Ban Ronald McDonald?

[Coito ergo sum]

Maybe Burger King has the better advertising idea anyway....lol

[Coito ergo sum]

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – San Francisco has become the first major U.S. city to pass a law that cracks down on the popular practice of giving away free toys with unhealthy restaurant meals for children.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101103/us_ ... nalds_toys

Whew!

Thank the deity of your choice! San Francisco has ridden to the rescue of the citizenry. Recognizing that it is a reasonable exercise of governmental authority to tell you that if you want to sell donuts or ice cream or sandwiches...you can not also sell a toy with them at the same time. Clearly, the reason is that kids want toys, and if you sell toys with your food, then kids will want that food, and we can't have that. Parents will be unable to say "no" to their children, and of course, child pressure on parents to buy them meals accompanied by toys is why kids are fat and unhealthy.

[Trolldor]

Already made a thread on that topic, and quite frankly the rising rates of obesity clearly show that the 'developed world' doesn't have the ability to control itself so yes the intervention is necessary.
Not to mention how much effort McDonald's has gone in to inflicting a life-time conditioning on its customers - or, more specifically, their children.

[maiforpeace]

Already made a thread on that topic, and quite frankly the rising rates of obesity clearly show that the 'developed world' doesn't have the ability to control itself so yes the intervention is necessary.
Not to mention how much effort McDonald's has gone in to inflicting a life-time conditioning on its customers - or, more specifically, their children.

If they sell a healthy meal, they can sell a toy with the meal.

The marketing department and R & D for menus at McDonald's might have to work out of the box and do something different...oh, my!

[Coito ergo sum]

Already made a thread on that topic, and quite frankly the rising rates of obesity clearly show that the 'developed world' doesn't have the ability to control itself so yes the intervention is necessary.

Of course, if we base our decisions on "reason" then we would require some evidence that eliminating the sale of food and toys together actually reduces obesity....but, why both with reason and evidence, when we can act on knee jerk, emotional responses.

And, liberty requires the right to make choices, not just "the right" choices.

Not to mention how much effort McDonald's has gone in to inflicting a life-time conditioning on its customers - or, more specifically, their children.

LOL - they sell hamburgers and french fries. They aren't doing anything more than any other restaurant in that regard.

How right wing authoritarian are you, anyway? You want the government in charge of our diets? LOL Talk about an invasion of privacy...

[leo-rcc]

If they sell a healthy meal, they can sell a toy with the meal.

The marketing department and R & D for menus at McDonald's might have to work out of the box and do something different...oh, my!

And you don't consider this belittling a tad anal?

[Coito ergo sum]

Already made a thread on that topic, and quite frankly the rising rates of obesity clearly show that the 'developed world' doesn't have the ability to control itself so yes the intervention is necessary.
Not to mention how much effort McDonald's has gone in to inflicting a life-time conditioning on its customers - or, more specifically, their children.

If they sell a healthy meal, they can sell a toy with the meal.

LOL - you really advocate the government being the arbiter of that?

Mai mai mai...please, o' please....tell me you are not in favor of this pseudo-scientific emotional clap-trap?

The marketing department and R & D for menus at McDonald's might have to work out of the box and do something different...oh, my!

Or, maybe it's a free country, and if people don't want to eat their they don't have to. I never go to Steak & Shake or Arby's, because I don't like the food. I know many people who don't go to McDonald's because they don't like it. It's called freedom, privacy and the right to choose.

Of course, there are those folks who don't like McDonald's AND want to make sure that nobody else gets the courtesy of being able to make their own decision. They want to legislate away that decision - you want to buy happy meals once in a while because your kids like them, and they are a nice, inexpensive, tasty treat! Oh, no! Not for you...you're not allowed to make your own consumer purchasing decisions....

[maiforpeace]

If they sell a healthy meal, they can sell a toy with the meal.

The marketing department and R & D for menus at McDonald's might have to work out of the box and do something different...oh, my!

And you don't consider this belittling a tad anal?

Yes. And it will be even more so if I go eat a few big macs.

Sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy for a corporation that has made billions and billions of dollars selling their unhealthy food made from factory farmed animals.

EDIT:

Already made a thread on that topic, and quite frankly the rising rates of obesity clearly show that the 'developed world' doesn't have the ability to control itself so yes the intervention is necessary.
Not to mention how much effort McDonald's has gone in to inflicting a life-time conditioning on its customers - or, more specifically, their children.

If they sell a healthy meal, they can sell a toy with the meal.

LOL - you really advocate the government being the arbiter of that?

Mai mai mai...please, o' please....tell me you are not in favor of this pseudo-scientific emotional clap-trap?

The marketing department and R & D for menus at McDonald's might have to work out of the box and do something different...oh, my!

Or, maybe it's a free country, and if people don't want to eat their they don't have to. I never go to Steak & Shake or Arby's, because I don't like the food. I know many people who don't go to McDonald's because they don't like it. It's called freedom, privacy and the right to choose.

Of course, there are those folks who don't like McDonald's AND want to make sure that nobody else gets the courtesy of being able to make their own decision. They want to legislate away that decision - you want to buy happy meals once in a while because your kids like them, and they are a nice, inexpensive, tasty treat! Oh, no! Not for you...you're not allowed to make your own consumer purchasing decisions....

Nobody is taking anyone's choices away...if they really want the toy they can go buy that crappy meal and buy the toy - they will just have to buy the healthy meal too to get the toy. How horrible...they might actually be exposed to healthier eating that way. It's not like they need the toy for their nutrition or their health.

[Coito ergo sum]

The precedent of this stuff is very troubling. If the city can ban toys with meals, then it can ban onion rings. Want to go to Outback or Cheddars for some tasty onion rings? Oh, no. Not good for you. You have freedom of choice, but not to eat what the government says is wrong.

I think the government ought to ban lettuce in restaurants, because of the risk of contaminated vegetables. If I get enough folks on city council to be with me, there's no reason we can't do that, right? It's just a matter of whether the cause is popular....


And, maiforpeace - I have no "sympathy" for McDonald's either. But the issue really isn't whether they are worthy of sympathy. It's whether there is a rational basis behind limiting the sale of food and a toy together (both being lawful products), and whether this is a proper exercise of government power.

If it's the treatment of animals that you are concerned with, or the relative health of the food, then this toy ban is way out in left field.

Many things are unhealthy. Is it really the government's business?

[leo-rcc]

If they sell a healthy meal, they can sell a toy with the meal.

The marketing department and R & D for menus at McDonald's might have to work out of the box and do something different...oh, my!

And you don't consider this belittling a tad anal?

Yes. And it will be even more so if I go eat a few big macs.

Sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy for a corporation that has made billions and billions of dollars selling their unhealthy food made from factory farmed animals.

So what? No matter what your personal misgivings are for a company, that does not take away the fact that it is completely asinine for a government to interfere with the way a business sells their product. A product by the way that you, the parents of those children, the children themselves, are not forced at gunpoint to buy. It is ridiculous.

[Coito ergo sum]

If they sell a healthy meal, they can sell a toy with the meal.

The marketing department and R & D for menus at McDonald's might have to work out of the box and do something different...oh, my!

And you don't consider this belittling a tad anal?

Yes. And it will be even more so if I go eat a few big macs.

Sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy for a corporation that has made billions and billions of dollars selling their unhealthy food made from factory farmed animals.

So what? No matter what your personal misgivings are for a company, that does not take away the fact that it is completely asinine for a government to interfere with the way a business sells their product. A product by the way that you, the parents of those children, the children themselves, are not forced at gunpoint to buy. It is ridiculous.

[Pappa]

The precedent of this stuff is very troubling. If the city can ban toys with meals, then it can ban onion rings. Want to go to Outback or Cheddars for some tasty onion rings? Oh, no. Not good for you. You have freedom of choice, but not to eat what the government says is wrong.

...

Many things are unhealthy. Is it really the government's business?

Would you support the direct advertising of cigarettes to minors too?

[Warren Dew]

If they sell a healthy meal, they can sell a toy with the meal.

Actually, the opposite is true. They have to sell a low fat, and thus carbohydrate heavy, meal to give out the toy. The actual scientific research overwhelmingly shows that it's carbohydrates, not fats, that are the primary cause of obesity. Basically the law encourages meals that cause obesity, and discourages healthy - or at least less unhealthy - kid's meals.

[maiforpeace]

If they sell a healthy meal, they can sell a toy with the meal.

The marketing department and R & D for menus at McDonald's might have to work out of the box and do something different...oh, my!

And you don't consider this belittling a tad anal?

Yes. And it will be even more so if I go eat a few big macs.

Sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy for a corporation that has made billions and billions of dollars selling their unhealthy food made from factory farmed animals.

So what? No matter what your personal misgivings are for a company, that does not take away the fact that it is completely asinine for a government to interfere with the way a business sells their product. A product by the way that you, the parents of those children, the children themselves, are not forced at gunpoint to buy. It is ridiculous.

I'm neither conservative or libertarian...what can I say?

Everyone's contributions have been thoughtful enough, but not enough to convince me to change my mind about the toys - so I must agree to disagree. If you feel as strongly about this as I do, then I suggest you do what I have done and support those organizations that are activist in supporting your position. I do thank you for that CES, if you hadn't brought this subject up I would have never known about http://www.retireronald.org/learn/index.

If they sell a healthy meal, they can sell a toy with the meal.

Actually, the opposite is true. They have to sell a low fat, and thus carbohydrate heavy, meal to give out the toy. The actual scientific research overwhelmingly shows that it's carbohydrates, not fats, that are the primary cause of obesity. Basically the law encourages meals that cause obesity, and discourages healthy - or at least less unhealthy - kid's meals.

That's not my understanding. They aren't just supposed to cut the fat - they are supposed to cut the caloric content as well. What they are suggesting is to substitute apple slices for fries and lo fat milk for soda in the meal.

[Coito ergo sum]

The precedent of this stuff is very troubling. If the city can ban toys with meals, then it can ban onion rings. Want to go to Outback or Cheddars for some tasty onion rings? Oh, no. Not good for you. You have freedom of choice, but not to eat what the government says is wrong.

...

Many things are unhealthy. Is it really the government's business?

Would you support the direct advertising of cigarettes to minors too?

I would submit that the key difference is that smoking cigarettes is illegal in the US until one reaches the age of 18. Therefore, restricting the advertising of in illegal product is not quite the same thing as saying: Sell burger, o.k. -- sell toy, o.k. - sell burger and toy, not o.k.

But - the reality is that cigarette manufacturers are not prohibited from advertising to minors. They are prohibited from advertising in certain media (television), etc., and sponsoring sporting events, concerts, etc., and they can't put adverts on hats and t-shirts, etc.- There is no general restriction of not marketing "to" particular groups.

I don't "support" the direct advertising of cigarettes to anyone. I hate cigarettes. I like cigars, though. However, I do support freedom, including the right to advertise a lawful product.