San Francisco bans Happy Meals

cawacko said:
For number two how would you ever quanfity that type of a study? You couldn't. That would be a big waste of money if government tried and I can't picture any private company wanting to take that on.

As far as how many Happy Meals are sold I would think that would be easy. McDonald's must track what is sold at each restaurant. They could easily say whether Happy Meal sales are up or down at each location.
Click to expand...

such a study would likely be expensive....but then again, so is having this stupid law....there is likely lost revenue and thus less taxes....if the wonderful nanny state knows so much of what is best for us, they could produce an economical study that backs their position up
 
cawacko said:
For number two how would you ever quanfity that type of a study? You couldn't. That would be a big waste of money if government tried and I can't picture any private company wanting to take that on.

As far as how many Happy Meals are sold I would think that would be easy. McDonald's must track what is sold at each restaurant. They could easily say whether Happy Meal sales are up or down at each location.
Click to expand...

Excuse me if I have misunderstood, but are you guys seriously suggesting that the decision to give toys with happy meals was arbitrary? I can assure you that not one toy is made, not one fry is sold, not one seat is sat on before extensive market research is carried out and analysed.
I can imagine a situation in your world where some exec walks into the boardroom and says: 'Hey, lets give away stuff. It might increase our sales or something.' or 'Let's make the seating more comfortable so people who have no intention of spending more than a couple of bucks will stay for longer.' or 'Lets run some ads somewhere.'
 
Yurt said:
such a study would likely be expensive....but then again, so is having this stupid law....there is likely lost revenue and thus less taxes....if the wonderful nanny state knows so much of what is best for us, they could produce an economical study that backs their position up
Click to expand...

What would a study consist of? Happy Meal sales were down 5% in a year and child obesity dropped by 3% and there is a direct correlation?
 
Lowaicue said:
Excuse me if I have misunderstood, but are you guys seriously suggesting that the decision to give toys with happy meals was arbitrary? I can assure you that not one toy is made, not one fry is sold, not one seat is sat on before extensive market research is carried out and analysed.
I can imagine a situation in your world where some exec walks into the boardroom and says: 'Hey, lets give away stuff. It might increase our sales or something.' or 'Let's make the seating more comfortable so people who have no intention of spending more than a couple of bucks will stay for longer.' or 'Lets run some ads somewhere.'
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood. The toys are obviously used for marketing.
 
cawacko said:
What would a study consist of? Happy Meal sales were down 5% in a year and child obesity dropped by 3% and there is a direct correlation?
Click to expand...

i have no idea, as i don't believe there is a correlation...its up to them to show a correlation

i have no idea what they serve kids in school today, but when i was in state run pre college schools, the food was absolute crap...i would be curious what schools in SF feed the kids and then compare that to a happy meal
 
cawacko said:
Look at this Bfgrn, from our Democratic Mayor in San Francisco who veto'd the legislation (which the board overrode).

Newsom issued a statement after the vote. ''We must continue to take steps to combat childhood obesity, a genuine health crisis in America, but this bill takes the wrong approach. Parents, not politicians, should decide what their children eat, especially when it comes to spending their own money,'' he said. ''Despite its good intentions, I will veto this unwise and unprecedented governmental intrusion into parental responsibilities and private choices.''


Those are words spoken by a Democrat not Grover Norquist.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=76704&tsp=1
Click to expand...

Comparing Gavin Newsom in any way, shape or form to Grover Norquist is being an ass cawacko.

I don't agree with the mayor. Yea, he's a Democrat, but he is also a politician. He was running for Lieutenant Governor. All pols have a little Machiavelli in 'em. It is self preservation. If he had endorsed this legislation, the right wing echo chamber funded by McDonalds and the restaurant association would have used it as a sledge hammer and slaughtered him with it. They would have distorted and drowned out the debate on issues Newsom was advocating.

From the article: McDonald's and the California Restaurant Association lobbied hard against the legislation, arguing that parents -- not lawmakers -- should decide what their kids should eat.

Here is what all of you keep forgetting. The law doesn't change one iota parents being able to decide what their children eat. It doesn't take anyone's rights away. BUT...it may change what a child asks for.

Here's what else you are forgetting. We don't live in a vacuum. When those parents choose what their child should eat, they are choosing how much OUR health insurance premiums will rise or fall.
 
Last edited:
Bfgrn said:
Comparing Gavin Newsom in any way, shape or form to Grover Norquist is being an ass cawacko.

I don't agree with the mayor. Yea, he's a Democrat, but he is also a politician. He was running for Lieutenant Governor. All pols have a little Machiavelli in 'em. It is self preservation. If he had endorsed this legislation, the right wing echo chamber funded by McDonalds and the restaurant association would have used it as a sledge hammer and slaughtered him with it. They would have distorted and drowned out the debate on issues Newsom was advocating.

From the article: McDonald's and the California Restaurant Association lobbied hard against the legislation, arguing that parents -- not lawmakers -- should decide what their kids should eat.

Here is what all of you keep forgetting. The law doesn't change one iota parents being able to decide what their children eat. It doesn't take anyone's rights away. BUT...it may change what a child asks for.

Here's what else you are forgetting. We don't live in a vacuum. When those parents choose what their child should eat, they are choosing how much OUR health insurance premiums will rise or fall.
Click to expand...

I said Newsom is NOT Norquist. He is not somebody on the right. There is no right-wing echo chamber in San Francisco. There is no right-wing here. The City has zero elected Republicans. The Bay Area has zero elected Republicans in Congress. Read the comments on sfgate after the article. See how few people in the City support this measure. Like any big City San Francisco has a lot of issues and the Board of Supervisors thinks the best use of its time is to take a toy out of a McDonald's Happy Meal?

I'm sorry Bfrgn, you keep wanting to make this a liberal/conservative thing when it is not. There are very few people who think this is a good idea.
 
Bfgrn said:
Comparing Gavin Newsom in any way, shape or form to Grover Norquist is being an ass cawacko.

I don't agree with the mayor. Yea, he's a Democrat, but he is also a politician. He was running for Lieutenant Governor. All pols have a little Machiavelli in 'em. It is self preservation. If he had endorsed this legislation, the right wing echo chamber funded by McDonalds and the restaurant association would have used it as a sledge hammer and slaughtered him with it. They would have distorted and drowned out the debate on issues Newsom was advocating.

From the article: McDonald's and the California Restaurant Association lobbied hard against the legislation, arguing that parents -- not lawmakers -- should decide what their kids should eat.

Here is what all of you keep forgetting. The law doesn't change one iota parents being able to decide what their children eat. It doesn't take anyone's rights away. BUT...it may change what a child asks for.

Here's what else you are forgetting. We don't live in a vacuum. When those parents choose what their child should eat, they are choosing how much OUR health insurance premiums will rise or fall.
Click to expand...

Are you surprised McDonald's and the restaurant industry are lobbying against it? If you owned a restaurant would you be happy about this? And are you assuming all restaraunts are somehow 'conservative' because they are a business and want to make money?
 
cawacko said:
I said Newsom is NOT Norquist. He is not somebody on the right. There is no right-wing echo chamber in San Francisco. There is no right-wing here. The City has zero elected Republicans. The Bay Area has zero elected Republicans in Congress. Read the comments on sfgate after the article. See how few people in the City support this measure. Like any big City San Francisco has a lot of issues and the Board of Supervisors thinks the best use of its time is to take a toy out of a McDonald's Happy Meal?

I'm sorry Bfrgn, you keep wanting to make this a liberal/conservative thing when it is not. There are very few people who think this is a good idea.
Click to expand...

Does only San Francisco vote for Lieutenant Governor?

Please answer this question. HOW would this law stop parents from being able to decide what their kids should eat?
 
Bfgrn said:
Does only San Francisco vote for Lieutenant Governor?

Please answer this question. HOW would this law stop parents from being able to decide what their kids should eat?
Click to expand...

Your first question is a rhetorical one. What is the point you are trying to make?

If can't see the government is stepping in and trying to dictate food options for people then I don't know what to say. If parents want to buy their kids happy meals that is their choice not yours. If you don't believe others should have the choice to choose that then I'm sorry you feel that way.

If you also lived in San Francisco and knew the homeless problems we have, pensions problems we have as well as overall cleanliness you would understand what so many who responded to the article did that we have real problems in our City that need address and not 'feel good' legislation like this that was just passed.
 
I hope that McD tells the Banana Republic of San Francisco to shove their proposal up their ass.

If I was the CEO of McD; I would sell the toys, for the same price as the Happy Meal, and include the hamburger, fries, and soda for free.

I wonder what the board of the Banana Republic of San Francisco would do then.
 
cawacko said:
Your first question is a rhetorical one. What is the point you are trying to make?

If can't see the government is stepping in and trying to dictate food options for people then I don't know what to say. If parents want to buy their kids happy meals that is their choice not yours. If you don't believe others should have the choice to choose that then I'm sorry you feel that way.

If you also lived in San Francisco and knew the homeless problems we have, pensions problems we have as well as overall cleanliness you would understand what so many who responded to the article did that we have real problems in our City that need address and not 'feel good' legislation like this that was just passed.
Click to expand...

My first question is not rhetorical. You are either ignoring or don't understand why I asked it. You tout the Mayor of SF is against it. I say there is a political reason. You claim there is no right wing echo chamber in SF, but SF alone does not vote for Lieutenant Governor. The whole state does.

The government did not CHANGE any food options...NONE. If parents want to buy their kids happy meals that is STILL THEIR choice.
 
cawacko said:
I think you misunderstood. The toys are obviously used for marketing.
Click to expand...

I have neither the time, nor the energy nor the desire to wade through over 300 posts. It did seem that there was some confusion as to how market analysis was used by such companies as McDog. It surprised me because, after all, marketing was one of the few inventions that America made that changed the world.
You probably do not remember The Hidden Persuaders or the Status Seekers, both by Vance Packard. Good reading even today.
 
Bfgrn said:
My first question is not rhetorical. You are either ignoring or don't understand why I asked it. You tout the Mayor of SF is against it. I say there is a political reason. You claim there is no right wing echo chamber in SF, but SF alone does not vote for Lieutenant Governor. The whole state does.

The government did not CHANGE any food options...NONE. If parents want to buy their kids happy meals that is STILL THEIR choice.
Click to expand...

You are obviously not from California. Democrats have 2.3 million more registered voters in the state than Republicans do. The Democrats won every statewide office this past election. Barbara Boxer is one of the most liberal Senators in the U.S. and see just won re-election by 10%. Newsom does not need to act like someone he is not to try to win office. If you know his history as I stated earlier he used to be a restaurant owner so he would understand the intrusion of government into something like this. He also just veto'd this yesterday which is well over a week past the election.
 
Lowaicue said:
I have neither the time, nor the energy nor the desire to wade through over 300 posts. It did seem that there was some confusion as to how market analysis was used by such companies as McDog. It surprised me because, after all, marketing was one of the few inventions that America made that changed the world.
You probably do not remember The Hidden Persuaders or the Status Seekers, both by Vance Packard. Good reading even today.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't want to read all 300 posts either but if you had there is no confusion over McDonald's marketing. The post that may have confused you was calling for a government study of the effectiveness of this ban.
 
cawacko said:
You are obviously not from California. Democrats have 2.3 million more registered voters in the state than Republicans do. The Democrats won every statewide office this past election. Barbara Boxer is one of the most liberal Senators in the U.S. and see just won re-election by 10%. Newsom does not need to act like someone he is not to try to win office. If you know his history as I stated earlier he used to be a restaurant owner so he would understand the intrusion of government into something like this. He also just veto'd this yesterday which is well over a week past the election.
Click to expand...

Here's your word for the day: naive


Apparently, this has really gotten McDonald's attention. Markie McBrayer of Corporate Accountability International wrote to me:

"This ordinance has struck a deep nerve with the industry - a clear indication of the primacy of predatory marketing to its business model. McDonald's and the fast food industry have launched an all out PR offensive to influence the political process.

Where McDonald's usually hides behind its trade association to avoid tarnishing its public image, it has come out from behind the curtain to oppose the policy. It has taken out a full-page ad in the San Francisco Chronicle, flown top executives in for a series of behind closed doors meetings aimed at getting Supervisor Mar to compromise or pull the policy, and threatened a lawsuit if all else fails."

Of course, not everyone can be pushed around or persuaded by McDonald's.

"Though McDonald's and its competitors could spare the health of millions in the years ahead, by losing the mascots, the toys, and other gimmicks that hook kids on unhealthy food for a lifetime, they are instead taking the low road," said Kelle Louaillier, executive director of Corporate Accountability International. "But the public relations shell game is wearing thin with a public hungry for solutions and fed-up with spin."

Unfortunately, either these threats from McDonald's have gotten under Mayor Gavin Newsom's skin, or the Mayor is just concerned about elections and popularity, because Newsom, a strong health advocate, has stated that he would veto the ordinance if it went through. At that point, the Board of Supervisors could overturn the veto but would need a vote of 8-3.

Regarding Newsom's history and stance, Trevor Hunnicutt over on Huffington Post wrote:

Mayor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order earlier this year banning sweetened beverages like Coca Cola and Pepsi from vending machines on city property. Local leaders considered but ultimately abandoned laws recently that would have imposed a fee on businesses that sell sugary drinks and alcohol.

Newsom has slowed down in his support of some health measures after he was attacked by his opponent in next month's lieutenant governor's race, Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado, for being the "food police." Newsom vetoed the alcohol and soda fees, and he's indicated he'll do the same for Ronald McDonald.

Of course, Newsom's representative, Tony Winnicker, had a very political response:

"The mayor is always open to argument and evidence about a better way - he's not ideological, he's not wedded to one approach. This is not the time to be considering new fees and taxes that would put San Francisco at a disadvantage to other counties around the state."

Reuters- McDonald's Happy Meal toys to be banned in San Francisco
 
Bfgrn said:
Here's your word for the day: naive


Apparently, this has really gotten McDonald's attention. Markie McBrayer of Corporate Accountability International wrote to me:

"This ordinance has struck a deep nerve with the industry - a clear indication of the primacy of predatory marketing to its business model. McDonald's and the fast food industry have launched an all out PR offensive to influence the political process.

Where McDonald's usually hides behind its trade association to avoid tarnishing its public image, it has come out from behind the curtain to oppose the policy. It has taken out a full-page ad in the San Francisco Chronicle, flown top executives in for a series of behind closed doors meetings aimed at getting Supervisor Mar to compromise or pull the policy, and threatened a lawsuit if all else fails."

Of course, not everyone can be pushed around or persuaded by McDonald's.

"Though McDonald's and its competitors could spare the health of millions in the years ahead, by losing the mascots, the toys, and other gimmicks that hook kids on unhealthy food for a lifetime, they are instead taking the low road," said Kelle Louaillier, executive director of Corporate Accountability International. "But the public relations shell game is wearing thin with a public hungry for solutions and fed-up with spin."

Unfortunately, either these threats from McDonald's have gotten under Mayor Gavin Newsom's skin, or the Mayor is just concerned about elections and popularity, because Newsom, a strong health advocate, has stated that he would veto the ordinance if it went through. At that point, the Board of Supervisors could overturn the veto but would need a vote of 8-3.

Regarding Newsom's history and stance, Trevor Hunnicutt over on Huffington Post wrote:

Mayor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order earlier this year banning sweetened beverages like Coca Cola and Pepsi from vending machines on city property. Local leaders considered but ultimately abandoned laws recently that would have imposed a fee on businesses that sell sugary drinks and alcohol.

Newsom has slowed down in his support of some health measures after he was attacked by his opponent in next month's lieutenant governor's race, Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado, for being the "food police." Newsom vetoed the alcohol and soda fees, and he's indicated he'll do the same for Ronald McDonald.

Of course, Newsom's representative, Tony Winnicker, had a very political response:

"The mayor is always open to argument and evidence about a better way - he's not ideological, he's not wedded to one approach. This is not the time to be considering new fees and taxes that would put San Francisco at a disadvantage to other counties around the state."

Reuters- McDonald's Happy Meal toys to be banned in San Francisco
Click to expand...

But of course the Board of Supervisors have pure motives right? No politics involved? I mean they're not trying to spend time on this to avoid having to deal with far more pressing issues in the City?

You want to have a real discussion about obesity propose banning McDonald's and other fast food in the City. We already don't allow big box retail so it's not like banning fast food would be something totally out of the blue for us. This legislation will do squat.
 
cawacko said:
But of course the Board of Supervisors have pure motives right? No politics involved? I mean they're not trying to spend time on this to avoid having to deal with far more pressing issues in the City?

You want to have a real discussion about obesity propose banning McDonald's and other fast food in the City. We already don't allow big box retail so it's not like banning fast food would be something totally out of the blue for us. This legislation will do squat.
Click to expand...

Pick a point and stick to it. You are all over the place. It seems I was right about the Mayor.

Unfortunately, either these threats from McDonald's have gotten under Mayor Gavin Newsom's skin, or the Mayor is just concerned about elections and popularity, because Newsom, a strong health advocate, has stated that he would veto the ordinance if it went through. At that point, the Board of Supervisors could overturn the veto but would need a vote of 8-3.

Regarding Newsom's history and stance, Trevor Hunnicutt over on Huffington Post wrote:

Mayor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order earlier this year banning sweetened beverages like Coca Cola and Pepsi from vending machines on city property. Local leaders considered but ultimately abandoned laws recently that would have imposed a fee on businesses that sell sugary drinks and alcohol.

Newsom has slowed down in his support of some health measures after he was attacked by his opponent in next month's lieutenant governor's race, Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado, for being the "food police." Newsom vetoed the alcohol and soda fees, and he's indicated he'll do the same for Ronald McDonald.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top