Wednesday, November 03, 2010

I'm Lovin' It

SF supervisors pass 'Happy Meal' regulations

Law would require offerings be healthier if they include a toy for children [More]
What...?
Posted by David Codrea at 11/03/2010 01:30:00 PM

7 comments:

Defender said...

If you're happy and you know it, clank your chains.

11/03/2010 3:13 PM
NotClauswitz said...

Remember that politics is personal - IMO it has something to do with one guy who owns ten of the Micky-D franchises in SF and they're out to get him or to show him who's boss at the very least - it's how they do things in SF. Maybe he stepped on someone's toes in High School.

11/03/2010 4:03 PM
Mack said...

What do you mean, "What ...?" ... it's justice:

San Francisco bans Happy Meals

"We're part of a movement that is moving forward an agenda of food justice," said Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure.

11/03/2010 4:45 PM
Anonymous said...

Why is food safety considered some bad issue? If food killed a kid tomorrow, we'd say regulate it. But food, which if given as a steady diet, will kill the kid years from now is some sort of "freedom" issue. People are dying of this kind of diet. Just look at diabetes's explosion among Americans.

I don't get it unless you say all government regulation is oppression. Yeah, a corporation can hurt a kid, that's OK. But gov't doing something about it is wrong. That is a what is known as a specious argument.

11/03/2010 4:57 PM
TJP said...

Government restriction is oppression. Regulation, by contrast, should be helpful. The problem is that everything that needed regulation to work optimally has already been regulated--but politicians still need to be elected.

I have no problem with "food safety" at all, but that isn't the issue here. It's not like McDonald's is pushing apple pies on diabetics or sealing hydrogen cyanide in a Happy Meal bag. No one is being forced to eat it, and it's not technically unsafe for anyone but those with rare dietary restrictions. The argument that it is unhealthy over time applies to any extremely limited diet, especially if consumed in excess.

Why is your angst directed solely at a corporation that uses a clown to hawk junk food? Does this strike you as the most competent organization to undertake the job of instructing people how to eat healthy? At some point, you're going to have to admit that it's a waste of time, and consider why parents are taking their kids to McDonald's in the first place. I could count on one hand the times my parents actually let us eat that rubbish while I was a child.

How far would you want government to go forcing people to eat a certain way for their own safety. At some point the application of force becomes its own safety hazard. What is the point of diminishing returns? These are people who choose to listen to a clown over a dietitian. How do you fix that situation with government? How many taxpayers have to be financially destroyed to make the world safe for stupid people?

11/03/2010 6:34 PM
Ed said...

The solution is simple. Remove the toys from the Happy Meals, and offer a free toy on request for any meal sold. If Mommy, Daddy or Big Brother wants a cheap crap toy with their cheeseburger, fries and Coke then everyone is happier, especially the SF Supervisors, who are there to Supervise you and Supervise me.

11/03/2010 7:33 PM
PeaceableGuy said...

The solution is to make the government leave those involved in voluntary transactions the hell alone.

Why should McDonald's be forced to to change one of its most well-known marketing gimmicks? Note the use of the word 'force' - it's one of the things governments were created to protect AGAINST. (Read the Declaration of Independence.)

11/04/2010 2:42 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)