Ban Ronald McDonald?

[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?

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.

Would you support the lifting of the age restriction on cigarettes so that tobacco companies had the freedom to sell to minors and to advertise directly to them?

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

I fully support your activism. I wish people would never eat at McDonald's and never smoke cigarettes. Persuade away!

Where I draw the line is when one side of the argument or debate gets the power of the State on an issue like this to COMPEL compliance with its point of view. Yes, I support your right to rail against McDonald's and push for McDonald's to retire Ronald. However, I oppose any law requiring them to do so.

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.

The calorie content is determined by volume. Happy meals are low calorie to begin with.

Here's what is in a happy meal:
a side order consisting of small of french fries or sliced apples with a side of caramel dip.
a soft drink (12 ounces), milk, chocolate milk, orange juice or apple juice.
a hamburger, cheeseburger, or a four piece order of Chicken McNuggets with dipping sauce.

So - you can skip the fries and get an apple juice...and the meal is probably as healthy as the average lunches parents shovel in their kids' faces. How many times have you seek parents' cutting up hot dogs for their little kids? Can't get much more unhealthy than that.... baloney sandwiches...fried chicken...hamburgers on the grill - all are just as bad as McDonald's. That's the dirty secret -- McDonald's Happy Meals are a convenient scapegoat for the failings of the American parent to feed their kids vegetables and other healthy foods.

On to the calories though - -let's pick a small fries, milk and cheeseburger.

Small fries 231 calories. Cheeseburger - 300 calories. Milk - 100 calories. Total calories - 631. (see http://www.calorieking.com)

A moderately active child between the ages of 9 and 13 should eat about 1800 to 2200 calories a day. See http://www.webmd.com So, the Happy Meal seems like a relatively calorie-appropriate meal, no?

What they are suggesting is to substitute apple slices for fries and lo fat milk for soda in the meal.

That is already a choice! Yet...can't get a toy even if you substitute apple slices and milk.

The reason people's kids are fat is because the parents feed the kids too much food, and don't raise them properly to get enough exercise. It ain't the 631 calorie happy meal.

[charlou]

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.

Would you support the lifting of the age restriction on cigarettes so that tobacco companies had the freedom to sell to minors and to advertise directly to them?

I think this is a great idea. More taxes, too ..

[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.

Would you support the lifting of the age restriction on cigarettes so that tobacco companies had the freedom to sell to minors and to advertise directly to them?

Not relevant to the discussion. A person may take either position on your cigarette question and it would not be inconsistent with taking either position on the McDonald's question.

Would you be in favor of making cigarettes and alcohol illegal?

Nevertheless - I will clarify, again, that it is not now illegal to "advertise direct" to minors. They are restricted from advertising on t-shirts and hats and stuff, and they can't advertise on television AT ALL, etc. There is no general restriction on advertising "to minors." (not in the US, anyway).

However, I would be in favor of eliminating the drinking age and the cigarette age, yes.

I look at Belgium, and they have no drinking age for beer and wine (but anything over 22% alcohol by volume, they have a drinking age. Bulgaria has no restriction on "consumption" of alcoholic beverages by minors. Denmark and France have no drinking age for beer and wine.

In Denmark they have a tradition that people can drink alcohol after the age of "confirmation" (about 13 or 14). They can't "purchase" but they can drink.

Other countries with no drinking age - Gibralter, Greece, Italy, Hungary (but they may have "purchase" restrictions).

My understanding is that the British laws are quite lax too - the consumption age being "5".... five. 16 "with a meal" and 18 otherwise. Here in the US, it's 21.

Similarly - smoking ages vary around the world - Denmark has no smoking age, although they have a purchase age, neither does Italy, Norway, Netherlands, Isle of Mann...Sweden...

I find these countries have a healthier attitude toward smoking and drinking, and they don't have a worse problem than we do in the United States.

[eXcommunicate]

I thought you guys were for less federal government and more local government. You don't live in San Francisco, so what the fuck do you care?

[maiforpeace]

I thought you guys were for less federal government and more local government. You don't live in San Francisco, so what the fuck do you care?

Because it might be setting a dangerous precident.

[Coito ergo sum]

I thought you guys were for less federal government and more local government. You don't live in San Francisco, so what the fuck do you care?

Who is "you guys?" I'm not for "less" federal government in all circumstances, nor am I for "more" local government.

I thought "you guys" were for the right to choose - and things like "legalizing pot" - If you want people to be able to smoke what they want, wouldn't you want to let them eat what they want, and sell what they want?

The precedent is important here, because this kind of nonsense tends to start somewhere like SF and then bleeds throughout the country.

It's a stupid ordinance, based on junk-science - or, more properly, no science at all - to suggest that the measure will achieve its goal, or even contribute to the achievement of the stated goal. It is irrational and stupid.

[Coito ergo sum]

I thought you guys were for less federal government and more local government. You don't live in San Francisco, so what the fuck do you care?

Because it might be setting a dangerous precident.

Quite true. It is a ridiculous law which allows a store to sell a toy, and allows it to sell a hamburger, but does not allow them to be sold in temporal proximity to each other.

There is no evidence at all that toys in happy meals contributes to obesity, and even if it did, so fucking what? So, does every idiot parent who feeds their kid Hot Pockets, Bagel Bites, and Pizza as meals, or makes grilled cheese sandwiches or hot dogs and hamburgers on the grill. Some of that stuff is actually worse than a Happy Meal, and just as it should be no part of the business of government to tell you what to put put on the grill, it should be no part of the business of government to make stupid rules about toys in boxes containing hamburgers, milk and apple slices (or fries).

[stripes4]

mmmmmm Cheeseburger mmmmmmmm

[Warren Dew]

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.

The fact that some of their meals fail because of caloric content - such as the milk and apple slices example Coito gives - doesn't change the fact that they have to cut the fat, too.

Low fat milk still has some fat, while soda has none. That means that in some cases, the meal with milk will fail the rule while the meal with soda will pass. That means that, as a parent, I may well be faced with the choice between giving my kid soda or having the kid throw a tantrum because she can't get the toy.

I personally would have no problem with a rule that said you can't bundle a toy with any meal - you have to unbundle it and sell it separately. That way I can choose a healthy meal for my kid - or just a snack if that's more appropriate - and still buy the toy for the same price everyone else pays. What I have a problem with is the city council trying to tell my kid how to eat, especially when they tell my kid to eat less healthily.

[eXcommunicate]

I thought you guys were for less federal government and more local government. You don't live in San Francisco, so what the fuck do you care?

Because it might be setting a dangerous precident.

The precedent was already set by local smoking bans.

[Rob]

In support of Ronald McDonald I am going to eat the greasiest meal possible at McD, it will be the first time in 5 years that i've been there.

[sandinista]

I thought you guys were for less federal government and more local government. You don't live in San Francisco, so what the fuck do you care?

Because it might be setting a dangerous precident.

The precedent was already set by local smoking bans.

[eXcommunicate]

Let me expand. The power to regulate what businesses can and cannot sell has rested with local government for 100+ years. That includes alcohol licenses, public smoking bans, zoning laws, and many other examples. Likewise the state and federal governments have banned marketing cigarettes to children. This San Francisco "Happy Meal" ordinance is not setting any kind of new precedent.

What I have a problem with is the city council trying to tell my kid how to eat

:sighsm: This ordinance does nothing of the sort.

[sandinista]

I agree, government has a long history of allowing or disallowing individuals from doing any number of things. It's about consistency for me.