San Francisco Bans Happy Meals

World news discussion forum
Post Reply
User avatar
jingjai
udonmap.com
Posts: 2369
Joined: November 1, 2005, 4:28 pm
Location: Udon Thani,Thailand

San Francisco Bans Happy Meals

Post by jingjai » November 4, 2010, 6:08 pm

Perhaps this belongs in debates? However, IMO, one more example of Government sticking it's nose in where it doesn't belong.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-h ... 8230.story
San Francisco bans Happy Meals
The city's board of supervisors votes to forbid restaurants from giving away toys with meals that have high levels of calories, sugar and fat.
San Francisco's board of supervisors has voted, by a veto-proof margin, to ban most of McDonald's Happy Meals as they are now served in the restaurants.

The measure will make San Francisco the first major city in the country to forbid restaurants from offering a free toy with meals that contain more than set levels of calories, sugar and fat.

The ordinance would also require restaurants to provide fruits and vegetables with all meals for children that come with toys.

"We're part of a movement that is moving forward an agenda of food justice," said Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure. "From San Francisco to New York City, the epidemic of childhood obesity in this country is making our kids sick, particularly kids from low income neighborhoods, at an alarming rate. It's a survival issue and a day-to-day issue."

Just after the vote, McDonald's spokeswoman Danya Proud said, "We are extremely disappointed with today's decision. It's not what our customers want, nor is it something they asked for."

The ban, already enacted in a similar measure by Santa Clara County, was opposed by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who was vying to be lieutenant governor in Tuesday's election. But because the measure was passed by eight votes — one more than needed to override a veto — his opposition doesn't matter unless one of the supervisors changes his or her mind after the promised veto.

Under the ordinance, scheduled to take effect in December 2011, restaurants may include a toy with a meal if the food and drink combined contain fewer than 600 calories, and if less than 35% of the calories come from fat.

Over the last few weeks, the proposed ban caused a stir online and on cable television, with supporters arguing that it would help protect children from obesity, and opponents seeing it as the latest example of the nanny state gone wild.

Supervisor Bevan Dufty, whose swing vote provided the veto-proof majority, said critics should not dismiss the legislation as a nutty effort by San Franciscans. "I do believe the industry is going to take note of this. I don't care how much they say, 'It's San Francisco, they're wacked out there.' "

Proud, the McDonald's spokeswoman, said the city was out of step with the mainstream on the issue.

"Public opinion continues to be overwhelmingly against this misguided legislation," she said. "Parents tell us it's their right and responsibility — not the government's — to make their own decisions and to choose what's right for their children."

McDonald's is not the only fast-food chain to offer toys with children's meals, but because it is so prominent the company has become a key face of opposition to the ban.

Daniel Conway, spokesman for the California Restaurant Assn., bemoaned the ordinance's passage and contrasted it with San Franciscans' exuberant feelings after the Giants won the world series on Monday night.

"One day you're world champions, and the next day, no toys for you," Conway said.

He said the industry could respond in a number of ways to the ordinance. Some might continue to include toys but charge separately for them. Others might reformulate their meals so that they comply with the law. Restaurants might also simply stop offering children's meals altogether, he said.

Proud said the company does offer more healthful menu options, including apple slices that can be ordered with kids' meals instead of French fries.

The vote was held the same day that McDonald's reintroduced nationwide its McRib sandwich, a pressed pork patty that gets half its calories from fat and has a cult-like legion of fans.

Mar said it would lead the fast-food giant and other restaurants to provide more healthful food for kids. The ban, he said, was crucial to the fight against childhood obesity and the illnesses that go along with it, including diabetes and the risk of heart problems and stroke. The cost of fighting those diseases, he said, will be in the billions.

"It's astronomical how much it's going to cost if we don't address it," Mar said. "It's incredible the crisis that's going to hit us."

[email protected]

Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times



User avatar
pienmash
Udonmap Sponsor
Posts: 4894
Joined: January 27, 2009, 5:14 pm

Re: San Francisco Bans Happy Meals

Post by pienmash » November 4, 2010, 6:25 pm

Have to agree Jingjai , if folks wanna eat happy meals or sad meals or any bloody meal they like then thats their decision , when i see the words happy meal i automaticaly think of Mcdonalds which nowadays is widely available all over LOS , i personally detest Mcdonalds except for the breakfast muffins there ok, also the moo burgers they sell in the 7/11 s are pretty repulsive too unless eaten at 4am after 20 bottles of Chang !!

farlong68
udonmap.com
Posts: 193
Joined: August 19, 2006, 11:57 pm
Location: oregon/thailand

Re: San Francisco Bans Happy Meals

Post by farlong68 » November 4, 2010, 10:08 pm

i guess you can be gay in san fran just not happy lol

User avatar
BobHelm
udonmap.com
Posts: 18411
Joined: September 7, 2005, 11:58 pm
Location: Udon Thani

Re: San Francisco Bans Happy Meals

Post by BobHelm » November 4, 2010, 10:23 pm

farlong68 wrote:i guess you can be gay in san fran just not happy lol
Yes, you are correct it is rather strange, complete freedom of sexuality & no freedom of what you feed your kids, very strange.

I believe that people have the right to make informed decisions about what they (& their kids eat). The problem is with the "informed" bit I guess. Still I would defy anyone to say that a happy meal a month (with salt & free toy :D ) would cause a kid any physical harm & would probably actually teach them much about food control.
I think if Mr & Mrs A want to feed their kids on happy meals every day then the problem might actually lie more with Mr & Mrs. A than Mc - unless Mc are putting addictive drugs in the meals that is. If anyone is allowing their kids to force them to eat happy meals because of the free toys then I think the family probably have problems that far exceed too great a salt intake....

User avatar
Texpat
udonmap.com
Posts: 1324
Joined: July 21, 2007, 1:43 am

Re: San Francisco Bans Happy Meals

Post by Texpat » November 4, 2010, 10:26 pm

Did they ban chocolate cake?

User avatar
stattointhailand
udonmap.com
Posts: 19114
Joined: October 25, 2007, 11:34 pm
Location: Oiling the locks on my gun case

Re: San Francisco Bans Happy Meals

Post by stattointhailand » November 4, 2010, 10:58 pm

If these blood* do-gooders wan't to do something sensible about obesity, why the 'ell don't they just pass a law stating that the number of calories and fat content HAS to be displayed alongside the price on the menu. Then it's up to the individual whether they buy the 120 cal cheesburger or the 625 cal big mac

User avatar
Texpat
udonmap.com
Posts: 1324
Joined: July 21, 2007, 1:43 am

Re: San Francisco Bans Happy Meals

Post by Texpat » November 4, 2010, 11:03 pm

Calorie counts for each menu item are prominently posted near every fast food ordering counter by law.
Perhaps they should have the cashier total up the calorie count and decide if the customer is too fat or not.
What about take-out orders?

Why ban a few hundred-calorie happy meal, but not a few thousand-calorie chocolate cake?

Why not ration calories at supermarkets, too?

McDonalds is not the only place that serves unhealthy food. And they have plenty of low fat menu items.

More undisciplined, nanny-state liberal idiot nonsense.
Last edited by Texpat on November 4, 2010, 11:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
BobHelm
udonmap.com
Posts: 18411
Joined: September 7, 2005, 11:58 pm
Location: Udon Thani

Re: San Francisco Bans Happy Meals

Post by BobHelm » November 4, 2010, 11:05 pm

I do not know Tex... it is your country...why do you not tell us all why????

User avatar
rickfarang
udonmap.com
Posts: 2394
Joined: January 1, 2006, 6:01 am
Location: Udon Thani

Re: San Francisco Bans Happy Meals

Post by rickfarang » November 5, 2010, 12:28 am

Have to say...fruit and vegetables can be deadly too.

User avatar
stattointhailand
udonmap.com
Posts: 19114
Joined: October 25, 2007, 11:34 pm
Location: Oiling the locks on my gun case

Re: San Francisco Bans Happy Meals

Post by stattointhailand » November 5, 2010, 10:37 am

Calorie counts for each menu item are prominently posted near every fast food ordering counter by law.

So prominently that I've never ever seen one.

User avatar
Texpat
udonmap.com
Posts: 1324
Joined: July 21, 2007, 1:43 am

Re: San Francisco Bans Happy Meals

Post by Texpat » November 5, 2010, 5:16 pm

A provision in the US Health Bill, signed into law this past Tuesday night, will mandate all chain restaurants with 20 or more locations to display visibly calorie counts for all items on menus, boards, drive-through displays, and vending machines. The law will apply to 200,000 restaurants nationwide and all food and beverage items listed on menus, with the exception of temporary additions that expire within 60 days of inclusion.
http://www.naturalsolutionsmag.com/blog ... staurants/
... including San Francisco.

Although I rarely visit McDonalds (less than once a year) I've noticed calorie displays going back at least five years. Perhaps I'm more observant.

Why is it mandatory to list the calories in a bag of McDonald's sliced apples, but not in a whole chocolate cake at a corner bakery?

Post Reply

Return to “World News”