill people stop buying it.

reply to post by Merigold


Well said!

next line...

Originally posted by ghostsoldier
reply to post by chise61

 

What you say is all true, but that doesn't negate this particular regulation being a good thing.

Actually, it's a perfect example of why this legislation is a bad thing. It's clear that you have a pretty big, albeit justifiable, bias against McDonalds, the same as which 2/3 of these legislators had. What you are doing is taking this bias and aiming it at one corporation at the expense of individual choice. It's micromanagement legislation that solves nothing. A backdoor attempt to try and dictate how people should live vis a vis personal preference.

Perhaps what these legislators should do, if they are truly serious about the health of our children and these evil capitalist corporations, is propose laws which prohibit predatory advertising to children under...ooh lets say 8.
Better yet they can petiton the FDA to make new guidlines on the nutritional value of anything a restraunt serves under their "kids menu."

Now those...I'm all for

[edit on 29-4-2010 by xEphon]

reply to post by Cabaret Voltaire


It's the McDonalds bailout.

Legislate that McDonalds be able to save money and sell more.

I want to see a long-term study on the impact the little plastic toy has in Happy Meal sales.

My guess, none whatsoever. It's just another penny or two McDonalds wont have to spend in producing the Happy Meal. But will the cost of the meal go down? Very doubtful. Legislate people pay more for less.

The McDonalds bailout.

Originally posted by pyrael
reply to post by vkey08

 

The sad truth is that since I live in the "Peoples Socialist Republic Of New York", I watch and worry about what the other socialist Republics are doing. NY and Cali have been in a contest to see who can out tax and spend, who has more "for the children" laws, and who has more welfare for a very long time. Apparently, Mass. are trying to take away our eastern division title.

I'm just tired of the "oh it's not MY fault my kid did this... it's the advertising. They did it!" mentality. It's the same with cigarettes. I quit smoking 10 1/2 months ago, but not because Obama and the state increased taxes on them, because I wanted to quit. The freaking state taxes were supposed to go to education, guess what? Our after school programs were cut anyway! They spent almost all the revenue on those stupid NY Quits advertisements that they probably paid out the wazoo for just to tick us off a bit more. This is basically the same thing. But just remember, if it flys in CA, NY will make TV and radio commercials warning people of the "danger" and offering a "helpline" and will add a tax on it ill people stop buying it.

I just moved from NY to elsewhere, as I was leaving, Westchester County was trying to make Tylenol (acetaminophen) illegal without a prescription because it is possible to get liver damage from too much of it. So I know just what you're talking about, and it sickens me. Luckily Westchester (unlike the rest of NY) just had a change of administrations, and the new County Executive isn't as "government intrusion into your life is good" as the last person in that office.

What gets me the most about what New York does, is unlike California, they actually legislate things as being totally illegal, rather than just trying to educate and warn, thereby in essence making it a crime to want to eat, or get sick.

Originally posted by ghostsoldier
reply to post by Merigold

 

Its not wrong to legislate it at all. Parents shouldn't have the right to feed their children poison just because its from a restaurant. Everything we do should be directed towards bettering the world for our children and childrens children.

McDonalds advertising is especially noxious.

I have been boycotting of McDonalds for ~5 years so far.


[edit on 28/4/10 by ghostsoldier]

You made the OP's point although you surely did not want to.

YOU made the decision to boycott McDonald's on your own. The government didn't force you into making that decision.

Now you want the government to take away the choice YOU had from everyone else.

People that think like this never see the "slippery slope" ahead until someone else decides that something they like is now also bad and wants it banned.

Originally posted by ghostsoldier
Anyone who protests this, isn't fit to have children.

Who appointed YOU fit to decide what is best for anyone else?



Get off your elitist high horse and let people make their own decisions for themselves and their families as THEY see fit.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by ghostsoldier
reply to post by Merigold

 

Its not wrong to legislate it at all. Parents shouldn't have the right to feed their children poison just because its from a restaurant. Everything we do should be directed towards bettering the world for our children and childrens children.

McDonalds advertising is especially noxious.

I have been boycotting of McDonalds for ~5 years so far.


[edit on 28/4/10 by ghostsoldier]

You made the OP's point although you surely did not want to.

YOU made the decision to boycott McDonald's on your own. The government didn't force you into making that decision.

Now you want the government to take away the choice YOU had from everyone else.

People that think like this never see the "slippery slope" ahead until someone else decides that something they like is now also bad and wants it banned.

Even more, there is a labelling of McD's as "poison", when it is not poison. It is unhealthy food. Poison is something like cyanide or arsenic. McD's doesn't fall under that label.

Calling McD's "poison" is the same as calling GW Bush "Hitler". It is a one way ticket to invalidating your own argument.