Ban Ronald McDonald?

[Gallstones]

Look, the eat healthy and exercise message is already getting out there. Those ads--some marketers have taken advantage of the health angle to sell their products--are interspersed between other ads including other restaurants catering to kid taste. This has been going on, in the broadcast media, since I was a kid, a long fucking goddamn time.

[Warren Dew]

OK, take children out of the equation. Just from a health standpoint. Cigarette ads were banned for health concerns, fast food is in the same category. Both'll kill ya. I would also add that fast food should be taxed heavier, in the same way cigarettes and alcohol are (in canaduh anyway). The high taxes are justified by the future health care costs of smoking, the future health care costs for obesity and heart disease as well as diabetes are going to be astronomical due to fast food.

It would be very trick to decide what should be taxed at a heavier rate... Any food sold on a take-away, ready to eat basis? That could include salad rolls, etc

It would, however, serve the purpose of decreasing employment for that evil top 99% of the population.

[sandinista]

OK, take children out of the equation. Just from a health standpoint. Cigarette ads were banned for health concerns, fast food is in the same category. Both'll kill ya. I would also add that fast food should be taxed heavier, in the same way cigarettes and alcohol are (in canaduh anyway). The high taxes are justified by the future health care costs of smoking, the future health care costs for obesity and heart disease as well as diabetes are going to be astronomical due to fast food.

It would be very trick to decide what should be taxed at a heavier rate... Any food sold on a take-away, ready to eat basis? That could include salad rolls, etc

It would, however, serve the purpose of decreasing employment for that evil top 99% of the population.

hmmm, you think the top 1% is "godly" and the bottom 99% is "evil". Not surprised.

[Gallstones]

OK, take children out of the equation. Just from a health standpoint. Cigarette ads were banned for health concerns, fast food is in the same category. Both'll kill ya. I would also add that fast food should be taxed heavier, in the same way cigarettes and alcohol are (in canaduh anyway). The high taxes are justified by the future health care costs of smoking, the future health care costs for obesity and heart disease as well as diabetes are going to be astronomical due to fast food.

It would be very trick to decide what should be taxed at a heavier rate... Any food sold on a take-away, ready to eat basis? That could include salad rolls, etc

It would, however, serve the purpose of decreasing employment for that evil top 99% of the population.

hmmm, you think the top 1% is "godly" and the bottom 99% is "evil". Not surprised.

I........

[sandinista]

OK, take children out of the equation. Just from a health standpoint. Cigarette ads were banned for health concerns, fast food is in the same category. Both'll kill ya. I would also add that fast food should be taxed heavier, in the same way cigarettes and alcohol are (in canaduh anyway). The high taxes are justified by the future health care costs of smoking, the future health care costs for obesity and heart disease as well as diabetes are going to be astronomical due to fast food.

It would be very trick to decide what should be taxed at a heavier rate... Any food sold on a take-away, ready to eat basis? That could include salad rolls, etc

It would, however, serve the purpose of decreasing employment for that evil top 99% of the population.

hmmm, you think the top 1% is "godly" and the bottom 99% is "evil". Not surprised.

I........

[JimC]

Political debate via smilies, a Ratz speciality...

[Coito ergo sum]

Look, the eat healthy and exercise message is already getting out there. Those ads--some marketers have taken advantage of the health angle to sell their products--are interspersed between other ads including other restaurants catering to kid taste. This has been going on, in the broadcast media, since I was a kid, a long fucking goddamn time.

In fact, similar forces to the "ban McDonalds" crowd are out there whining that our society is TOO conscious about these matters, and that people are suffering from anxiety and pressure to maintain a "certain body image." (you wouldn't know it by looking at the people, of course).

[Coito ergo sum]

Comparing the ban on advertising cigarettes to junk food is like comparing apples to oranges, particularly in regards to our most recent discussion regarding advertising to children. Last I looked you can't buy cigarettes if you are under the age of 18.

OK, take children out of the equation. Just from a health standpoint. Cigarette ads were banned for health concerns, fast food is in the same category. Both'll kill ya. I would also add that fast food should be taxed heavier, in the same way cigarettes and alcohol are (in canaduh anyway). The high taxes are justified by the future health care costs of smoking, the future health care costs for obesity and heart disease as well as diabetes are going to be astronomical due to fast food.

It would be very trick to decide what should be taxed at a heavier rate... Any food sold on a take-away, ready to eat basis? That could include salad rolls, etc

I think you have to be careful with regulation and taxes. However, I would support a minimalist stance of banning advertising fast food to children, along with the accompanying toy bribes...

The solution, of course, is to create "Ministry of Food" and they will engage in the political process to determine which foods are better and should be encouraged, and worse and should be discouraged. Naturally, that determination will have nothing at all to do with the political influence and acumen of the parties involved - it would never be the case that product X gets a tax because they'r eon the "pay no mind list" and product Y doesn't get a tax because they're in an influential politicians district..... perish the thought...

We'll have the government spend billions publishing volumes of texts setting tax rates, enacting regulations that food businesses will have to comply with to fall within this category (and tax rate) or that category (and tax rate). Reports will, of course, need to be filed on an annual basis, and audits will have to be conducted. This, of course, will require an annual fee....etc.... etc... etc.....

Or, just levy a sales tax across the board at X% and have done with it, and let people just fucking decide for themselves what to eat.... shocking, I know....humans not having every facet of their lives flyspecked and micromanaged? How would we survive without becoming grossly obese?

[Ronja]

To clarify: my main point was about whether kids have practical access to McDonald's and the means to eat there without their parents - not so much whether this independent access would make them fat (because access and means do not necessarily/unavoidably a habitual customer make).

This is, in other words, a bit of a derail.

How are 0-12 year olds getting to the McDonald's from home without parental knowledge or consent?

The short answer to your question is: the easiest way for kids in our suburb to get to McDonald's without parental knowledge would be on their way home from school. The same is true for many suburbs of Helsinki and other cities in Finland.

To see how this would work, you need to imagine a world apparently quite unlike yours. Finland is, on the global scale, almost ridiculously safe. In Finland most parents work full time. One parent may have the possibility to see school-age kids off in the morning, but by that time the one who needs the car may already have left (most families only have one car, and quite a few families have no car, especially if they live close to a metro or local train station or other good public transportation). In most of the country, and in cities and towns and of them in Helsinki especially (the capitol, quite city-like) public transportation is excellent even on a European scale (think New York underground and San Fransisco trams and then some - we have both a metro and trams, and buses and trains to boot). Helsinki is tightly built, especially close to metro stations, and thus schools are usually less than 3 km (2 miles) from where families with children live. Moreover, families with children often choose to move close to the planned school.

Due to all these reasons, from age 7 = 1st grade of primary school, many kids here walk or take the bus or metro to school, in the beginning with a parent or a grandparent, but in a few months when they have learned the route, alone or often together with a classmate who happens to also be a neighbor, or a sibling. They often also come home from school independently (the parents still being at work), and the older they get the larger the percentage grows of the kids getting to and from school independently, often as a pair or in a small group.

School rules usually are that pre-schoolers (age 6) may not come to school alone, but must be accompanied by a grown-up. From third grade (age 9) they usually are allowed to bicycle alone, younger than that must bicycle with a grown-up. Bicycling is handy and safe, as we have sidewalks everywhere in city/town environments, and kids up to 12 years are allowed to bicycle on them. We also have extensive bicycle route systems through parks etc.

Most folks don't live within walking distance of a McDonalds

In you neighborhood apparently not - but in my suburb and in fact all suburbs here that have a metro or train station, most of us do live within 1-2 km from a McDonald's, because the malls are on top of or beside the stations and McDonald's knows to make sure that they get to be at the malls. And the buildings closest to the metro/train stations are all big - 8 or 10 storeys each, and there are many of them (the zoning goal is a minimum of 50.000 people within an easy distance = 5 km radius around each station, and the intensity of building is highest nearest to the stations). So parental "knowledge and control" is not the key to stopping kids from going to McDonald's under these circumstances. Instead, not building the habit in the first place, eating home-made meals, educating them about food, and severely limiting exposure to TV until they can discuss the content at least semi-analytically - these things IME are (and I'm sure I've forgotten some).

What are you suggesting is common? Kids just pop on their bikes and ride five miles to the McDonalds? Yes - in that sense, they may have a finsky to spend and ride their bike to a McDonalds. And, it certainly isn't most people in the US. US living is fairly spread out.

This^^may be a very big reason why we seem to see the accessibility of McDonald's for kids so differently. It's a different landscape, quite literally.

The main point, however, is that parents of grammar school children are supposed to be monitoring their kids.
...
At age 7 and 5 you allowed your kids to walk alone to a mall? If that's a common practice, I am shocked.

I guess they were about that age when they started to walk or bicycle to the corner store some 800 m (half a mile) off (that's the closest place to get ice-cream - the mall is double the distance away). They usually went together with their friends from the yard. So they were never alone-alone, but 2-6 kids aged 5-10 when this habit was first encouraged. They have been allowed to go alone to the library since they were 7, and the library is next to the mall, just a stone throw from their school. They have never been told that they may *not* go to the mall, but we have discussed the wisdom of spending a lot of time in a place where temptations to use one's money abound. They prefer the library on most days.

5 year olds and 7 year olds on their own on public transportation? 11 and 9 year olds - alone on public transportation? I find that highly unlikely that it's common practice in the US to do such a thing. If that's something that Finns can do without concern in Finland, then my hat is off to Finland. You have a nice, safe country. That is not the way it is here.

Not 5-year olds, but 7-year olds definitely, lots of them, as I explained above. And yes, it is safe in Finland in general, if one can swim, knows what to do in a thunderstorm, and has sensible = safe cold weather habits. Traffic of course is what it is, but I guess car accidents are a big risk factor almost anywhere one lives on this planet by now.

Moreover - other than in Chicago and New York City, public transportation is generally limited to buses here. $8 a week ain't gunna get a kid far, and he might be able to scrape $1.07 for a burger off the dollar menu.

Are you saying that a bus ticket for a school kid would cost USD 8 week? Where? Wouldn't that be something like USD 200-250 for one school semester? That sounds like a lot to me, but here the ticket price is subsidized. I just checked and in Helsinki the kids pay as follows:

• 147 days (the whole spring term, from 8th January to 3rd June): 85.90 euros
  98 days (the likely snowy part of the spring term, from 8th January to 15th April): 57.90 euros
  14 days (the shortest available time-bound ticket): 10.10 euros
  single kid's ticket within Helsinki (valid for 1 hour): 1,20 euros if they pay cash and 0.75 if they pay with a personal traveler card

I wouldn't allow my kids to eat at McDonalds.

"Not allow" works IME until pre-school age and maybe up to 8 years, but after that the kid needs to start getting real, fact-based motivation for why to choose certain kinds of foods and why to shun others.

Subway is no better, though.

I find that kids who are armed with knowledge about what food is "good and good for you" make pretty good choices at places like Subway where you can choose what to put into the sandwich/sub/wrap/whatever. Neither of our kids likes any sauces or oil in their subs (with one exception: Younger Daughter loves ketchup) and they both make a point of choosing low-fat meat and some veggies. No meatballs or such for them. Elder Daughter will want some bacon or some cheese, but as neither of them has ever eaten more than 10 times per year at Subway, I am not too concerned.

[Coito ergo sum]

To clarify: my main point was about whether kids have practical access to McDonald's and the means to eat there without their parents - not so much whether this independent access would make them fat (because access and means do not necessarily/unavoidably a habitual customer make).

This is, in other words, a bit of a derail.

How are 0-12 year olds getting to the McDonald's from home without parental knowledge or consent?

The short answer to your question is: the easiest way for kids in our suburb to get to McDonald's without parental knowledge would be on their way home from school. The same is true for many suburbs of Helsinki and other cities in Finland.

Well, you folks aren't nearly as fat as Americans. But, I am still puzzled by the idea that children in grammar school are permitted to wander to and from school. In the US, almost everyone is either driven to the school by parents, or they take a bus from a bus stop within 100 yards of their home. Schools are not generally on roads where there are also McDonalds restaurants, and it would be the vast minority of children who actually walk to school and the vast minority of those walking who would actually pass a McDonald's on the way, and the vast minority of those kids who have the time and the money to (other than in the rare instance) have McDonald's food.

To see how this would work, you need to imagine a world apparently quite unlike yours. Finland is, on the global scale, almost ridiculously safe. In Finland most parents work full time. One parent may have the possibility to see school-age kids off in the morning, but by that time the one who needs the car may already have left (most families only have one car, and quite a few families have no car, especially if they live close to a metro or local train station or other good public transportation). In most of the country, and in cities and towns and of them in Helsinki especially (the capitol, quite city-like) public transportation is excellent even on a European scale (think New York underground and San Fransisco trams and then some - we have both a metro and trams, and buses and trains to boot). Helsinki is tightly built, especially close to metro stations, and thus schools are usually less than 3 km (2 miles) from where families with children live. Moreover, families with children often choose to move close to the planned school.

Due to all these reasons, from age 7 = 1st grade of primary school, many kids here walk or take the bus or metro to school, in the beginning with a parent or a grandparent, but in a few months when they have learned the route, alone or often together with a classmate who happens to also be a neighbor, or a sibling. They often also come home from school independently (the parents still being at work), and the older they get the larger the percentage grows of the kids getting to and from school independently, often as a pair or in a small group.

School rules usually are that pre-schoolers (age 6) may not come to school alone, but must be accompanied by a grown-up. From third grade (age 9) they usually are allowed to bicycle alone, younger than that must bicycle with a grown-up. Bicycling is handy and safe, as we have sidewalks everywhere in city/town environments, and kids up to 12 years are allowed to bicycle on them. We also have extensive bicycle route systems through parks etc.[/quote]

I can certainly imagine that and applaud it.

Most folks don't live within walking distance of a McDonalds

In you neighborhood apparently not - but in my suburb and in fact all suburbs here that have a metro or train station, most of us do live within 1-2 km from a McDonald's, because the malls are on top of or beside the stations and McDonald's knows to make sure that they get to be at the malls. And the buildings closest to the metro/train stations are all big - 8 or 10 storeys each, and there are many of them (the zoning goal is a minimum of 50.000 people within an easy distance = 5 km radius around each station, and the intensity of building is highest nearest to the stations). So parental "knowledge and control" is not the key to stopping kids from going to McDonald's under these circumstances. Instead, not building the habit in the first place, eating home-made meals, educating them about food, and severely limiting exposure to TV until they can discuss the content at least semi-analytically - these things IME are (and I'm sure I've forgotten some).

I can not argue with you over the conditions of life in Finland. All I can say is that the issue was brought up about young children's access to McDonald's food. In an article linked above, there is a reference to 3 year olds liking McDonalds. Surely, no 3 year old is being fed McDonald's without parental consent. Further, from pre-school age (in the US, 4), kindergarten (5), and even first and second grades (6 and 7 years old), I can't imagine that anyone is suggesting that these children are getting unfettered access to McDonald's restaurants on a regular basis. I mean - are people really handing their kids money and not worrying about what the kid eats during the day, and letting th kids age 5, 6, and 7 wander to school? If that can happen in Finland, more power to you - but, in the US it doesn't happen (and it's the US that's fat, not Finland - which actually makes my larger point - if your kids have such liberal access to money and McDonald's - passing them by regularly on their way to and from school - then certainly it is possible to coexist with Ronald McDonald and not get fat. You folks do it, apparently).

What are you suggesting is common? Kids just pop on their bikes and ride five miles to the McDonalds? Yes - in that sense, they may have a finsky to spend and ride their bike to a McDonalds. And, it certainly isn't most people in the US. US living is fairly spread out.

This^^may be a very big reason why we seem to see the accessibility of McDonald's for kids so differently. It's a different landscape, quite literally.

And, again - if you folks have greater and easier access to McDonaldses and stay thin, then why are we to blame McDonald's for US kids (or any kids) getting fat? Plainly, a 9 year old - except i rare circumstances - can't get regular McDonald's food without it being purchased for them by a parent (in the US - apparently, in Finland, they can easily do so - I accept your statement of fact on that, since you live there).

The main point, however, is that parents of grammar school children are supposed to be monitoring their kids.
...
At age 7 and 5 you allowed your kids to walk alone to a mall? If that's a common practice, I am shocked.

I guess they were about that age when they started to walk or bicycle to the corner store some 800 m (half a mile) off (that's the closest place to get ice-cream - the mall is double the distance away). They usually went together with their friends from the yard. So they were never alone-alone, but 2-6 kids aged 5-10 when this habit was first encouraged. They have been allowed to go alone to the library since they were 7, and the library is next to the mall, just a stone throw from their school. They have never been told that they may *not* go to the mall, but we have discussed the wisdom of spending a lot of time in a place where temptations to use one's money abound. They prefer the library on most days.

Gotcha - so, in Finland children can be given rough guidance and allowed to move about unrestrained as early as ages 5 and 7 to walk unsupervised to local establishments, including McDonalds, and spend money on what they want. That's wonderful, and a lot like how the US used to be and how it can be in more rural areas. However, in areas where it is safe to do that, in the US, it's generally a small country store down the street in a sparsely populated neighborhood. I doubt there are many parents in Chicago, Los Angeles, or New York that allow their children, age 5 or 7, to walk 1/2 mile from their apartment alone. But again - doesn't that make it harder in the US for them to get McDonalds? And, isn't it the Ameircan kids, not the freewheeling Finnish kids, who are fat?

5 year olds and 7 year olds on their own on public transportation? 11 and 9 year olds - alone on public transportation? I find that highly unlikely that it's common practice in the US to do such a thing. If that's something that Finns can do without concern in Finland, then my hat is off to Finland. You have a nice, safe country. That is not the way it is here.

Not 5-year olds, but 7-year olds definitely, lots of them, as I explained above. And yes, it is safe in Finland in general, if one can swim, knows what to do in a thunderstorm, and has sensible = safe cold weather habits. Traffic of course is what it is, but I guess car accidents are a big risk factor almost anywhere one lives on this planet by now.

Okeydoke - 7 year old kid traveling alone on a train or a bus. Rather alien concept to me. But, Finland must be awesome. I would like to visit there, actually. SWMBO'd and I were contemplating a jaunt to Norway one of these days - I'd like to hop on the Scan-rail system to Stockholm and maybe get a ferry to Helsinki. That would be awesome.

Moreover - other than in Chicago and New York City, public transportation is generally limited to buses here. $8 a week ain't gunna get a kid far, and he might be able to scrape $1.07 for a burger off the dollar menu.

Are you saying that a bus ticket for a school kid would cost USD 8 week? Where? Wouldn't that be something like USD 200-250 for one school semester? That sounds like a lot to me, but here the ticket price is subsidized. I just checked and in Helsinki the kids pay as follows:

Buses to school are generally cost free here. They don't stop anywhere though, and they guarantee that a kid won't be buying any McDonalds. It's a big yellow bus that stops at appointed pickup stops and drives the kids to school and then from school. That's it. Here the ticket isn't subsidized - there is no ticket where school buses are used. I think it's different in a place like NYC, but across America, kids get to school via cars driven by moms and dads, or big yellow buses.

I wouldn't allow my kids to eat at McDonalds.

"Not allow" works IME until pre-school age and maybe up to 8 years, but after that the kid needs to start getting real, fact-based motivation for why to choose certain kinds of foods and why to shun others.

I didn't say I wouldn't explain the facts. I said I wouldn't allow it. Not allowing something doesn't mean one just says "do as I say, cuz I said so."

And, supervision is the key. Also, controlling their money supply and instilling good money management skills goes a long way. It costs about $6.00 to eat anything substantial at McDonalds. Most of the time, the kid has no need of money, and when money is given out, the kid should explain what he wants it for. If you're giving out $5 or 5 euros a week in allowance, it matters very little if they spend it on McDonalds because spending that much on hamburgers once a week is not going to make a kid fat.

Subway is no better, though.

I find that kids who are armed with knowledge about what food is "good and good for you" make pretty good choices at places like Subway where you can choose what to put into the sandwich/sub/wrap/whatever. Neither of our kids likes any sauces or oil in their subs (with one exception: Younger Daughter loves ketchup) and they both make a point of choosing low-fat meat and some veggies. No meatballs or such for them. Elder Daughter will want some bacon or some cheese, but as neither of them has ever eaten more than 10 times per year at Subway, I am not too concerned.

Exactly. You don't need anybody telling you what to feed your kids. My point exactly. And, yes, Subway ain't good food, but it's not horrible either, depending on what one eats and how much - another decision you are perfectly capable of making and so are your children, apparently. I bet you can even manage your way through the Happy Meal dilemma and I am quite sure you can control the amount of pizza and ice cream that falls down the gullet of your little ones. All parents can. All parents should. Abdication of that responsibility by a large percentage of the population is not good for any society. That might be why Finland is the way you describe it - perhaps you have a more educated and responsible family structure.

[Ronja]

One important caveat regarding children's safe freedom of movement: we live in a suburb - it may be in many ways like a small town, but it's still a suburb. About 40,000 residents, with lots of 5-10 story houses around both local metro stations. The town house areas (like ours) are a bit further off, 1-3 km from the metro. Yet, partly because the city center is easy to reach by metro, there are no night clubs here, and all local restaurants (including McDonald's) close around 10 or 11 PM during the week and by 01 or 02 AM during the weekend. The "real happening" during weekends simply is not here. That calms the environment a lot compared to any city's more central regions. There definitely are places in Helsinki and a few of the other biggest cities of Finland, where I would not let kids roam as freely as here. But then again, I would preferably not live in any of those places to begin with.

[Gallstones]

Political debate via smilies, a Ratz speciality...

We gots talent.

[Gallstones]

Well, looks like I got in the last word. Everyone must think I'm right and has nothing left to counter with.

Yay me.

[Tigger]

Burger King, anyone?

[Clinton Huxley]

Burger King, anyone?

Proffer a Rustlers and I'll bite your arm off