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.
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.
Why? It seems like a damn good idea to me.
Ob: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jamie_oliver.html
No sig today...
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???
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!
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.
How does banning toys in Happy Meals follow along with what Jamie Oliver is doing? Is there some provision to actually educate anyone?
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
before it's illegal to have a dick in this state.
Yes, legislating behavior is an awesome deal.
Lets ban drugs, alcohol, sodium, and internet usage as well.
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.
Simple: "It's a start".
Rewarding kids with toys because they go to McDonalds isn't helping the educational process.
No sig today...
First, let me say this. I'm totally on board with Jamie Oliver, love what the guy is trying to do, etc etc. I think his "revolution" show is only vaguely based on the reality of the people he's covering, but he's gotta sell ads for his network so he can keep buying food for his family, and it doesn't detract from the good that such a revolution could do.
Having said all that... Here's a tip: If the kid never learns that McDonald's meals come with toys, the toys cannot be used to sell the food.
But the shitty plastic toys are as bad for brain development as the shitty fatty food is for body development. And the shitty mind pablum TV that the shitty food and the shitty toys are advertised on is even worse.
Stay away from the King, the Clown, and the young girl with the red pigtails. There is absolutely nothing inside those four walls that your kid needs, or that is in any way good for your kid.
We don't need laws against using plastic crap to sell crap food. We need to make good healthy food as affordable as crap food, and show people how easy it is to feed it to their kids. We need to get rid of the plastic crap and go back to durable toys that last and foster imagination and free play. We don't need our congresscritters to pass "Save the Children" laws to do this for us, because those almost always backfire.
(Example from the show: like making Jamie take his pasta-and-vegetables off the food line because it didn't have enough vegetables, then stating that french fries DO count as a full vegetable when it was replaced with prepared crap).
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
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
At least some politician has done *something*.
It's a start...
No sig today...
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!
sweet, how about next we start locking up random people on the street! or mandating no TV broadcasts on thursdays!
i mean, its *something*
Lets ban drugs, alcohol, sodium, and internet usage as well.
We've already banned #1 and tried to ban #2. Politicians are hard at work on #3. Don't give them any ideas regarding #4.....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
... 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
Better to eat the toy, than the so called food.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
Naw, let them ban legal drugs, like caffeine. And since it's bad for you, HFCS, fat, driving, water, etc.
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.***
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.
Now I'm NEVER gonna complete my collection!
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?
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!
The problem with that is portion control. We give my daughter a small portion of meat and the main meal, and the portion of fresh vegetables she needs to eat for the meal. When she's done eating everything she's given in the first round, we know she's eaten a healthy meal and she can have seconds of whatever she likes. If she's not hungry enough to finish the meal, she's at least had a decent amount of vegetables.
As often as not, she wants more vegetables, or a portion of everything. But if she wants more meat or bread, we at least know she's had a healthy portion of the stuff she needs to be eating.
We eat the same way ourselves. Vegetables first, maybe with a small portion of whatever the main meal is, then we can have seconds of whatever we want.
But it's tough for some parents to understand that kids have smaller stomachs and burn off lots of calories, so they won't eat a lot at mealtime but they NEED to snack a lot. Healthy snacks are incredibly important.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
That's not Obama's philosophy as much as it is the government's philosophy.
Right you keep posting that it is a start. I don't deny that but you linked to Jamie Oliver. He starts by trying to educate kids about food, and where the differences between healthy and not lie. He promotes preparing your own food, from fresh ingredients, so you know what goes in it. He also helps kids understand which ingredients are high in calories and which aren't.
Where is any of that in this toy ban? Here is where Santa Clara county was in 2005 with respect to applying nutritional guidelines to vending machines. The first bullet point under 'lessons learned' is about the challenge of explaining nutritional standards to the public. What advancement has been made in the 5 years since other than advancing to banning new things.
Mercury News links to the nutritional guidelines that will be used. So a meal with more than 485 total calories or more than 600 milligrams of sodium can't include a toy. Why 485 and 600?
At some point we'll have to demand actual accomplishments from people rather than letting them get off to good starts over and over.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
New flash. The above sell what people want to buy.
Starbucks proves that coffee can sell at a premium. McD's starts selling coffee.
If you don't buy it, they don't sell it. Good food is just as cheap as fast food. You just have to work harder to get it, because it doesn't sell as well. Deal.
There are lots of things that you can do to help kids not be so fat.
1. Go to the local Boys and Girls club. Spend some time trying to volunteer or helping with events.
2. Talk to your local swim club, wrestling club, runner's club, soccer club, t-ball club, pop warner league about their outreach. Spend time with them recruiting kids, doing expositions, or donate cash to sponsor low-income kids or teams.
3. Boys Scouts, Girls Scouts, Explorers etc are always looking for speakers, demonstrations, or leaders.
The problem (as I see it) is that a great many people spend a lot of time bitching about the status quo and saying choice things like "There oughta be a law." when it is far more effective for you to get off your ass. This also helps the overall fatty to not-so-fatty ratio.
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
We need to make good healthy food as affordable as crap food,
It is man, it is cheaper. Go to Costco sometime and check out how many hamburger patties you can buy for the price of a big mac. It's depressing. A bowl of oatmeal takes five minutes to cook yourself in a microwave and you can get a big cylinder of it for $3USD. Fruits and vegetables are a bit more expensive, but still cheaper than McDonald's. Get some chicken, rice, onions, and green beans; make a soup and you can feed a family for the price of a single meal at McDonald's. Eating good food for a low price is not difficult. It just takes a little bit of knowledge.
Qxe4
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.
The girl with the red pigtails isn't affected by this new law. That should tell you how shitty the food at the other two places are for you.
There is a war going on for your mind.
no government can force a company to change its standard business practices.
I'd like to buy some of whatever the fuck it is you are smoking, cause it must be really, really good.
There is a war going on for your mind.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ballon
Your kids picked restaurants that had graceful movements that made them look buoyant?
Where do they build restaurants that move like this? I've only ever seen buildings that just sit there and do nothing but shelter the same patch of ground from the rain day in and day out.
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
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
mandating no TV broadcasts on thursdays!
Change that to "any day ending in 'y'" and it's a good start. :)
Seriously, I'd be totally on board with a total ban on children's television, except for a few teensy pesky facts:
1. Businesses are, in general, smarter than the government. If such a ban were to be passed, it would be a waste of effort.
2. Not everyone is on board with the whole "television bad for young brains" thing. So this would be a government mandate that parents would simply find a way around, and the result would be probably even more harmful.
Banning plastic toys is going to have a simple workaround for parents who want their kids to eat fast food unhealthy crap but whose kids also want the plastic crappy toys based on the repetitive imagination-destroying movie they just watched.
The parents will take the kids to the restaurant, feed them the crap, then go to the dollar store and buy them the toy.
If you think the food is bad, ban the food. Better yet, educate the parents on why the food is bad.
Kill your television. That's probably good for $100 a month. Take half that money and spend it on quality toys, and the other half and buy the ingredients for a really good meal once or twice a week. Take some of the TV time you've saved, get your kids in the kitchen, and make a mess making a great meal together out of fresh, tasty ingredients.
Don't ask the government to do anything. They aren't good at stuff like this. They are good at defending you from threats. They are good at ensuring your food and water supplies are safe. They are good at maintaining the roads, the sewage system, the communication system, and other important infrastructure. They are good at keeping people handy in case you have a fire or someone is breaking in to your house. They are usually pretty OK at providing a decent education to your kids. Recent events aside, they are even usually somewhat adequate at protecting you from being cheated by your bank or businesses.
They suck at parenting. It's far too personal and complex for a blanket law to even start to help.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
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.
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.
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.
Our president smokes. What kind of message does that send to kids?
Fuck politicians.
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?
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.
Wendy's kids meals have toys.
http://www.wendys.com/kids_meal/index.jsp
"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
He's trying to say that the greaseburgers at Wendy's aren't bad enough for you to get Wendy's on the list of places that can't advertise with toys.
Interestingly enough, the article has a comment that says the school lunches are worse than McDonald's food. Brilliant.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Better yet, let your child know that the toys that come in McDonald's and other fast food restaurants are cheaply made garbage and they'd be better off saving up for the much better (though perhaps more expensive than a Happy Meal) toys in Target, Toys R Us, etc. Add in about how the food is awful for you (ok, for once in awhile but you shouldn't make it a habit) and you'll steer them towards good choices both in toy selection and (more importantly) food selection.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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.
Yeah, but their kids meal is apparently a good bit better for you than McDonald's.
There is a war going on for your mind.
I'm with you on that, most of our meals are prepared at home from fresh ingredients.
But there is also the "rat race treadmill" to contend with.
When I was a kid, it was the norm for one parent to work. They bought the kids a few toys, and by and large they chose those toys carefully because there wasn't a lot of money for those toys to be replaced often. So they chose durable, and they chose generic (a toy that can be used to play more than one thing, so it's not obsolete when the next movie comes out, except we didn't have movies to tell us when our toys were obsolete).
With less money coming in, but a parent free to do things at home, you focused on buying food and preparing it because (to your point) it is cheaper.
Now, both parents work in a lot of homes. There simply isn't time to prepare quality meals day-in-and-day-out, so they do what they need to do, and that means frequent eating out. And Mickey D's is a lot cheaper and more convenient than a restaurant that serves decent food. Plus, it's full of sugar and stuff your kids want to eat, so once they set foot in there once they'll want to go again and again.
They have less free time, so they use TV and movies to fill their kids' time so they can get stuff done. They also buy their kids more toys (partly because the kids are told they "need" it by the movies, partly because it's a form of attention and they know they lack the time to give their kids the attention they really deserve).
So what the hell, it takes 5 minutes to get a meal at Mickey D's, and you're busy, and the local restaurant takes forever and would cost $10/person more, and it's what the kids are wanting and you don't want to spend that precious time with them arguing over food... I think you see where this is going.
It starts a treadmill cycle because the extra expense means they "need" the extra income.
Drop one job, learn to budget with the remaining income (which probably means dropping Cable and not buying some gadgets, and certainly means buying fresh food and reserving eating out to a rare occasion). Spend the time you save with your kids.
I'm not saying it would work for everyone. But it would work for a surprising number of people who think it wouldn't.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
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.
Interesting fact - potatoes quickly replaced the old-world standard vegetable turnips as the poor man's food of choice, because they are significantly more nutritious.
...craving a double cheeseburger right about now?
I have a friend who manages a Wendy's. Their stuff is actually somewhat close to real food, at least compared to McDonald's. The ingredient costs at Wendy's are maybe 30% of the total cost of the food. At McDonald's it's more like 20%.
Doesn't really make a Baconator any better for you, though.
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.
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.
sodium, sodium, sodium...
when is this BULLSHIT of renaming common things it's going to end ??? what is this fucking thing ? social engineering ?
it's called SALT !!! plain and simple. salt !
now, you try legislating salt. go ahead. do it.
the last ones who tried were the english. the end result was that they lost their bigest and richer colony. namely, india.
every nation that tried to limit or control salt before ended up with either a war or a revolution on their hands.
What ? Me, worry ?
Sodium.
http://www.nrn.com/breakingNews.aspx?id=382296
http://www.reading.ac.uk/foodlaw/additive.htm
http://www.newsmeat.com/news/meat.php?articleId=74056755&channelId=2951&buyerId=newsmeatcom&buid=3281
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-02/processed-foods-may-need-u-s-rule-to-limit-salt-cdc-chief-says.html
The Romans controlled salt for centuries without a war or revolt over it.
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?
You kids meal can come with a variety of sides, including fruit and vegetables, not just fries.
And their chili is worth trying, but check it for fingers first if you're in Santa Clara county.
"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.
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.
sodium, sodium, sodium...when is this BULLSHIT of renaming common things it's going to end ??? it's called SALT !!! plain and simple. salt !
Hey now, what's wrong with limiting intake of sodium peroxide or sodium fluoroacetate?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
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.
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.
because they were not stupid. they _controled_ it, but didn't try to restrict it as a form of pressure like the english did. guess which empire lasted longer ?
What ? Me, worry ?
Is this even legal?
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?
Drop one job, learn to budget with the remaining income (which probably means dropping Cable and not buying some gadgets, and certainly means buying fresh food and reserving eating out to a rare occasion). Spend the time you save with your kids.
The problem is that the average family probably doesn't need two full incomes, and unless you've got a reasonably well paying job, a single income probably isn't enough either. So you'd still need to have the second parent work at least a couple of days a week to avoid being evicted from your already tiny home.
Unfortunately jobs that pay well and still let you work 2 days a week are hard to come by. This means that the average family ends up with two full incomes and not much free time. They do, however have a bunch of spare cash (but not enough to go crazy and feed a family of 4 at $10/meal/person extra). So they end up cheaping out on the meals and spending the extra cash on crap like movie themed toys/games, junk food and other unnecessary things that are easy and don't require further time and effort.
This also means that the services supplied in their area start to self select to cater for this type of behaviour. The good restaurants go out of business with only a few left in hard to find places, the supermarkets stop carrying quality produce/meats while increasing their inventories of highly processed foods, and the fast food chains start to pop up everywhere in prominently positioned locations.
It's a downward spiral that will be hard to break.
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.
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
I love potatoes, but the real nutrition is found in the skin, and is only really all that nutritious if served lightly cooked.
Cutting the skin off, slicing it, and frying it in cheap oil to make sure any remaining nutrition is killed turns the nutritious potato into pretty much a complete disaster.
But, yeah, potatoes are great. As potatoes. Not as chips or fries.
Don't get me wrong, I adore fries and chips. Love 'em love 'em love 'em. What's not to love? I could easily scarf down truckloads of both (nom-nom-nom!!). I eat them occasionally, and it's really hard to keep my portions down when I do, so I treat them as the "special treat" they are. I don't hold any illusion they are vegetables in the nutritional sense of the word.
Every Friday after work, I go to my local brewpub and order myself a couple of large tankards of fine brew, a freshly-made hamburger loaded with Stilton cheese, and a big pile of french fries. That is the one meal a week I allow myself fries and skipping the veggies.
You gotta eat right, but you gotta live, too. It's just terribly unwise to make them a daily staple of your diet.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
You're right, for some families it's going to be very hard, maybe even impossible.
I know of a number of people who are on the treadmill, though, and still have $150 a month cable TV bills, iPhones with data plans for every member of the household over 12, day care costs, and a car for every driver in the household.
Lose a car or two, lose all the cell phones, lose the cable bill, and lose the child care costs, and in a lot of families you have exceeded what the second breadwinner makes in savings.
Thinking about things in those terms is hard, because we all like our own car, and instant communications, and TV. All of those things pale in comparison to the quality of time spent with the kids, allowing children to be children, good food on the table for their growing bodies, and imaginative play for their growing minds.
Getting off the treadmill requires making compromises that a lot of families don't want to make. Dropping cable, losing the cell phones for the kids, stripping the family cell phone of its data plan, possibly reducing the number of cars, running a budget, focusing on buying the kids fewer things that are better-made (durable over stylish or disposable), and taking up frugal shopping as a near-profession.
Finding a nice shirt at a thrift store or getting a bag of clothes off Freecycle is a triumph, not a cause for shame.
We've come to equate having nice, shiny, new things with being successful. The compromises involved in getting those nice things are starting to impact our lifespans and the health of ourselves and our children.
We, as individuals in our society, would be well-served by reevaluating our priorities on an ongoing basis and see if what we are doing is what we feel is honestly best for ourselves and our kids, or just what is easiest or makes us look successful to those around us.
I don't want the government to make these decisions for us. It's not their place. But if we want the freedom to make decisions, we're well-served by thinking about those decisions and making thoughtful choices. Freedom to choose means that not all parents will want to do this, but those that do will be more committed to it.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
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.
Absolutely. If a family is earning that much extra to be able to afford all that extra cruft, then they are definitely in a position to do things 'properly'.
The only problem is that most of those families probably feel very 'comfortable' where they are and probably don't feel like they're doing anything 'wrong'. They might also be overweight and addicted to the instant gratification of modern conveniences.
Unfortunately, if every second family is behaving like that, then many kids are being raised in a way that both you and I understand to be sub-par.
For families that care, there is a way out, but those other families don't seem to know any better IMO. If something can't be done with decent/accessible education programs (for both parents and kids), then we risk the government stepping in at some point to force a less desirable solution as everyone screams, "But, think of the children!"
sodium, sodium, sodium...
when is this BULLSHIT of renaming common things it's going to end ??? what is this fucking thing ? social engineering ?
it's called SALT !!! plain and simple. salt !
No it's not. Sodium is an element. Salts are a class of compounds. Sodium chloride is table salt.