California's Santa Clara County Bans Happy Meal Toys 756
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."
I swear.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I swear.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know, let's not bother with that thing known as personal responsibility, let's legislate EVERYTHING!
Whole heartedly agree!
I don't even know if it's so much personal responsibility, as that means responsibility for one's self. This is about parental responsibility. Which makes me laugh when I read, "This ordinance prevents restaurants from preying on children's love of toys' to sell high-calorie, unhealthful toys..." Kids shouldn't have a say. If the parents are doing their jobs, it won't matter who the restaurants prey upon.
Besides, it not so much the toys that bring 'em in. It's parent's being too lazy/busy to make dinner for their child. As a parent, I can understand this as my wife and I work three jobs between us and go to school. Sometimes, it's kinda nice to eat out on the cheap. (We do Chick-fil-A. Does that count as crap food?) The toy is just a bonus to keep our child busy long enough so we can finish our meals with some level of peace. (Besides, I like to play with them too)
What's next? Are they going to ban the playgrounds, clown mascotts and kid's clubs?
Re:I swear.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I still stop by McDonald's/Burger King when they have nifty toys. Usually they'll sell you just the toy for around a buck or so. They're good for having around when friends bring their kids along to board game night.
As for the Granola State (land of fruits, nuts, and flakes), yeah. Must be something in the water out there that makes them all insane.
Honestly, what are they going to do next? Ban Cracker Jack boxes? The crap coming in those barely qualifies as a "toy" these days.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wait, what? Chinese manufacturing workers like their jobs, you know, and manufacturing jobs are drying up in China with people having to head back to the farms. If you think working 12 hours a day in a factory for low pay is bad, you've never worked 12 hours a day of hard manual labor on the family farm for no pay and no prospects of things getting better.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I prefer to take my kids to Chick-Fil-A too, even though I myself don't eat meat & I don't particularly agree with their corporate mission ("glorify god"). The chicken seems to be better, and the "toys" are often books or educational CDs; most of the McDonalds or Burger King toys get discarded quickly because they're not very adaptable. We might hit one of those places once a month, though, so we don't get through many of them.
Re:I swear.... (Score:5, Informative)
the reason the chicken tastes better is 2 things
1 the chicken is shipped in as Raw fillets they then thaw out pans and then prep them and cook them
2 They use peanut oil and a pressure cooker (note this is why if you are very allergic to peanuts you can't eat chik-fil-a food or be in the kitchen end of the restaurant for very long)
oh and i love the fact that corporation wide NOBODY works on sunday
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I swear.... (Score:5, Insightful)
"*To those of you who are going to whine or mod me down for saying that, take a look at yourself before you open your mouth (or type the words). Do you not go to some place(s) because of their corporate policies, working conditions, charities they give to, etc? If so, one word describes you: hypocrite."
I could care less what businesses you do or don't frequent and your reasons for doing so. I also wouldn't have thought twice about responding to you except that you seem to be saying that not buying something from Nike because they exploit children is just as valid as not eating at the locale spaghetti restaurant because the owner believes in the flying spaghetti monster.
Now if that restaurant put a picture of the flying spaghetti monster on every menu, and had a prayer before serving your meal then fine, but discriminating who you will do business with based purely on the beliefs of the person(s) at the top (again where those beliefs aren't aimed at directly harming you or anyone else) is just silly prejudice.
If you go to any chick-fil-a restaurant you will not see any mention of God, there will be several employees who have their own (dis)beliefs that differ from those of the owners, and the only way you would know that there is any mention of God on a corporate level is if you do as you did and go searching for their mission statement. Do you really believe it's such a terrible thing that they want to run their business in such a way that it matches the moral values laid out by their religion? I don't hold the same beliefs as they do but i can respect what they are doing.
Again you are totally free to do as you wish, but don't act so high and mighty and treat your close minded prejudice as being the same as a peaceful protest against people/corporations that are practicing harmful and exploitative practices.
Re:I swear.... (Score:4, Insightful)
belief in supernatural powers has caused more wars, more death, more tortures, more abuses of human rights than child labour ever has.
Yay, this canard. No, belief in supernatural powers has been used as an excuse for sociopaths (mostly kings) to cause wars, death, torture, and abuses of human rights. In fact, other things have been used as excuses for sociopaths to cause wars, death, torture, and abuses of human rights too. Seems like the common theme there is sociopaths tend toward war, death, torture, and abuse.
Re:I swear.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I always like how posts like this start out with 'Parents should' instead of 'My kids...'
I'm not a parent myself, but I've spent years working with them, teaching children. The reality of raising a child isn't nearly as simple as you make it out to be.
Re:I swear.... (Score:5, Interesting)
And Supervisor Donald Gage agrees with you. The problem is, we've tried that for decades and it isn't working. The "personal responsibility" people stamp their feet and complain "It's the parents' responsibility! It's the parents' responsibility! (stamp, stamp, stamp...)". Hey, why don't you stamp your feet a little harder? Maybe, then, all of those parents will suddenly take up an interest in pediatric nutrition.
"(stamp, stamp, stamp!) Kids shouldn't... they shouldn't. Shouldn't, shouldn't, shouldn't!". Yeah, but you know what? They do. In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice but, in practice, there is. You can yell and complain about responsibility and the nanny state and all that jazz, but, ultimately, it fails to actually fix the problem. So, the county supervisors have decided to try this. And I think you have to admit that, regardless of whether you think that the county should have passed this ordinance, the restaurants are throwing the toys in there to help peddle a product which should probably be peddled on their merits of its nutrition.
This issue reminds me of the Simpsons episiode with "Mt. Splashmore", where a commercial for the water park teaches the kids the "Take me to Mt. Splashmore" song and then instructs the kids to go sing it to their parents over and over again. Or, in "The Corporation", I think it was, where the market research lady interviewed parents about their nagging children. The parents thought it was research into how to get kids to nag less but it was really studying how to get the kids to nag their parents more effectively so that the parents would cave in and buy more often. I think you're naive if you don't think these companies aren't pouring millions of dollars into ways of getting around this "personal responsibility" firewall, and the toys are just one part of their arsenal.
For example, even when kids don't really have a say, they do. You even admit "The toy is just a bonus to keep our child busy long enough so we can finish our meals with some level of peace.". So, the toy does help bring you in to that particular restaurant chain. Besides, I can use the "parental responsibility" argument on you. I know a couple that actually takes parenting seriously. When we all go out to dinner with their kid, their kid finishes first, and then knows to sit there, quietly, while we all chat a while. She knows that, if she starts getting fidgety or rambunctious, things are going to turn out worse for her in the long run. So, we can always finish our meals in peace... toy or no toy. But then, that's because they feel that they should be responsible parents.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm, interesting...
I wouldn't consider myself an awesome parent, but stuff like happy meals with toys helps me convince my children to be suspicious of things like that. I tell them that the restaurant food is so nasty that the toy is the only way for them to sell their crappy food at all. But we could get better food at a real food place (like home) and better toys at a real toy store and it would be cheaper (my son is very money conscious, probably because we so often tell him that we just don't have mo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If that's true, then that child is an unimaginative potato head.
Of course, I don't mental sequester my child out of conversations. as a good parent I teach them to be involved, think and ask the appropriate questions.
My kids do not sit quietly, the are involved and learning.
Re:I swear.... (Score:4, Informative)
(We do Chick-fil-A. Does that count as crap food?)
Word to the wise: NEVER mention a chain by name on the internet. There will ALWAYS be a group that jumps all over you for it being crap food. If baked angel poop (which costs $1, extends life by 5 years per ounce and tastes just like cinnamon) was sold by a national chain people would ridicule you for buying it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So you think that removing toys from kids meals will make parents who previously fed their children fast food every day suddenly start cooking healthy meals?
If so, you're as deluded as the morons in California.
Bad parents will still be bad parents.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I will always remember my mother telling me after she grounded me for doing something stupid as a kid, "not because I ground you it means that I don't love you, I do it exactly because of that". That is so
Re:I swear.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The kids are just doing what the parents are doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. America is now third or fourth generation lardass. It's a downward spiral the parents grew up that way, their kids will be worse.
Re:I swear.... (Score:5, Insightful)
So if you want a nation worth living in, and the adults won't fix their own (or their children's) self-destructive cycles, who do you suggest does fix it? The choice is rather limited. Ideally, education would solve this problem, but the British chef Jamie Oliver was kicked around when he suggested US schools educate kids on better food. So clearly the schools don't give a crap. If nobody is willing to actually OWN their responsibility, to the point where the nation suffers (loss of productivity = loss of revenue and loss of GDP, loss of mental function = loss of progress and loss of investment), then surely since the Government is for the people and doing nothing is against the people, the Government must step in.
I believe that it may be too late to avoid some Government intervention, but it should be as limited as possible and to target the root causes. Those root causes include crappy education and parental malpractrice. The former is going to be hard to fix, as Governments routinely treat education as something of a dirty word. The latter is next-to-impossible, as parents generally reserve the right to abuse their kids and resent any restrictions on the kind of abuse they can inflict. Even if these issues could be solved, the existing attitudes at high levels of authority are so perverted and degenerate that they're rarely capable of actually "fixing" anything without making it worse. However, if the options are death-by-fat for an entire nation vs. videogame-lifesupport, the lifesupport makes better sense.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure. The solution, of course, is for people TO own their responsibility rather than to leave it for the Government to pick up. If all responsibility were appropriately owned, it cannot be re-owned by others and therefore cannot be misused by others.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I swear.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I have no problem with you (or anyone else) buying large pizzas or anything else. Nor do I believe in defining what is good for you or in micromanaging.
What I do believe in is that the net amount of control in a closed society is fixed and that if you don't control yourself, you are implicitly giving that control to others. So if you don't want to be micromanaged, don't give control away. It's very simple.
What I also believe is that many (not all, but many) unhealthy behaviours (including eating disorders) are a consequence of control disorders and, in turn, have consequences on others - including, but not restricted to, expense and yet more control disorders.
Nobody is "perfect" and nobody knows what this "perfect" thing is anyway, but if you have a reasonable level of self-control, you will have a reasonable level of health, you will (within reasonable margins of error) maximize what you get out of life for what you put in, and you will maximize (also within reasonable margins of error) maximize the benefit to society you have to offer -- though how much of that benefit is ever seen is, itself, another choice.
Is a person gratuitously buying fatty foods a "bad" thing? No. Actually, the British diet (which is mostly fat) is far more nutritious than a lot of the "healthy" diets in the US because it's better-balanced and has far better ratios of healthy fats, healthy cholesterol, etc.
Ok, so is a person gratuitously buying a specifically unhealthy fatty food a bad thing? Not necessarily. If you've a healthy state of mind, you will tend to steer towards the food that your body needs, whether or not it is technically "unhealthy" according to any given standard. If your mind is unhealthy, you well tend to steer towards the food that will damage or destroy your body, whether or not it is technically "healthy" by any other standard.
When is a mind unhealthy? Hard to say, but one common symptom is grabbing inappropriate control from others, and rejecting appropriate control from oneself.
Thus, if you have appropriate control, the odds are you will eat what is right for you at that moment, no matter how it is labeled by others. In which case, the label is immaterial and restrictions become stupid and naive.
If you have inappropriate control, you will be destructive towards yourself and your family. I regard insanity less as the inability to tell right and wrong apart and more as the inability to act on whatever it is you do know. By this understanding, inappropriate control is insanity and I can see nothing wrong with outsiders stepping in and restricting the damage the insane can do.
What happens if nobody steps in? As I've said elsewhere, that's been tried. Historically, if nobody accepts control of their own lives, you get someone stepping in and accepting that control on their behalf. That is very very bad juju. I do not recommend it.
The problem is, in the US people take the attitude that they don't want anyone to step in when needed, but they ALSO don't want to accept any personal responsibility or any personal control. THAT is the reason why America keeps ending up with dodgy Government officials. It has nothing to do with whether Government is big or small.
(IMHO, ideally, Government would be so big that everyone had the power to make a difference. Small Government, to me, means too much power is being given to too few people. In Somalia, for example, absolute power is in the hands of a few dozen warlords. You can't get a smaller Government than that.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More like he failed because:
1. The garbage food is cheap and the fresh food is pricey. Both to buy and prepare. You can buy a few thousand chicken nuggets (now with 10% actual chicken!) and toss them in an oven for a few minutes or you can carve up actual raw chicken (buy knives), season it (don't forget to buy seasoning), and bake it (watch to make sure it doesn't burn).
2. USDA guidelines are completely FUBAR-ed. Jamie served a dish with 3 different veggies in it and was criticized for not having enough
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, you need more money to flow into the schools but people will vote down any tax increase to fund the increase.
That's depressing. In the UK when Jamie said on his TV programme that schools were spending an average of 37 pence per child there was significant pressure on the government (including a petition) to spend more. They increased the minimum to 50p (in 2005), which Jamie said was sufficient.
If you're not going to spend tax revenue on your nation's children, what are you going to spend it on? (Rhetorical question.)
Articles from centre-left (Guardian) and right (Times) newspapers:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/ [guardian.co.uk]
Re:I swear.... (Score:4, Informative)
I thought that Jamie Oliver failed because he cooked up food the kids hated and he was a pretentious jerk while doing it.
That's pretty much the reaction the media reported when he changed the food in some schools here in Britain. Then there were pictures of obese women handing fast food over a fence to their children at lunchtime, and opinion seemed to change.
The children got used to it, health improved, academic results improved and (an unexpected bonus) illness reduced.
(It seems appropriate to cite The Sun [thesun.co.uk] -- it calls the women "sinner ladies", which is pretty much opposite to what you'd expect (think Fox News, kinda). Note that in the UK "poor" children get free school meals; buying their own is daft.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, preventing corporations from taking advantage is a bad thing.
Seriously, sometimes it's about personal responsibility, but other times it's about other things - and this is one of those times. Give the 'personal responsibility' kneejerk a rest and think sometimes.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I swear.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I swear.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I was about to flame you for being a moron, but I thought about it again. This is like comparing a fast food meal to a pack of cigarettes. So at least there is precedent for such restrictions.
However, there are key differences. For starters, cigarettes are illegal for anyone under 18. Also, while both are quite unhealthy, cigarettes are far more so, and they provide zero benefit.
Now, that's not necessarily enough to consider it unjustified, but I think this is a slippery slope. What's next? Restrictions on video games to inhibit unhealthy playtime lengths?
We can't have the government protect us from everything...moreover the government shouldn't protect us from everything. We need to learn to be responsible for our actions and to resist the temptation of short term perks with long-term consequences.
So where should the line be drawn? Well, I think food is over the line. Most restricted things, like alcohol, gambling, and tobacco offer little or no benefit, where food at least offers nourishment and is necessary for you to live.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wasn't aware that Bristol was a big happy meal fan. If you think that your kids aren't going to have sex before marriage just because you said no to happy meals, I think you may be the one with the bigger problem when they become teenagers.
Re:I swear.... (Score:4, Informative)
My daughter quickly learned that Burger King and McDonalds had toys. That didn't mean I had to take her there. If she really wants to go to a fast food place and get a toy, I take her to Subway and get her a turkey sandwich.
Responsible parenting isn't all that hard.
It really gets me that people who scream so loudly about freedom and liberty and usually the ones who want to take it away piece by piece with legislation.
Re:I swear.... (Score:5, Funny)
My daughter quickly learned that Burger King and McDonalds had toys. That didn't mean I had to take her there. If she really wants to go to a fast food place and get a toy, I take her to Subway and get her a turkey sandwich.
I just love playing with those Subway turkey sandwiches. The best part is that when you're done you don't have to put away your new toy ... you just eat it! Mmmm, funlicious!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Subway kid's meals come with toys.
Natalie Portman feels left out of your signature.
Re: (Score:2)
Natalie Portman feels left out of your signature.
There's no room left. I've hit the character limit I guess.
Re:I swear.... (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't about freedom or liberty, companies should NOT get a free ride on any marketing, much less marketing to children. Mcdonalds is one of the worst in regards to marketting. They specifically target children most of the time. No self respecting adult would ever consume mcdonalds products voluntarily, it makes the healthy sick. So what do they do? they target children by giving away "free" toys, having cartoony animals on their boxes and showing adverts of kids subverting their parents wishes and having over the top emotional experiences.
Its not hard to say 'no' to your kids, but why should i have to catch all the flack, animosity and blowback that mcdonalds is creating? why is it my responsibility to clean up the mess they are making after the fact? If a company tries to brainwash your kids, how is it "bad parenting" to legislate that certain over the line brainwashing techniques be banned?
Your attitude seems to be that mcdonalds can spit on my kids (advertising) and that "good parenting" would be telling them not to eat the spit and cleaning them up. I say good parenting is going after the root cause of the problem in the first place. Instead of making band-aid solutions that as most parents are aware, will just be eroded away again, leading to another fight in a few weeks or a months time, when macdonalds comes out with an even more insidious ad.
Perosnally i try and teach my kids to be aware of advertisements and that they are all lies. Many people just don't have the time or the intelligence to teach their kids that. That is why particularly manipulative marketing needs a swift ban. I mean you are basically talking about the freedom to sell products and saying that the rights of the corporations to sell products trumps the rights of impressionable children not to be manipulated.
I dont know how any parent can make that claim. They should really just ban all product marketing to children under the age of 16. I cant imagine a downside to that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What about Krispy Creme? Any other donut shop?
No one puts a gun to the head of anyone and makes them go to McDonalds or any other place.
No one makes anyone buy a Happy Meal or any other meal there.
CA is pretty much a failed state, from the Govenator on down. Get out while you can!
Re:I swear.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well this is what happens when you revive Feudalism. The commoners are too stupid to run their own lives, so we need the Lords to decide what they can and can not have.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Well, the sad truth is, we're all being so fucking stupid that it actually makes *sense* for them to do this. Parents *should* take care of their kids, but they're not and our whole country is getting fucking fat. We keep trying fitness promotion and all kinds of shit, but everyone just keeps getting fatter.
I'm not sure if its better to legislate us when we're being this fucking stupid, or let us all just kill ourselves. I don't approve of unnecessary legislation like this, but you sure have to wonder how t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So wait... (Score:5, Funny)
...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!"
Parents doing their job?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think it's okay to allow children to buy cigarettes and booze? After all, parents should be parenting, right? And yes, junk food is just as bad as those things.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I usually get some small temporary enjoyment out of whatever piece of crap toy they give me...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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???
Now, now. We all know it takes a village to raise a child.
OK, sarc off. IMHO, only an incompetent parent would let a village raise their child!
Re: (Score:2)
Wow so where exactly does it say government officials have to regulate every thing about our lives?
I dunno, according to certain politicians that's the whole reason behind the Commerce Clause. Or was it the Good and Welfare Clause?
High calorie toys (Score:2)
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.
Ban Cracker Jack, too. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
That sucks (Score:5, Funny)
If we can't bribe our children to eat poison, the terrorists have won!
Ban bad copypasta (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Power is its own end. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
No, politics in America today, is solely for the purpose of increasing sales of tinfoil hats.
I'm presuming you already have yours...
Re: (Score:2)
And the European Union. If you think intrusive legislation is bad in the US, you ought to see what the central Parliament's been doing this past year. They regulate all kinds of crap.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
No, i really disagree. You may want to complain about every piece of legislation being just so "the man" can "keep us down", but however misguided or stupid this legislation may be, I can at least understand that the people making it weren't just trying to control us, they actually believe this is helpful. You ought to be able to see that.
When you claim the government has evil intent when they're obviously just being stupid, no one is going to listen to you.
-Taylor
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a parent of two children... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:As a parent of two children... (Score:5, Insightful)
How did you manage that before it was a law?
Re:As a parent of two children... (Score:5, Insightful)
So if you figured out a system that worked by yourself...how does this legislation help you in any way?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, no you're missing the point. GPP's seen the light, and has found the ONLY GOOD WAY to deal with the issue. And now we can "encourage" everyone to do THE ONLY GOOD THING. After all, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
The best of all worlds: smug self-righteousness enforced with State Power. It's a popular and time-tested combination.
Re:As a parent of two children... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a great idea.
As a parent myself, I just tell my kids that fast food is unhealthy in that it has a lot of calories and fat in it. I think we need to be aware of what lesson we're teaching. The point I want them to learn is not that $PARENT won't let them buy a toy with their lunch, it's that some foods eaten more than sparingly will do bad things to you. They naturally ask, so I just tell them the truth. You'll get fat. You'll feel lethargic. You'll develop diseases later in life like diabetes. Your arteries will clog with crap.
Sadly, it's all too easy to just ask them to look around the school. The consequences of bad food choices and a sedentary lifestyle are all over the place.
Re:As a parent of two children... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:As a parent of two children... (Score:5, Informative)
As a parental rule, it is good.
As legislation, it is terible.
Re: (Score:2)
Terrible, like my typo of terrible above. You'd think I'd know how to type by now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...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.
As a parent, that's your right. But it doesn't seem that as a government, that right belongs with the county. This is no different from laws banning any "immoral" behavior -- it's the government meddling where it has no business doing so.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Well, it worked for me, so everybody else should be forced by law to do the same thing!"
Re:As a parent of two children... (Score:4, Insightful)
Some parents they it's their job to parent OUR children too, and they use government to make it happen:
i.e. banning our free choice to get happy meals with toys. I find these parents annoying, because they are basically insulting my intelligence, by presuming they know better than I do, how to be a parent.
Re: (Score:2)
I completely applaud your decisive, take-charge attitude about raising your kids. But while it may be a "great idea" for you, governments shouldn't dictate that it's a great idea for all the other parents.
Parent's Job, not Government's (Score:2)
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.
Yes, and let's ban more! (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Double Nuggets with Idiocracy (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [guardian.co.uk] that could be coming.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And California wonders why their state is ready to self-implode.
No we don't, at least, not all of us. California has a decently large population so there are plenty of people here who facepalm themselves every time they read about shit like this. Those people even go out of their way to stop it. We attend local meetings at government centers. We try to meet with our legislators at the state level. We even help the city-councilman next door carry groceries in from his car in an attempt to get his ear. We talk about things rationally. We vote with plenty of sense. We eve
Liberty (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Clarification (Score:5, Informative)
The San Jose Mercury News [mercurynews.com] (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.
Re: (Score:2)
And let's face it, if the parents are giving their kid everything the kid asks for, is this really going to make any difference anyway? It seems the only real effect would be to remove a competitive advantage from McDonald's.
Being a Santa Clara County resident, my second thought was that there is no Santa Clara county, per se.
BTW, the Mercury runs more javascript than I've ever seen on a single webpage. At last count, I spotted 27 URL's in NoScript.
What about adults who like happy meals? (Score:3, Funny)
Won't someone please think of the adults?!?!?!?
Anyone else think the ban was to curb garbage? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Suckering in kids isn't the problem. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with the general statement, but certainly not the example. How often do kids receive report cards? 4 times a year in US public schools to my knowledge. If ordering pizza is a rare enough occurrence that the kid feels rewarded/excited by the prospect of it, then 4 "prize pizzas" a year isn't going to hurt anything. If anything, it re-enforces the idea that ordering pizza is something you o
Go, you Chicken Fat, Go! (Score:2, Interesting)
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 Very definition of a Nanny State (Score:3)
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
So wait... (Score:2)
About time... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
You CAN control a 3 year old, NOT a 6 year old (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Smart six year olds do not do that.
If your six year old does, then clearly you fucked up as a parent and thank your lucky stars they chose that route instead of just murdering you in your sleep just to watch the life drain out of you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why? It seems like a damn good idea to me.
Ob: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jamie_oliver.html [ted.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Simple: "It's a start".
Rewarding kids with toys because they go to McDonalds isn't helping the educational process.
Re:Crazy (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
At least some politician has done *something*.
It's a start...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Joe Camel isn't the happy meal, Joe Camel is Ronald McDonald, Grimace, and Mayor McCheese. And the playgrounds on the facility.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Whoa, Camel cigarette stores have a ball pit and free Wi-Fi? Awesome.
Why doesn't my liquor store have a rockin' climbing gym? CALL MY ASSEMBLYMAN!
Re: (Score:2)
Why doesn't my liquor store have a rockin' climbing gym? CALL MY ASSEMBLYMAN!
I wonder how much the liability insurance of a liquor store would increase if people were encouraged to drink at the store then go hit the climbing wall.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder how much the liability insurance of a liquor store would increase if people were encouraged to drink at the store then go hit the climbing wall.
Probably not too much. They've already got parking lots...I'll take a drunk on a wall over a drunk in a '84 Diplomat any day of the week.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)