11
   

The Dietary Control Zealots Strike Again

 
 
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 02:38 am
Quote:
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors gave preliminary approval Tuesday to banning toy giveaways in Happy Meals and similar fast-food offerings aimed at kids unless they have reduced sodium, fat and sugar content and include fruit and vegetables.

The legislation, which sponsors said is intended to promote healthy eating and help combat childhood obesity, was passed on an 8-3 vote - the bare minimum needed to overturn Mayor Gavin Newsom's promised veto.

The board is scheduled to take a final vote next week. If it goes on the books, the restrictions wouldn't go into effect until December 2011.

"This is a tremendous victory for our children's health," said Supervisor Eric Mar, chief sponsor of the legislation.

http://www.seattlepi.com/lifestyle/429496_happymeals02.html

At this rate we will be practicing our own version of Sharia Law before very long. Boo.
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 07:14 am
Do they really think ditching the toy will stop people from taking their kids to McDonalds? That's unbelievably silly.

I think anyone who thinks this is a major nutritional victory for children has never spent 5 minutes with a kid.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 07:31 am
@boomerang,
Yeah, this is just a stupid stunt.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 07:42 am
@DrewDad,
Oh yeah, most of Hawkeye's rants are just stupid stunts.

Oh . . . wait . . . you meant the SF Supervisors' measure. Yeah, that, too . . .
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 09:33 am
@hawkeye10,
I wonder if Chick-Filet will have to stop giving out educational children's books and games in their happy meals (assuming CF is in San Francisco). Many fast food chains allow the children to turn in the toy for soft serve ice cream. I guess the Board of Supervisors thinks that is a better give away.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 09:57 am
@engineer,
Quote:
I wonder if Chick-Filet will have to stop giving out educational children's books and games in their happy meals
IDK, but i do know that over the last few years McD's has added healthy options to their happy meals, ones that cost a lot more than the standard fare in food costs so they are already taking a profit hit trying to stay on the good side of the dietary police. Sometimes i see kids eating the healthy options, but not a lot. I wonder if McD execs are wondering just what they need to do to get off of the hit list. Maybe they will resist now, for for parents rights to decide what is best for their kids, call for government to stop interfering in personal freedom of choice.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 09:59 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
IDK, but i do know that over the last few years McD's has added healthy options to their happy meals, ones that cost a lot more than the standard fare in food costs so they are already taking a profit hit trying to stay on the good side of the dietary police.


Apple slices and salad cost that much more money? I have a hard time believing that.

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 10:04 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Apple slices and salad cost that much more money? I have a hard time believing that.

than frozen potatoes?? are you serious? And milk cost them @40 cents I figure where the soda is about nothing. Salad is very expensive with the labor and throw away....I was reading about a year ago that McD makes nothing on Salad overall, that it is on the menu for PR reasons and because they can sell more of what they want to sell if they offer salad (because mom will eat salad, the rest not,but if mom had rejected Mcd they would have sold nothing to the party) not sure that is right though.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06E5DB113AF933A15751C0A9639C8B63&sec=health&spon=
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 10:39 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Apple slices and salad cost that much more money? I have a hard time believing that.

Then you need to educate yourself about food subsidies.

http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm07autumn/images/pyramid.jpg
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 10:44 am
@DrewDad,
Well, that does shed some light on it. Combine that with the fact that McD's uses the lowest quality materials whenever possible, and it's easy to see why a burger is so cheap, I guess.

Whereas it's hard to use low-quality lettuce, say, and get people to keep buying your salads. You can't fake it as easily as they do the 'meat.'

Thanks, great informative graphic.

Cycloptichorn
failures art
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 12:52 am
OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES? OMG WHO CARES?

The idea is dumb, but getting worked up over it can hardly be considered different. This is so ******* trivial hawkeye. Even for you.

A
R
Trivial
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 01:34 am
@failures art,
Quote:
This is so ******* trivial hawkeye. Even for you.

i dont consider government criminalizing dietary choices a trivial matter. I consider it a manifestation of a rouge government that attacks the citizens, and which needs to be brought to heal.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 02:59 am
@hawkeye10,
Who goes to jail? Who gets prosecuted? How has anything been criminalized here?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 03:03 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Who gets prosecuted?
that would be the person in charge of the fast food operation that handed out toys with food that did not meet the legal requirement.....normally the manager.
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 03:05 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
i dont consider government criminalizing dietary choices a trivial matter. I consider it a manifestation of a rouge government that attacks the citizens, and which needs to be brought to heal.


I agree. It is the job of parents, not government, to choose what they allow their kids to eat. Now, if the government spent their time on stuff like jobs and the economy, and kept their nose out of private matters............................Well, maybe now they will!!!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 03:26 am
@hawkeye10,
Uh huh . . . and you are certain that such an individual would be liable to criminal prosecution as opposed to the Supevisors levying a fine?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 03:28 am
Just to be sure, i read that article again. I see nothing in there asserting that any individual would be subject to criminal prosecution. Don't make **** up, Boy.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 03:47 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

... great informative graphic.

Great graphic - deliberately left unsourced because it has no connection to the actual sums shelled out by the USDA in agricultural subsidies:
Quote:
More than 90 percent of agriculture subsidies go to farmers of five crops—wheat, corn, soybeans, rice, and cotton.

Source: http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies#3

The "food pyramid" is why we're so fat - we never evolved to eat grains, the agricultural revolution being only a few thousand years old. It's also why our animals have to be fed gigantic amounts of antibiotics; they didn't evolve to eat grains either; not to mention they're are being tortured in "factory farms" - sentient beings monstrously treated like machinery. It's also why we pollute our waters with runoff containing fertilizers (necessary in monoculture, unnecessary with crop rotation), pesticides, antibiotics, sewage, and on and on. All this before allowing for distortions subsidies cause to world trade.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 03:57 am
@boomerang,
You're right there - the SF supervisors overreached in their latest fiat. They should have stayed with their initial target, sugary sodas. If there's anyone on this thread unfamiliar with the sugar / fructose link with the obesity epidemic, invest 89 minutes without delay to watch this UC biochemistry video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 04:27 am
@High Seas,
P.S. edit - sugar growers also get subsidies, but the link between heavily subsidized corn and added food sweeteners is high-fructose-corn-sugar.
 

Related Topics

Immortality and Doctor Volkov - Discussion by edgarblythe
Sleep Paralysis - Discussion by Nick Ashley
On the edge and toppling off.... - Discussion by Izzie
Surgery--Again - Discussion by Roberta
PTSD, is it caused by a blow to the head? - Question by Rickoshay75
THE GIRL IS ILL - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Dietary Control Zealots Strike Again
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 09/17/2021 at 02:04:26