Ban Ronald McDonald?

[Coito ergo sum]

Before I attempt to strengthen my argument, I would need answers, especially from Cunt and Coito, but the more answer, the better.

I hope the questions are worded unambiguously enough:

Speaking of western, affluent democracies: Do you believe that the government (federal, national, regional, or local) has
1) a right to influence the health of the population it governs and/or

It has the power and sometimes the lawful authority to do so. It depends. The question is worded too generally to limit it to a simple yes/no answer, because if one says, 'yes' then the followup may be, "see - that's all San Fran is doing...influencing the health of its population." The government has the power and authority to do a lot of things, and sometimes the government is limited.

I think that the local government probably had the constitutional power to do this thing with the Happy Meals. My objection is its abject stupidity and inanity.

2) a duty to influence the health of the population it governs?

A "duty?" No. I don't think the local population has a "duty to influence the health of the population it governs." I would say it has the power to act within its lawful authority. Whether it determines there is a reason to act in a health related area is up to the local government, according to the will of the constituents.

3) Where do you draw the limits of such right and/or duty, if you believe either exists?

I think that if a local government is going to do something it should have a rational basis and be reasonably related to the ends it seeks to achieve, and I think also that the government should not be permitted to violate fundamental rights in achieving its ends.

4) How does it influence your answer if we are talking about children or the mentally disabled?

It doesn't.

[Coito ergo sum]

CES? what's that source you quoted for "She Who Must Be Obeyed"?

Most of the John Mortimer "Rumpole of the Bailey," books. But, he was fond of English literature, and the books are full of quotes and references drawn from English literature. I have long forgotten where Rumpole supposedly drew the term. I just like it.

[Svartalf]

TV series... ok, I'm not hallucinating about where the writer took it from.

[Coito ergo sum]

TV series... ok, I'm not hallucinating about where the writer took it from.

Well, books. The books were made into a TV series.

[Warren Dew]

Just 300 extra calories in a day more than your body needs will make you gain about 31 pounds in a year.

The increase in our calorie intake since 1970 is more than 300 kcal per day, right? And we're not exercising more. So on average we should be gaining 31 pounds or more per year right? We should all weigh 400 pounds by the age of 30, 1000 pounds by the age of 50.

But - we don't. We're only, on average, gaining 1-2 pounds a year, not 31 pounds a year. Clearly there's something more here than a naive "calories in, calories out" theory would have us believe.

[maiforpeace]

My objection is its abject stupidity and inanity.

In your opinion...

What you call stupid and inane is my opinion...and that of half of the people who have weighed in here. Do you ever ask yourself, before popping off like that how it would feel for you if I wrote off your opinion as being stupid and inane? What a turn off.

[Coito ergo sum]

My objection is its abject stupidity and inanity.

In your opinion...

Well, 98% of everything talked about on this website is opinion. Of course it's my opinion.

But, despite being an opinion, it is based on sound argument to which nobody has offered a rebuttal, namely that there is no evidence whatsoever supporting the notion that removing the toy from the Happy Meal will achieve the stated goal of reducing obesity or improving the health of the chil'run. There isn't any evidence for it, and none has been offered.

My position is that it is a stupid an inane ordinance because it is based on an anti-McDonald's knee-jerk, emotional impulse, and not sound evidence. As supposed proponents of "reason" I would think that most of us would want the government to take action based on reason and not anti-fast food fervor.

Moreover, there is persuasive evidence of what is causing obesity and weight related problems in our children: The 25% increase in daily calorie intake combined with a substantial decrease in physical activity and a substantial increase in sedentary lifestyle. That accounts for the weight gain.

On what do you base your opinion?

What you call stupid and inane is my opinion...and that of half of the people who have weighed in here. Do you ever ask yourself, before popping off like that how it would feel for you if I wrote off your opinion as being stupid and inane? What a turn off.

I assure you that my intent was not to call your opinion stupid and inane, but to state my opinion that the ordinance is stupid and inane.

Far worse happens all the time to me here, so I've gotten used to it. Very common for me to be viciously attacked and called names.

If your opinion is that the ordinance is not stupid and inane, my question to you would be "why?" Do you feel that the ordinance is reasonably related to its stated goal? You think that taking the toys out of happy meals, and their equivalents at other restaurants, is going to make children less fat? If so, on what basis do you say that? Is it evidence based, or do you just think it sounds good because McDonalds is a boogey man and we have no sympathy for them because they are bad?

[Coito ergo sum]

Just 300 extra calories in a day more than your body needs will make you gain about 31 pounds in a year.

The increase in our calorie intake since 1970 is more than 300 kcal per day, right? And we're not exercising more. So on average we should be gaining 31 pounds or more per year right? We should all weigh 400 pounds by the age of 30, 1000 pounds by the age of 50.

It was a 25% increase on average. Some folks more, some folks less. But, that's the statistic. I don't know if that's 300 calories, but it's a lot.

And, I was clear I thought - calories ingested are then dispersed not only by being burned by the body for energy, but also crapped out, cryed out, sweated out, urinated out, farted out, etc. So, it's not a pure 1 for 1 ratio. I was illustrating the principle.

If you eat more, and exercise less -- what happens? You gain weight.

But - we don't. We're only, on average, gaining 1-2 pounds a year, not 31 pounds a year. Clearly there's something more here than a naive "calories in, calories out" theory would have us believe.

I only used 300 as an example - 300 calories is very little, and that daily increase in calories can account for a very large increase in weight gain. That's why if you go to a nutritionist or a trainer and you are trying to lose weight, and you tell them you drink 3 cokes a day, amounting to 300 calories, the first think they're going to tell you is to stop drinking the coke.

Calories in calories out is not a "naive" theory. It's the way it works. Naturally, different people have different metabolic rates, and different processes in the body can speed that up and slow it down.

However, the calorie intake and the reduced activity alone accounts for the weight gain we see.

And, nutritionists and trainers use the calories in calories out "naive theory" all the time - they figure out a persons basal metabolic rate (calories burned per day) and then calculate out a diet based on that, combined with the physical activity (you can measure calories burned though exercise). They create a "caloric deficit" and the rule of thumb is that every 3500 calories of caloric deficit you have, that's 1 pound of fat.

There is, quite simply, one main reason most fat people are fat. They eat too much compared to what their body needs given their level of physical activity. It's not because of high fructose corn syrup - that's been debunked - it's pseudoscience.

[Ronja]

Speaking of western, affluent democracies: Do you believe that the government (federal, national, regional, or local) has
1) a right to influence the health of the population it governs and/or

It has the power and sometimes the lawful authority to do so. It depends. The question is worded too generally to limit it to a simple yes/no answer, because if one says, 'yes' then the followup may be, "see - that's all San Fran is doing...influencing the health of its population." The government has the power and authority to do a lot of things, and sometimes the government is limited.

OK, it sounds like we are in some kind of agreement on this.

2) a duty to influence the health of the population it governs?

A "duty?" No. I don't think the local population government has a "duty to influence the health of the population it governs." I would say it has the power to act within its lawful authority. Whether it determines there is a reason to act in a health related area is up to the local government, according to the will of the constituents.

(correction mine - this is what you meant?)

It sounds like here we have a disagreement or difference in governmental culture.

Some background first: Civil servants in Finland, since as far back as I know, have had to give an oath to ensure that they will do their jobs as conscientiously as possible. When we used to be a part of Sweden and later Russia, the oath was also a pledge of allegiance to the king, queen, or czar (the earliest reference to such an oath that I could easily find was 1496 - source http://home.swipnet.se/PharmHist/Forelasn/FH41.html ). As we have had a multi-party parliament for about 100 years (and before it a multi-chamber senate), civil servants have always kept their jobs when the majority party in a county, region, or in the national parliament changes. This also is true for almost all the highest civil servants in the various ministries. Thus the civil servants are a continuity building and balancing factor to the elected representatives - often for the best, but sometimes they do slow down also necessary changes quite a bit.

So with us, the assumption has historically been that both civil servants and elected officials are accountable for what they do. However, about twenty-five years ago the discussion got louder about the practical consequences of the wording of the law: that when in doubt, a civil servant could safely do nothing and that could not legally be counted as lack of due diligence in her/his job. So in 1994, the laws about civil servants went through a major overhaul, and the principle of actively informing and taking initiative was added to the legal duties of all civil servants. This development was influenced partly by the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and partly by the Rio Pact of 1992, from which the precautionary principle (AFAIK for the first time) entered the Finnish law. So nowadays, if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.

So, as you see, based on the above a civil servant here has a legal duty to act (the minimum being talking to her/his boss), if there is a possible risk for e.g. the relevant population's health. And the possibility is enough - there does not need to be conclusive evidence. In fact, a civil servant does not have the right to wait for conclusive evidence, if there is a reasonably conceivable risk. So if McDonalds' giving away toys with Happy Meals was questioned here, McDonalds would have to prove that their policy of giving away toys does not encourage kids to eat at McDonalds insanely often, or prove that the food, with which the toys are given, is healthy.

At least one Finnish hamburger chain (HesBurger) offers a choice: either a toy or a small portion of ice-cream. I've not been to McDonald's for such a long time that I'm unsure if this is their policy, too (in Finland, that is).

3) Where do you draw the limits of such right and/or duty, if you believe either exists?

I think that if a local government is going to do something it should have a rational basis and be reasonably related to the ends it seeks to achieve, and I think also that the government should not be permitted to violate fundamental rights in achieving its ends.

On the level of principle, it looks like we agree on this - however, our respective interpretations of what constitutes "rational basis" and "reasonably related" likely don't converge too well. Also "not permitted to violate fundamental rights in achieving its ends" sounds woolly. But we can get back to that later.

4) How does it influence your answer if we are talking about children or the mentally disabled?

It doesn't.

To me, *that* sounds weird. More later...

Edit: shucks, I'm too sleepy to be able to continue today. Oh well, this discussion will certainly keep.

[Trolldor]

Believe it or not, some don't "have a choice" because McD's has put a lot in to advertising and conditioning. Part of the reason they included toys with happy meals wasn't just to encourage children to eat there, but when those children grew up they would 'remember' the fond times and the toys and continue to eat there, and then take their own children.
It's the same reason they invested so much in to the 'sight' and 'smell' of McD's being universal, so you would always feel 'at home' no matter which store you went to. (Store, not restaurant).

And it works. People are conditioned to go, conditioned to associate it with 'enjoyment' and 'good times'.
They changed the menu colours to give the illusion of being healthier (Use of Green etc.)
There is a lot of subtle effects they trot out. (Not subliminal ffs, if it was subliminal you wouldn't notice it and therefore it wouldn't have an effect)

A Government doesn't have the duty to 'influence the health' but to manage it. In other words, to act where appropriate. In this case there is an increasing epidemic of obese children, the population is clearly not capable of taking the matter in to their own hands so the Govt. has to intervene. If the population was capable then there would be no need to.
People are stupid, they are easily manipulated and easily herded.

[eXcommunicate]

This happy meal ban is irrational.

The hype you provide around this issue is what is irrational. 1st, this isn't a "Happy Meal ban," it bans a specific tool (free toys) bundled with happy Meals used to market towards children, who do not have the cognitive abilities to be able to properly choose what food they eat. The food itself is not banned. Their parents can still choose to buy the Happy Meal for their kids. The kids, however, are subjected to one less marketing ploy that attempts to add a positive association with McDonald's unhealthy food. This whole discussion about McDonald's not being "that bad" just shows you how shitty our diets have become and how low our expectations are for our food. But that discussion is still only tangential to the morality of marketing unhealthy consumer products directly to children.

[Coito ergo sum]

Believe it or not, some don't "have a choice" because McD's has put a lot in to advertising and conditioning.

How very condescending.

Do you have a choice? Why are you immune from this all-powerful advertising?

Part of the reason they included toys with happy meals wasn't just to encourage children to eat there, but when those children grew up they would 'remember' the
fond times and the toys and continue to eat there, and then take their own children.

Oh....my....GOD!!! That is...I mean.... wow....McDonald's really does that? The unmitigated GALL! The pure in sense evil!

They put out a food product....and couple that with an enjoyable, memorable experience?

Jesus! What's next? Do you think they actually try to make their food taste good so that people want to buy it? If that's true, I'm getting out the picket sign...

It's the same reason they invested so much in to the 'sight' and 'smell' of McD's being universal, so you would always feel 'at home' no matter which store you went to. (Store, not restaurant).

God almighty....I wasn't aware that restauranteurs thought about making their restaurants pleasant, memorable and consistent from place to place. I mean - whenever I go to Chilis, they're totally different. I wouldn't even know I was in a Chilis.....That McDonalds, man, they are SLY! They make their restaurants generally consistent so that when you go to a McDonalds the experience is the same, you order what you want, and get it AND you feel at home? BASTARDS!

And it works. People are conditioned to go, conditioned to associate it with 'enjoyment' and 'good times'.

You know what.... it just dawned on me.... Disney does that... right here - just an hour away....Walt Disney World...home of Mickey Mouse for the love of anything that is holy! They associate that place with "enjoyment" and "good times!" That makes them want to come back again!

I see what you're getting at here...I see it now...if a company puts out a good product that people want to buy, and then they create a nice, attractive atmosphere that makes people feel at home, and they manage to get their customers to associate their product with enjoyment and good times, they are removing the freedom of choice from us! We are in their power!

They changed the menu colours to give the illusion of being healthier (Use of Green etc.)

I've not seen the "green menu" at McDonalds. Maybe the section that has salads? Not sure... How dare they use green though. That is just horrible.

There is a lot of subtle effects they trot out. (Not subliminal ffs, if it was subliminal you wouldn't notice it and therefore it wouldn't have an effect)

A Government doesn't have the duty to 'influence the health' but to manage it. In other words, to act where appropriate. In this case there is an increasing epidemic of obese children, the population is clearly not capable of taking the matter in to their own hands so the Govt. has to intervene. If the population was capable then there would be no need to.
People are stupid, they are easily manipulated and easily herded.

There is an increasing epidemic of obese children. However, there is no evidence that removing happy meal toys will have any effect. Is there?

[Ronja]

Just one more question tonight: Is San Francisco the only city in the US with a codified Precautionary Principle? http://library.municode.com/index.aspx? ... California

[Coito ergo sum]

This happy meal ban is irrational.

The hype you provide around this issue is what is irrational. 1st, this isn't a "Happy Meal ban," it bans a specific tool (free toys) bundled with happy Meals used to market towards children, who do not have the cognitive abilities to be able to properly choose what food they eat.

Children who do not have cognitive abilities to choose what to eat also don't have money to buy it, or transportation to get there. Their parents buy it for them.

The food itself is not banned. Their parents can still choose to buy the Happy Meal for their kids. The kids, however, are subjected to one less marketing ploy that attempts to add a positive association with McDonald's unhealthy food.

McDonald's food, however, is no more unhealthy than most other restaurant food. Go to Chilis, Ruby Tuesdays, Red Robin, Cheddars, Bennigans (when it was around), and the list goes on and on. And, it's no less healthy than much of the stuff parents feed their kids every day: hot dogs, hamburgers, french fries, tater tots, pizza, macaroni and cheese, grilled cheese, cold cuts like salami and baloney.

And, there is no evidence that obesity crisis is being caused by, or will in any way be reduced by, this Happy Meal toy rule. It's just plain silly. It's an emotional, knee-jerk response that serves only to deflect responsibility from the true cause of obesity: overconsumption of food and a lack of exercise.

This whole discussion about McDonald's not being "that bad" just shows you how shitty our diets have become and how low our expectations are for our food. But that discussion is still only tangential to the morality of marketing unhealthy consumer products directly to children.

I never said McDonalds was good. I just examined this Happy Meal that has been so demonized. Frankly, it's not a big deal. It's a small 300 calorie hamburger, and fries and coke/milk totaling about 630 calories which is no big deal. Nobody in the world suggests that McDonalds is something people ought to be eating 3 times a day, but if McDonalds offers a nice, fun, tasty product that people like, and that parents can get some inexpensive entertainment for their kids out of it, then isn't up to grown adults to regulate what they buy? The kids aren't buying the Happy Meals. As soon as kid hits 12, he's not getting a flippin' Happy Meal. So, this is mom and dad we're talking about - they have to put the kid in the car, drive him to McDonalds and buy the thing for the kid.

That's what irks me about this. It is puerile. It is insulting. It is -- stereotypical San Francisco - pompous and authoritarian - condescending and patronizing - silly, emotional, knee-jerk symbolism. It says to the "po folk" that they're too stupid to be able to figure out what to feed their kids - don't worry you po' people out there, we Enlightened Ones will keep you safe from the Happy Meal.

[Trolldor]

Do you have a choice? Why are you immune from this all-powerful advertising?

Because I don't like the food so the advertising has no effect. If I liked the food the marketing and advertising would.

Secondly, condescending? I don't give a shit. It's what is happening.