Slashdot Mirror
California's Santa Clara County Bans Happy Meal Toys
WrongSizeGlass writes "The L.A. Times is reporting that Santa Clara County officials have voted to ban toys and other promotions that restaurants offer with high-calorie children's meals. 'This ordinance prevents restaurants from preying on children's love of toys' to sell high-calorie, unhealthful food, said Supervisor Ken Yeager, who sponsored the measure. 'This ordinance breaks the link between unhealthy food and prizes.' Supervisor Donald Gage, who voted against the measure, said, 'If you can't control a 3-year-old child for a toy, God save you when they get to be teenagers.' The vote was 3 - 2 in favor of the ban."
California may as well be a whole 'nother country.
I know, let's not bother with that thing known as personal responsibility, let's legislate EVERYTHING!
Hey parents, your kids wouldn't be so fat if you didn't feed them crap food and let them sit on their butts in front of the t.v. all day and night.
Sent from your iPad.
Yet another reason why I continue to avoid California. When will the crazy stop?
Sounds like the Santa Clara board is short a few fries of a Happy Meal themselves.
...they ban the toys, but keep the crap food? Don't get me wrong, I think it's the responsability of parents to keep track of what their kids ingest, not the governement's...but I still can't help but be reminded of our good friend George Carlin:
"...now they're banning toy guns, AND THEY'RE GONNA KEEP THE FUCKIN' REAL ONES!"
Living With a Nerd
This is an old argument. If you want to defend the happy meal then you need to defend Joe Camel too.
Wow so where exactly does it say government officials have to regulate every thing about our lives? And they think that just cause a meal has a toy the kid is going to want it and also the parent will give in? What happened to parents parenting???
Unless the kids are eating the plastic. I suppose some kids do.
This ordinance prevents restaurants from preying on children's love of toys' to sell high-calorie, unhealthful toys
Normally, toys are not eaten and therfore not considered high calorie.
And Christmas while they're at it. Dumbasses. This stupidity will not likely have any negative repercussions, aside from McDonalds franchises in the area having to come up with procedures to de-toy their happy meals. But what I suspect will happen is that the kids won't really want the happy meal without the toy, so the parent will take the cheaper route and get them a burger and fries from the dollar menu. With more calories than what they would have gotten in the happy meal. And no toy.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
If we can't bribe our children to eat poison, the terrorists have won!
This ordinance prevents restaurants from preying on children's love of toys' to sell high-calorie, unhealthful toys
I didn't know that toys were measured in calories these days.
What the article says:
"This ordinance prevents restaurants from preying on children's love of toys" to sell high-calorie, unhealthful food, said Supervisor Ken Yeager, who sponsored the measure.
What the summary says:
'This ordinance prevents restaurants from preying on children's love of toys' to sell high-calorie, unhealthful toys, said Supervisor Ken Yeager, who sponsored the measure.
Queue up the Dr. Ferris speech about the real purpose of the law.
Controlling people. Not even for their own good, but merely for the sake of weilding control.
That is politics in America today.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
...this is a great idea. I had to institute a rule in my house that no toys were allowed with food. I found that when I forbid the kids from having the toys, when I gave them a choice of restaurants for dinner, they were much more likely to chose one with better food. It seems that the toys were a large part of the draw...take that away, and they were much more likely to eat something healthy.
before it's illegal to have a dick in this state.
I'm not anti-regulation, but this is objectionable. Don't they have more important legislation to pass?
I'm the parent of a five year old, and I see him making food choices based on the 'prize' that he expects to receive with the food. It's my decision to say "No, you're not eating junk food today," or "OK - you had a healthy lunch, and you've behaved so yes we can go to McDonalds as a treat," and let him have that useless piece of plastic.
My decision. My responsibility.
I can see the fnords!
Seriously? So a county located in a state makes a law like this, yet it is somehow Obama's fault? Look. Obama has done a lot of things wrong, there is no denying that...but can't you look away from the talking points for just one second? Please? If not for Slashdot, at least for the sake of whatever intelligence you may have?
Living With a Nerd
I also want a law banning fruit or candy additives to milkshakes (Damn you Chick-fil-a and your irresistible milkshakes that I -only- buy when I can get 'em peachy or minty).
While we're at it, why not ban making unhealthy food taste good?
Then again, we could perhaps just expect adults to act like adults and suffer the consequences of their choices. And yes, the consequence of having children is having to raise them to make good choices, even when the bad food comes with a toy. Can't handle it? Don't have kids. Don't use law to constrain someone else to make up for your lack of spine.
While this may work from a pure operant conditioning standpoint, but they fail to realize the problem. THE PARENTS. The kid screams and moans for McDonalds, so the give him McDonalds. The fatty foods lipids are the real addictive, so once hooked, Micky D's has got their childish love. It is the parents that are the problem. Who is the government to say that a piece of plastic in a bag can't be given away with a meal? Its the damn bad parents that allow their lardsacks children to accumulate mass that should be punished. So now when little Johnny screams for a happy meal and a toy, what are the parents going to do, "sorry johnny, but the county officials have made it illegal, no toys for you". So instead they still go get the happy meal (since there aren't any ramifications for that, yet) and then just buy the kid a damn toy elsewhere, completely sidestepping the actual problem.
And California wonders why their state is ready to self-implode. Treating the symptoms, not the problems. And really, is this a problem? If the parents choose to give their kids fast food, then its their choice! GTFOML. But there are a 1000 better things they could do with the taxpayers time to curb obesity other than just straight banning stuff. Reminds me of the salt ban that could be coming.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
I really HATE the fact that people actually believe that it's OK to mandate things as long as they or their proxy's are in charge.
"'This ordinance prevents restaurants from preying on children's love of toys' to sell high-calorie, unhealthful toys, said Supervisor Ken Yeager"
I don't think making low calorie toys is the way to address this particular problem.
The San Jose Mercury News (warning: pop-under ad) has more details. The ordinance does not ban Happy Meal toys per se, but rather bans toys distributed with meals that exceed nutritional limits (485 Calories, 600 mg sodium). Furthermore, it only applies to unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. (There are no McDonald's locations in unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County.)
This seems like a good idea to me. Obviously, fast food restaurants give toys away only as a perverse incentive to attract kids. This ordinance, while largely symbolic, nullifies that marketing ploy. You want a toy? You can only get it if you forego the soda and the salt on the fries.
Won't someone please think of the adults?!?!?!?
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
In Soviet Russia the toys eat you
McDonald's has more money and power than that shit-hole county, so it will not last long in the courts. Aside from violating safety standards(which selling toys with food does not), no government can force a company to change its standard business practices. This county government has stepped over the line and they will be brought back in line at some point. It is not the place of government, in any capacity, to dictate how you raise your child. If you want to get them a kids meal with a toy, then that is your right.
Who gives a shit about the summary. Either way it is total shit and make no sense either way.
I 100% agree that the President (be it Republican or Democrat) receives way too much credit and blame for everything that happens in a country. This is a clear case of an individual county making a decision, not Obama. However, it does match Obama's philosophy of regulating everything, massive govnernment control, etc.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
After reading the subject, I thought the law was to cut down on plastic garbage. Too bad.
Talk about brainless consumption. Those "toys" are completely useless. If they do anything at all, they'll break after a few hours, and they exist only there to promote new consumption (movies, TV, other toys.)
I guess they keep kids entertained for the rest of the ride or meal, therefore freeing parents of the task of interaction.
When I used to get my Happy Meal as a child, I was more entertained by the toy than my food. I began to have weight problems as I grew older because I saw food as an event, a fun thing, a highlight of my day, instead of something to keep me fueled. High calorie foods aren't healthy, but they don't cause fat kids. Children with normal, healthy eating habits will take two bites of their burger and then run along to play with their new toy. When parents use food as a reward ("You did good on your report card, lets order pizza!") you have a problem. When I got to my mid to later teens, most of my friends had normal eating habits -- they didn't get excited by food like me. I picked up on that, and changed my eating habits to view food as fuel, not fun. It took about three years, but I've lost over 50 pounds and have a proper build complete with muscle tone. Bottom line: unhealthy food itself isn't the problem, it's how we view food in our daily lives. If you snack to pass the time, even when you're not hungry, if you go back for seconds after your pains are gone, you have unhealthy eating habits. Eat to live, don't live to eat. It's a habit our culture in America breeds -- food for fun. Unhealthy food isn't the root cause though (even if it contributes.)
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
Good for Santa Clara County! We need to crack down on obesity. "Fat Acceptance" is now recognized as having been a horrible public policy mistake. We have 300 pound oinkers blocking sidewalks, overloading aircraft, and running up medical costs. There's a shortage of qualified recruits for the Army. This has to stop. Fat kids used to be extremely rare. There's no excuse for being fat in your teens. Fat kids grow up to be huge adults. Anything we can do to cut down on childhood obesity is a step forward.
The Youth Fitness Song was distributed by the U.S. Government in the 1960s. No "fat acceptance" back then. "Nuts to the flabby guys".
Now drop and give me 20.
As an unapologetic Liberal I believe that government can do good things.
But this kind of Nanny State meddling makes me as sick as I would get from eating six Happy Meals
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/04/27/2113224/Arizona-Papers-Please-Law-May-Hit-Tech-Workers So it's bad to make illegal immigration a real crime, but we need to stop those crazy bastards from offering toys with kids meals ? The whole "Think of the kids" excuse is REALLY getting tired. Fun fact: It's almost always the parents buying the things for the kids. If adults disagree with the practice, don't buy the kids meals for your kids. Oh, but it'll be so much nicer not to have little Jimmy complain about not getting his meal/toy ? Start being a parent.
The government has NO REASON to be involved in these kinds of things.
Glorious! Simply Glorious! We all know that people can't think for themselves, but instead require the caring hand of government to guide them and ensure they engage in proper progressive action. We simply cannot allow people to think or act for themselves. This is a heroic day in the struggle against the fascist corporations and the evils of capitalism!
I live in Santa Clara, CA.... I'd just like to say: We did what?!? /facepalm
Kids like toys. Parents like to get freebie toys to give to kids.
Come to think of it, adults like toys too. Ever see some of these little plastic doo-dads on peoples desks? Ever see an adult going thru the drive thru alone and ordering a kids meal plus a burger so they can have the toy for their desk at work? Ever been that adult?
The parents aren't doing their jobs. When I was growing up there was usually the one fat kid in class. Now the national average is 25% which means in some schools it's a large percentage of the kids. Today's parents haven't the spines to stand up to their kids. When I was growing up back in the 60s, and yes there were dinosaurs back then, we looked forward to Sundays because there'd be dessert after dinner. It was a special. Today kids eat sweets all day long. We had many of the same things back then we just ate a lot less of it. Back then 2,000 calories would have been a lot of food but today some eat 5,000 or 6,000 calories a day. The military is having trouble finding recruits that aren't too overweight to train. We may be facing a future where the military rides around on those little scooters. The insanity has to stop somewhere. I want less regulation but if people aren't willing to control themselves then big brother may have to step in. Is bad food any different than smoking? Regulation reduced smoking and made it more pleasant to go to public places. Personally I dread sitting next to a human hippo on a plane. You can't claim nanny state when people refuse to do it themselves. If they really did take responsibility then the laws wouldn't be needed. Happy Meals date back to the 70s but the weight problems didn't get bad for another 10 or 20 years and only hit epidemic 30 years later. It's not actually the Happy Meal's fault it's the parents but you can't regulate parents so you have to regulate the happy meals. It's like guns. A gun never killed a person on their own but they still need regulation. A happy meal never made anyone fat but wolfing them down seven days a week does make kids fat.
So funny that this just happened. Colleague of mine went back to good ol' Missouri to visit his family just recently. He was just telling me this morning how he got in to an argument with his family because his very healthy (i.e. very active / normal weight) nephew was being hounded to "clean off his plate". The kid runs around, snacks throughout the day (on healthy stuff) but when it comes to breakfast/lunch/dinner his parents are on his case about eating all his food. Even though he's not hungry anymore!!! Basically they're going to turn this kid into just another obese child if they keep it up. Specially once he starts school and is required to sit in a classroom from 8-3, M-F.
I still think we need to have a test before people can become parents.
That's the problem with Santa Clara, all the damn vampires......
... they'll ban giving away free guns with each case of liquor bought.
Have gnu, will travel.
But the heat came round and busted me for smilin on a cloudy day
I'll try anything once. Twice if it tastes good
OK so now we take our kids to Fremont MacDonalds instead of Milpitas....no problem
When you consider the long-term effects of high sugar, high fat, high cholesterol offerings with no healthy alternatives, they should be considered poison, not meals.
*** Don't be dull.***
My kid picked the one with ballons
I'm completely for this. I see no difference between this and "Joe Camel", I hope this becomes a trend across the nation.
I was recently at a drive through, looking at the (empty) playground of a local Burger King. I thought how terrible it is that these fast food companies have tried to attract children to their unhealthy foods. Playgrounds, playful characters such as Ronald McDonald, Grimace, and the Hamburglar, happy meals, and movies such as Mac & Me, really show how terribly affected my generation was by this advertising. I remember wanting to go to McDonalds as a child so I could see a cloud and receive a toy. I highly suspect that these companies only scaled back their tactics as a defensive tactic after seeing how the cigarette companies were treated.
Yes, we can argue that parents should be more responsible, but parents cannot shield their children completely from outside influences, while -- to a certain extent -- government can. Parents were generally not giving their children cigarettes, but Camel advertising was shown to have produced an effect on children. Fast food restaurants giving "educational field trips" to elementary schools, as I recall from my own childhood, wasn't an altruistic act of these companies, they were in it for the long-tail. Lets not get started on birthday parties... These companies have been worse than the cigarette companies, showing no shame in their actions. As far as I know, I might be wrong, Camel never gave away children's toys, provided playgrounds, gave tours as elementry-school field-trips, nor had "Joe Camel" themed birthday parties. I doubt Camel ever had a man dress up as Joe Camel, blowing balloons (or smoke rings!) at birthday parties.
this is really aimed at those stupid parents who think macdonalds is high cousine, you know, the really poor ignorant masses who don't know any better
Now I'm NEVER gonna complete my collection!
Hey mods, explain to me what I said in the previous comment that constituted trolling.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Yeah, because deregulating banks worked so well.
I think people need to relax, they're not robbing you of any sort of personal liberty, they're just toning down advertising for products you shouldn't be consuming anyway. It's in the best interest of the whole world.
that Californians are fucking stupid.
Seriously? So a county located in a state makes a law like this, yet it is somehow Obama's fault?
Why not? A vocal minority around here blamed state and local decisions on GWB for the better part of eight years.....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
First, "regulating everything" does not equal "massive government control." In fact, government's first and foremost job is to "regulate everything."
Secondly, that Obama has a philosophy of massive government control is news to me, I haven't seen anything to really indicate that that's the case, care to expand on that?
At least in Sweden you can get carrots, apples, milk, and bread with your happy meal. Combined with a hamburger it's almost healthy.
Creating tons of new cabinet positions, taking over GM, taking over the banking industry, calling for control over health care, etc.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Its purely symbolic, because you cant build in unincorporated land, it becomes automatically incorporated. Basically, its a useless waste of time law with no possible teeth. Remember Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.
I wonder if the people of California could successfully cross the street without their nanny holding their hand.
How is offering toys in happy meals or other fast food meals praying on children when it is the parents buying the food!?! Not to mention what's next? Are they going to take away the play places in all fast food restaurants, because even without the toys my daughter would still want to go to play in the play place! She loves to meet all the kids and play in the tunnels!
Do you want a happy meal for your kid? Suppose you can't cook your way out of a paper bag with a pair of yellow arcs on it (which is most likely the case). Well then, we have a plan for you.
Buy a regular meal.
Buy a toy.
Stir them together until smooth and creamy. (No, not really.)
Mess it forth.
See? Nobody has taken away the joy of happy meal from your kid. Yeah, and walking those 150 yards between McDonalds and Toys"R"Us, or whatever places you usually shop at, is good for you, if not exactly sufficient. Lose some fucking weight already you fat bastard!
That's not Obama's philosophy as much as it is the government's philosophy.
This is Santa Clara County. You know... Silicon Valley. Home of Google and Yahoo! and scads of other Internet companies. Maybe all the googlers and yahoos are out of the loop since they get to eat for free at work.
"It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything." -Homer Simpson
Price plays a factor too, and the truth is, the cheapest foods are often very bad for you. Try feeding yourself on $100/month/person and see what kind of crap you end up eating. Going after the toys misses the fundamental problem entirely. Give some kind of tax break/subsidy to places that sell items with lots of raw produce instead.
This is just the logical extension of the failed War on (Some) Drugs.
There is a war going on for your mind.
People are getting modded down for no good reason. Yesterday I had received -1 Overrated for for 4 comments which had no mods on them already. How can a comment be modded as "Overrated" when it hasn't been rated to begin with? Then when I commented on that, it got modded down -1 Troll x2. Some of them were comments on stories from several days prior. Those were the only mods I had the whole day. -1 x6 for the day, and for no good reason whatsoever. I suspect that somebody, or some group, is specifically targetting me because I posted some opinion that they didn't like. Or maybe I just need a tin foil hat.
There needs to be a forum on /. where we can just discuss problems with /. or the mod system, rather than discussing it in the comments of stories. I can't email the admin account, because I'm not about to send personal email through the company system, and all webmail sites are blocked; and no, I absolutely will not proxy around it and risk losing my job.
Perhaps what I really need to do is just not care if I get modded down. That may be a better long term solution.
I have two kids aged 11 and 9. They both know what McDonald's and BurgerKing is. My kids don't eat it PERIOD. Why? Because as a responsbile parent I never fed them that shit and pointed out all the fat ass bastards with their fat ass kids coming out of those restaurants.
You know what they say. Shit in, shit out.
Parents get out of their kids what they deicded to put into them.
Is your proposition that the dissolution of GM, and the banking industry is preferable to government control? The existing people in control drove those industries into the ground, destroying billions and billions of value. Preventing evildoers and/or idiots from screwing over millions of American citizens is the primary goal of Government. It's right there in the preamble of the Constitution "promote the general Welfare.".
According to the Yahoo! article, Supervisor Liz Kniss said:
"With this kind of ordinance it is really difficult to be first," said Kniss, who voted in favor of the ban. "It is easy to say that we as parents should make the decision but kids can be so persuasive."
So because parents don't want to be the "bad buy" and make their kids unhappy, we loose a little bit of freedom. Maybe these parents need to learn the word "no" and stop relying on the state.
The six year old receives public school instruction about inappropriate touching and who to call if it happens (generally, 911, which leads to CPS).
The smart six year old threatens his parents with such a call and claim if they DON'T do as he asks.
Add over-zealous persecution to make quotas, and you find that many parents live in fear of their children. In many cases, the mere accusation is enough to destroy a career, and defending against even an "obviously" baseless charge is very expensive: at the very least bail for accused child molestors is generally set very high.
Are you going to wager your liberty and everything you own that the CPS worker assigned to investigate you is reasonable?
Remember, if a worker makes a mistake, and a "bad thing" happens, they get crucified. But, they generally have immunity from prosecution, if they err zealously on the side of caution.
In Liberty, Rene
As a parent who has been forced to purchase a ridiculous quantity of happy meals I am delighted by this ban but not because I am afraid of my kids getting obese. Our house is full of these stupid things: plastic aliens that play one bar of a tune when you twist their ears, toy cars that glow when you push them backwards, tiny dolls that spin when you touch them with a magnetic wand. All of them are really cleverly designed and very well made but without exception they have zero play value. This is way too systematic to be sheer chance. I am convinced that MacDonalds specification for these things contains a design requirement that the kid must get bored with the toy after 10 minutes or when they have finished their happy meal whichever comes sooner.
Seriously, when the f*ck the healthful become a word, let alone unhealthful. What was so wrong with healthy?
Deduct the price of the toy from the happy meal (which they'll do anyway) then make the toy available for the difference.
Uh, wrong.
Unincorporated land in a California county only becomes incorporated when a new city is created including the land at issue, or when land at issue is annexed to a city; either of which requires action by the county's Local Agency Formation Commission, and neither of which is a prerequisite for building on the land.
I think it's pretty clear that a large number of folks out there are barely able to clean their butts adequately on a day-to-day basis. Unfortunately, they drive, vote AND reproduce. The reality is that the under 100 IQ crowd probably isn't able to run its own life and does need regulation to avoid hurting themselves.
What we need to do (collectively) is decide whether we want to help them, or let them kill themselves off and do it in a way that doesn't inconvenience others (driving, voting, reproducing).
I doubt if we'll ever have the guts to do so.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Why Not nip it in the bud and just ban people in california from reproducing? I mean if they cannot take responsibility as a parent and make their kids eat healthy, then should they even be able to raise a child? I was raised on deep south food as a kid(having lived in all parts of TN, New orleans, and to some extent St Louis), But I'm fit and trim as anyone else in my age group is. Why? Because after all those DELICIOUS meals I worked off the weight, because my parents had the sense to make me do chores and exercise. It isn't the corporations, Nor is it the states problem if your lil timmy is 200 pounds, it lies solely with the parents who raised him, set boundaries, turn off the television(OMG but its so haaaard), It IS possible, I went without a television for 6 years as a kid(from 7 till i was 13), and let me tell you what those were the best years of my childhood.So Yeah, My statement still stands, Ban californians from reproducing, Problem solved(special permits to be issued to parents who pass an IQ test).
Uh, yeah right - otherwise, if not for the toys, these parents would have gone home and prepared a balanced, sensible meal for their child, but because a hot wheels car is offered, they feed their kids happy meals...
One kid?! He's extrapolating a pattern across the county based on one 5 year-old?
Ken
Government's job is most certainly NOT to regulate everything. Government sucks at everything except what it is supposed to do. Namely, provide for defense, international relations, a just court system and coining money. Come to think of it they suck at those things too.
If you're actually going to legislate things so that people buy healthy food do this:
Fix prices so that HEALTHY FOOD is as CHEAP as BAD FOOD
or vice versa.
McDonalds et al. is able to sell effectively because of their huge marketing engine and ability to leverage factory-style production methods to produce food. Often this food is low quality and cheap and terrible.
The obvious answer is to offer subsidies to families/grocers/restaurants to allow them to compete with these outlets at price. You'll never be successful at asking people to increase their food budget to buy healthy meals. You will be successful at making the choice between a healthy sandwich and a burger a matter of taste rather than price/quantity. If people choose to be unhealthy when it comes down to a matter of taste and choice...then quite frankly it's not your business anymore, is it?
Why I normally want the government to stay out of my life, I actually agree with this. Anything that helps break the cycle of unhealthy food choices in this country is a good thing. The toys are in the meals for one reason, marketing has shown that it helps sell more food, so lets take away the toys. And yes there are a large number of parents who are to stupid/lazy to put limitation in place on there kids and there food intake, and unfortunately we need to have the government step in and protect their children. Some interesting figures from the Trust for America's Health (TFAH), in 2009 California had 30.5% of the children classified as obese or overweight. http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity2009/
I think we can all agree that health issues cost us all a lot of money not to mention what it is doing to these children physically, and if we can get even a few healthier kids by taking away some stupid plastic toys lets do it.
The government owns and is ultimately responsible for several major corporations now. Obama was calling for the heads of specific CEOs.
Don't get me wrong, those companies did run themsleves into the ground. But when the government owns and controls corporations, that is an increase in government control.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
"The Government has spent billions of dollars educating Americans about better food, and we've gotten fatter and dumber as a result."
I personally think that it was the billions of Government dollars spent on dropping bombs and killing people that lead to us growing fatter and dumber.
Why didn't the legislators go after the low-ball prices on the Happy Meals, pricing the food & toy packages under cost to attract low-income families to try and save some money by buying lower-cost meals for their children? They are, in effect, forcing lower-income families to feed their kids this unhealthy food because it is cheaper than the healthy food...
They should ban all discounted children's meals unless the restaurant serves only healthy foods in their discounted children's meals...
Then again, why not just ban the fast food resturants, since we'll al be on public healthcare soon enough, why should I subsidise your excessive healthcare costs because you are overly fond of bacon cheese burgers?
I am, of course, being sarcastic - the nanny state isn't against free-choice, they are for limiting the choices you can select from - that's entirely different...
Ken
Thank you, Santa Clara, for taking some heat off Arizona (even if only momentarily) in the stupid legislation department!
ON DELETE CASCADE
How about baning parents from sending their kids to Catholic schools?
You have to understand the purpose of moderation which is to make sure that those who share popular views aren't exposed to arguments that might undermine their fragile beliefs.
BTW, I disagree with your point, but have no desire to see it hidden behind the moderation baby barrier.
Speaking of banning toys "packaged" with food, who here knows what Kinder Eggs are? All my European friends, raise your hands. They're the hollow chocolate eggs with a plastic pellet inside that contains a toy. The best part about the toy is that you usually have to put it together, like a GI Joe vehicle. They're very popular in Europe, and have been for decades. However, despite the fact that the packaging explicitly states, in serveral language, that they are not suitable for children under 3 years of age, they are banned in the US because they're a choking hazard. The other reason is that the toy is inedible, and not allowed to be completely enclosed within a food item. The law that is applied in this case was created to outlaw placing rocks, razors, or other hazards within processed foods, with the intent to cause harm.
Government's job is to regulate everything?
You couldn't be more wrong.
I see McDonalds taking a lot of flak from people here. Just thought I'd point out that the food there isn't necessarily bad for you. My favorite meal is a McChicken, Fruit & Walnut Salad, Yougurt, and Diet Dr. Pepper. Lets compare that to equivalent menu items (kids turkey sandwhich, fuit cup, yogurt, and diet drink) from Panera Bread Co
McDonalds: 700 Calories (240 from fat. No trans fat), 960mg sodium, 48g sugar. $4.70
Panera: 650 calories (190 from fat. No trans fat), 1270 sodium, 45g sugar. $12 (estimated)
really about the same. I eat there quite a bit and am fit as a fiddle because I choose sensible options when I'm there, don't eat there every day, and exercise regularly.
Admittedly, if you decide to pound down a large big mac combo (sandwhich, drink, and fries) and treat yourself to a McFlurry, you're going to have 1910 calories (630 from fat, 2.5g trans fat), 1660mg sodium, and 167g sugar which is pretty much 100% of your daily allotment of all of those. But I don't see McDonald's being at fault if you want to over eat.
Hikery.net - The best hiking site ever. Made by yours truly.
It's interesting how many people here are discussing whether this is a good law(ordinance, ruling) or not based on whether the food in question is healthy or not, or whether such a choice should be left to parents.
No one seems to notice that the really scary thing happening here is that the government is using its power to control free choice under cover of doing something "for the good of all" based on one small group of people's views on things they have no expertise in.. nutrition, child behavior, or even parenting skills.
Few people would disagree with the general statement that "McDonalds' food is unhealthy", vague as it is. A better statement would be that "McDonalds food contains large amounts of undesirable food substances, and consumption should be limited to benefit health" or maybe even "Don't feed your kids Big Macs every day, they'll get too much fat and cholesterol".
The problem here is that the government is essentially accepting as fact that A) McDonalds food should not be eaten by children B) That inclusion of toys in happy meals encourages children to eat there, even though their parents make the ultimate decision, and C) That it's the government's responsibility to protect those children from their parents' choices.
The government here is supporting one corporation (McDonalds) less than another (all other restaurants without toys). If this doesn't tick you off as much as Halliburton getting no-bid contracts, it should.
It doesn't matter if the idea behind the ruling was a good or bad one... actually, it wouldn't matter if McDonalds was serving carcinogenic hamburgers. The government, any government at any level, needs to abandon the idea that it "knows better" and keep its hands off its citizens... the people it's supposed to be serving, not herding. If the experts within the government (FDA) decide that food is harmful, they have the authority to stop its sale, explicitly granted them by the people of this country. If a state, county, or town representative disagrees, tough luck. It's none of their business, and they have no more right to try to control those things than any other citizen.
Erik
By essentially rejecting self-determination they are asking for an increasingly oppressive government. This is the consequence of an entitlement culture which apparently is unwilling to deal with life's responsibilities and instead turns to the government to alleviate the difficulties of life. The government regulating what we can do is a logical extension of this. If they're going to be providing more and more services it's only logical they start resorting to these measures from both economic and social standpoints. Politicians have grown increasingly arrogant, seeing themselves as society's caretakers.
The negative mod categories are Troll, Flamebait, Offtopic, Redundant, and Overrated. Someone who's just being a dumbass isn't really trolling or off topic, so unless they're repeating someone else's point (Redundant) Overrated is used to bury it. Edit your view settings if you disagree with it.
Do you ever go home?
Healthfood sucks. Seriously. I lived in Japan for a year. I could eat whatever I wanted, whenever I wanted, and as much as I wanted. and I still lost weight. American junk food has to be some of the grossest, fattening food on the planet (and the most delicious, but that's another story). Sure, I would like to eat healthily, though, like I did in Japan, but what options does that give me? I can eat a salad..... or a different salad. I can go to a restaurant with a menu of salads. I suppose there are sandwiches, too. So now we're up to two choices when I want to eat healthy.
In Japan, nearly everything is healthier and lighter than its American equivalent, including the fried food. There are terribly unhealthy choices, too, but there are as many ways to eat reasonably healthy food over there as there are types of fast food in America. Americans do not have an aversion to health food, they have an aversion to eating the same shitty, expensive health food every day.
Signed,
Everyone outside of the East and West Coasts that doesn't have delicious, cheap, and many varieties of healthy or moderately-healthy food.
And how is it that you have the intelligence and time to teach your children but others don't? What makes you so special?
I'm right there with you the responsibilities of "parenting", but you too easily conclude that "parenting" and "legislation" are interchangeable. Parents that abdicate responsibility to the state are no longer parents, they are merely sponsors of underdeveloped citizens...
Ken
Someone who's just being a dumbass isn't really trolling or off topic, so unless they're repeating someone else's point (Redundant) Overrated is used to bury it.
I would say that it actually falls under Troll, but that's my opinion. I see your point of view. I still wonder why I would get -1 Overrated x4 in a day, on comments that didn't have any previous mod, and have no other mods the whole day (other than the -1 Troll x2 for saying that getting -1 Overrated on an unrated comment makes no sense).
Edit your view settings if you disagree with it.
I may be a bit dense, but after spending significant time searching everywhere I can think of, I have yet to find that setting. Please, point me in a more specific direction, because I'd really like to know where it is.
Do you ever go home?
Yeah, but by the time I get home, /. seems a lot less important, and it just isn't worth the effort. I wonder if that's more of a commentary about /., my home life, or work. Perhaps I should ponder that.
Obviously someone thought you were being deliberately dense. The obvious conclusion that you should have drawn was the serving terribly unhealthy food was the "taking advantage" part, banning the toy is just the kick to the pants to make them change.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
unconstitutional
-adjective
not constitutional; unauthorized by or inconsistent with the constitution, as of a country.
If I were the owner of a fast food restaurant in Santa Clara County I'd try to close down my business and let the people of Santa Clara lose jobs over it.
You can't do anything like that though because you'd be out so much money, both past and future.
TFA says "County officials vote to ban toys and other promotions that restaurants offer with high-calorie children’s meals."
What I would do if the law actually read that way is just say "Free toy with any meal purchase." Let adults and kids have them regardless of what they order.
...craving a double cheeseburger right about now?
Not to defend a nanny law or anything, but they're not banning *selling* toys in fast food resturants. What they're doing is decoupling sales of unhealthy food from sales of toys and other attractants. Let's say your happy meal costs 3 dollars. Some of that cost is coming from the food, and some is coming from the toy. The fast food restaurant puts them together because they know kids really want the toy, and while the parents won't randomly buy them a toy they do have to buy them dinner. The toy is a tool to manipulate parents to buying their kids this food.
The county says that within their borders, they don't want that toy to be used as a lever to get parents to buy the whole package. Sell them separately. Or just sell the happy meal without the toy. If the parent wants to get them the food, that's fine. If the parent wants to get them the toy, that's fine. But no forcing the parent to buy their kid unhealthy food just to get them to shut up about a toy. The parent can choose what parts they want to buy. Or the restaurants will decide they don't really want to be in the market of selling toys. That is their choice.
There are other areas where it is in the public interest to decouple unrelated services or products from eachother. Toys and Food are not related to eachother, and doing so in this way is a form of heavy handed market manipulation. I hate nanny rules, and California has made me face plant more and more often these days. But forcing restaurants to sell food on the value of the food, and toys on the value of the toy, actually kind of makes sense. I'm glad someone is experimenting in this area, and I look forward to seeing (from the east coast) how it turns out.
The ______ Agenda
Yeah, but by the time I get home, /. seems a lot less important, and it just isn't worth the effort
Looks like you just answered your own question.
In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children. -- POSIX Programmer's Guide
But the slippery slope runs the other direction too... Without the government regulating corporate behavior, they'll take any advantage they can.
If we weren't talking fast food and inculcating the habit of eating high calorie meals with low nutritional content - I'd be among the first to agree with you. But to take 'food' as a single category without distinction is dangerous. Food offers nourishment and is required to live, granted, but fast food shortens that life and profits only the corporation in the long run. Not that I'm a 'pure food no mega corp' hardliner mind you - I just don't care for the fast food companies and their predatory practices. The product they peddle offers little benefit and poses severe health risks over the long term, just like alcohol and tobacco. And similarly they should be restricted from marketing to children.
why don't we require a license to be a parent? You know, not everyone who is a parent did so by choice, or has the slightest clue (or motivation) how to go about it. There's intense social pressure to be a good parent, but damn little support when you're not rich. McDonald's is dirt cheap. There's a British TV Chef who came over here with the state goal of making Americans eat healthier. He broke down in Tears on the Conan O'brian show (maybe it was Leno) when the host pointed out Americans eat like crap because that's all they can afford. I've been trying to eat healthy, but I'm running out of money. I'm going to have to go back to crap too...
I wonder if they will have to stop giving out crayons at Dennys and other places for kids. I know that makes me want to eat there. I suggest that there is little that you can purchase at most chain restaurants that would fall in a menu plan put out by a dietician. I suggest they should tax the meals $50 each if they do not come up to good health standards and maybe people will eat at home. Of course then they will just pop out some boxed dinner which may be even worse.
Why not the entire series where both parents fail to parent at any time. And the viewers of that show have mistaken a parody/satire of bad families as a rolemodel. Homer is NOT a guide, he is a warning.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Change the toy policy -- any meal valued at more than (say) $5 gets a toy on request (subject to stock on hand) at some nominal charge. It doesn't matter if the food is for the parent or the kid. This decouples the toy from the McFood as the county board desires, but the parents and kids still get what THEY want.
Jack in the Box will give out their antenna balls to anyone that asks, but that's near-free advertising.
Mal-2
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
It is argued that both communism and capitalism relies on the goodness of people. In communism, the people must be good so they work hard regardless of lack of financial reward. In capitalism people must be good, so that the wealth of a few is not abused to the point the have nots have nothing whatsoever including freedom.
The people who believe in personal responsibility dream that people will handle their responsibility responsible. The people who believe in government regulation, believe the government will handle the responsibilities responsible.
If there was no speed limit, people would drive 200 miles per hour accross a school play ground and the fining speeders is at the same time a good source of income while the government does nothing to actually stop the speeding (by removing the speeders from the roads, preverably in my personal opinion by using the in accident simulations).
Meanwhile moderate people are caught between a rock and a hard place. Must you sit in between smokers who give others cancer for their addiction or ban all smoking everywhere because else no smoker will consider anyone else around them?
there simply is no balanced answer. People suck at living in a modern world were everything is possible but lots can't be done because there is no space in a million+ city.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
It's not exposed in the shitty new web 2.0 configuration panel, so you have to know the trick. When you click the comment view options, open it in a new window instead of letting the little floating dialog open. All of the real options pages have more options than you can see otherwise.
She gets to pick on her birthday where she wants to go, it's always there. TBH, I did it twice this year, she spent an evening in the ER starving and very ill, she kept asking to eat and her mother promised McD's when it was all over, so against my preferences, I got her some chicken nuggets and fries.
I'm all for personal responsibility, but this one isn't so clear cut. The only reason she wants to go to McDonald's is that she's bombarded with ads. I don't mind her watching some cartoons, but if you want a lesson in how effective advertising is, listen to an eight year old after watching some ads on Cartoon Network (she even thinks Bendaroos rock, I keep telling her they suck).
Now you have a kid, who is told that food can make you very sick if you eat it often each and every time she asks for it, yet she wants it constantly, cause the ads make it look fun (the toy is only part of that). I suspect this is fairly common. I don't think my kid needs to be a social pariah and never watch anything on TV, but this is something that comes with it and it kind of sucks. These companies' ads very much do prey on children. Maybe we only gave in an extra time when she was very, very sick, but someone else might give in just because the child is having a tough time with a divorce, new school, etc.
Overall, I don't need this to keep my kid off McD's most of the time, but I can see how it's a hassle for many parents and some may actually benefit from this. Or, if it's all about personal responsibility I say the cigarette companies start showing ads with Joe Camel smoking on tv again...
Truth be told, I just see this as a law not limiting it's citizens, but a major corporation from screwing with our kids minds, and making them want something I consider maybe borderline food. It's not like you're forbidden from getting little Johnny, or Suzie a cheap piece of 99 cents toy if you still feel like it.
As a parent who has been forced to purchase a ridiculous quantity of happy meals I am delighted by this
I wonder how your child forces you to buy happy meals? Did you give him a Glock for his birthday? Does he threaten to burn down your home if he doesn't get that happy meal? Before you ask - yes, I don't have kids. But I'm able to repeatedly say no when I used to get those telemarketing calls. Why can't parents do the same with their kids?
This thread is filled with 100% grade A stupid.
I can't believe there are people here making the "corporate exploitation" argument. We aren't talking about corporations working children nearly to death on 15 hour jobs, you fucking liberal nutjobs - we are talking about a TOY.
Little Johnny isn't going to die because he ate McDonald's. He isn't going to lose an arm. And acting like he is by throwing up some ridiculous strawman ("But he will learn to like unhealthy food, and keep eating it, and die of heart disease by the time he is 30!") is completely disingenous.
There are times with the libertarian "personal responsibility" argument goes way too far, and we've seen alot of those times recently. This IS NOT ONE OF THEM.
Regulating shit as stupid as this makes ACTUAL, IMPORTANT regulation difficult. Wondering why we aren't getting useful climate change or banking regulations? It's because governments are wasting too much fucking time trying to figure out how to regulate fast food and video games.
But go ahead and fiddle while Rome burns. Hey, we might live in an economically devastated and enviromentally ruined country, but at least little Johnny isn't playing GTA and eating a Big Mac!
"kinda blatantly biased propaganda"???
That movie was a total joke. It was an out right lie. It's real simple. They were trying to claim that eating McDonald's for a month was making his liver fail? Seriously? There are only two explanations for that claim. 1) He was already seriously ill when he started, or 2) His illness was faked.
Given that I personally heard him admit to faking scenes in his TV show, and claiming that it was his right to do so, I would put my money on it being a fake. Super Size Me was a completely blatant lie, and it is sad that there are people naive enough to believe it. Of course, it's hip to hate McDonald's, so it doesn't surprise me that people do.
This is actually a great idea.
Screw all the people who rant about over legislating. Kids want toys! If it wasnt for toys then kids wouldnt be hooked on this shit food.
It is so simple its brilliant.
...Gulag Meal bans YOU!!!
Why don't they make a law that would really make a difference. Ban fat women from buying tight streach pants, bikinis, and short t-shirts. Limit their clothing choices to the camping department (tents, etc).
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Basically, this is the same type of bullshit that makes the entire state democrats.. NO NEED FOR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
How about this, parents, don't take your kids to McDonalds? How's that sound?
California is a joke; between Boxer, Feinstein, Arnold, and Obama.. why bother needing to do anything? Sit on your fat ass, do nothing, ask for government dole, and don't take responsibility.
This country has become a pathetic excuse filled with whiners who take no personal responsibility.
What is worse, not only is lack of personal responsibility ok, it's encouraged by our president. 50% of Americans tow the cart while the other 50% sit in it. Obama thinks thats ok.
Remind me again why I left that state? Oh that's right, I don't want to work my ass off and receive nothing, while everybody else is unemployed and the government is paying them to be.
So you suppose it's a lie that anyone living on a deskjob sallary for 12 hours a day having only a 3000 calorie high saturated-fat lunch can be metabolized with a mere 15 minutes of labor at the end of the day with account of a fair breakfast and dinner in tow. Well, perhaps if it was a diet-soda beverage with that excellent nervous-system stimulator Aspartame, hold the dressing and cheese from the burger, stave-away the ketchup from fries, maybe we can lower the energy consumption, but then I needed that energy-drink around 1pm to give me that extra 4-hour boost. Yes, that's it: I need a 4-hour boost to survive me of this labor-intensive deskjob to reach my dinner and television-couch.
What do you think, Belial6? *BEEP*BEEP*BEEP*BEEP*BEEP*
It's obviously not about the food, it's a metabolic disorder. I've seen many flat-chested construction workers with flat-chests that can outperform those lazy big-bellied basketball players eating the same foods they advertise. Yep, it all has to do with workload. Can the McDonald's diet work for you, it all depends on your activity leel.
What do you think, Belial6? *BEEP*BEEP*BEEP*BEEP*BEEP*
Vote these officials out.
I mean wtf, come on.
We have big problems in America, and officials have time to regulate fricking toys?
What about the HFCS crap in the FOOD for god sakes!? OR Sodium.
They're dealing with fucking toys while our monetary system is going to shit.
how many people can't tell the difference between individual liberty and corporate liberty. A corporation is not a person.
No one is preventing you as an individual from buying fast food nor preventing you from buying toys and if you really wanted your kid to have both you are still free to do so.
The foods the toys sold with are neither healthy nor unhealthy.
It's overall diets that are healthy or unhealthy.
Also, it is healthy to eat something with a large number of calories sometimes, as in on rare occasion, just with exercise, and not frequently.
It is not good to keep kids away from common food items, it may result in them indulging in them later in life, because they were 'forbidden fruit'
The California county's policy is fundamentally unhealthy, from a balanced diet point of view.
People who live happier lives, because they can enjoy themselves from time to time, with a tasty [but greasy salty] burger, or what have you, are better off for it.
Probably because a single mod wanted to mod you down for something they already posted to, so instead, they burned their points modding you down elsewhere. And overrated is not subject to metamod under the old rules, so it's done so it doesn't have metamoderators looking at the mods, but those rules have changed.
The New York times has a quote from the board president, Ken Yeager, saying “Why would a kid say ‘I want a burger with fries’? It’s the toys that they want.” I'm wondering how out of touch you have to be if you're asking why a kid would say they want a burger and fries. They're not going to ask for a salad regardless of how much you legislate things.
It's only logical that McDonalds focuses its advertising on children considering the fact that they have already cornered the adult burger market.
Is this even legal?
http://www.aeforum.org/reg_env/italy.html
Italian law states that children under 14 must not be used in TV commercials or promotions. Advertising restrictions to children have been introduced elsewhere, including Sweden,. Norway, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, Malaysia and Ireland.
The corporations only have the rights we grant them. All these protective laws will need to be updated to account for Internet TV.
The stupid and lazy are easily manipulated and that manipulation can cause harm to all the rest of society - it IS our duty to protect them from themselves, just the same way as we FORCE people to wear seatbelts in cars.
Here in Switzerland, you're legally obliged to have basic health insurance, and this is often subsidised by the gummint if you're hard up. It's good - it keeps overall costs down if everyone has instant access to medical assistance.
Three cheers for Santa Clara County's officials having the balls to stand up against the advertising "industry" - aka. blood-sucking parasites.
I'm no mod, but it was a silly comment. Of course the fast food companies are taking advantage - that's capitalism. They're taking advantage of a demand - it doesn't matter whether demand for Happy Meals didn't exist before McDonalds, it just matters that there is demand for them now which McDonalds takes advantage of to make money. Is that so difficult to understand?
When your kids get older are you going to be in favor of a ban on alcohol as well?
Well, no of course not. They will be adults.
/. so far. neither do the parents.
.. oh wait- you're all fatty American /. tubolards (no children) in mom's basement, with a poster of Ol' Ronald and Batman above your Macintosh.
To extend your argument- if we sell 'em sugar-fried cholesterol chocolate-cereal bombs, why not hook the kiddies on alcohol, cigarettes and cocaine also?
They're kids, fer chrissake!
They do not know the difference between Ronaldbugers, cocaine or nicotine.
And it seems, from what I've seen on
It's weird- I'm a Canadian, and the moment I cross the border, (HONEST!) the weight of the average porker I see goes up immensely!
And it's not just my imagination. Many other Canadians have observed this disturbing phenomenon also.
god knows what Europeans and Asian see..!
Haven't you realized this yet? YOU AMERICANS ARE FAT. YOU ARE GROSS!
.
- aqk
F U
How can you disagree with his point? He said:
I wasn't aware that including a toy with a meal was "taking advantage"
It's very hard to understand how one can possibly disagree with what he said.
> Creating tons of new cabinet positions
Oh? The President's cabinet still includes the VP, 15 executive positions, and a few others with the same status (EPA administrator, White House Chief of Staff, UN Ambassador, etc.) (source: whitehouse.gov).
> taking over GM
Yeah, which was probably a good move considering our tanking economy and the reliance big chunks of our country have on that single company. And just recently GM paid the US taxpayers back in full, with interest.
> taking over the banking industry
This is clearly hyperbole: the banking industry was headed for the shitter (and was taking our economy with it) so the gov't. bailed them out; it certainly did not *take over* the banking industry. Sure, the bailout was ugly and even liberals like me hated it, but it seemed like the right move at the time and our economy is much better off. Since that time, even people like Greenspan have admitted that the economy needs more regulation because free market forces don't seem to provide enough protection from things like banks selling junk bonds and such.
> calling for control over health care
I'm sick of the "socialism" mantra poisoning the well of healthcare reform. The bill that just passed (among other things) prevents healthcare companies from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions, extends the age of coverage to 26 (I think) for children of people with health plans, and provides tax breaks to small businesses who provide coverage to employees. These are very reasonable controls on an industry that provides an essential service to Americans. Should we let a profit-driven free market sort out how to take care of people? I think that's unwise and the system needs regulation; I'm pleased we just got some.
>, etc.
Should I just refer to the standard teabagger's set of talking points for the rest of your list?
There are going to ban the toy, but keep the food? Wouldn't banning the food and keeping the toy make more sense?
I too do not like my kids to eat unhealthful food. It's very badful.
as long as you allow every idiot to have children - laws are the only way to try and reign them in.
Good for California.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
In an ideal world my kids would never eat junk food and always eat their fresh green vegetables. They would never sulk or cry or act selfishly. They wouldn't fight with their siblings and they would never watch TV or play video games when the Sun is shining outside. They would head off to bed at 8pm sharp without a word of dissent. In an ideal world they would obey me instantly in all things and always respect my judgement as their father.
Unfortunately in this real world that we live in being a parent is a bit like being a politician. You have to pick your battles. Sometimes you have to compromise and sometimes you have to hold the line. Most of the time you are never quite sure where the line even is.
Actually, do you know what? That is not so unfortunate at all. When I look at my beautiful kids with all their individual foibles and eccentricities I realise just how lucky I am. They have turned out to be really great kids and terrific unique individuals. I love them more than life itself. I would not raise them any other way.
Did anybody else read that as Santa Claus banning toys?...
What writer Donald Hall said about writing applies here as well "context is all".
Won't taking the toys away just give the kids less incentive to play and BURN OFF THE CALORIES?
MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
I can't stand people who on one hand want to restrict you but on the other want personal freedom. How is this any different than the right wing trying to tell you what to do. Is it ok for the government to tell people how to live their lives as long as you agree with it? So you can't feed your kids fast food but you can get an abortion? I am pro choice but that includes the choice to raise my kids as I see fit as long as I am not abusing them. I really want others to just butt out of my business. You can't force people to have kids or to eat healthy. I give you a prime example. Got to your local elementary school and check out the "Healthy" lunches they are trying to get kids to eat. Watch the kids throw out the veggies, 1% milk, and other healthy options. I watch tray after tray full of food thrown away because they are not going to eat it. They will go hungry first. There is nothing the government can do to make people be healthier. They could close all restaurants and people would still eat bad food at home. Lets ban computers,video games, and TV for everyone! They contribute to everyones obesity as much as fast food. Lets ban lights as well so that way we will all get the proper amount of sleep since staying up late in the dark is just no fun. We can ban cars so people will walk more. Heck if kids had to walk 2 or 3 miles to and from school each day they would be a lot more healthier. Where do we stop? Probably at the point where something you like is banned.