San Francisco bans Happy Meals

[cawacko]

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.

First off I don't disagree that Newsom is a politician. My point on questioning the BOS motives just follows you questioning Newsom's.

My point has been the same all along. This legislation follows a long line of 'feel good' legislation this board has passed that does almost nothing to deal with the problem it is attempting to address.

 

[Bfgrn]

First off I don't disagree that Newsom is a politician. My point on questioning the BOS motives just follows you questioning Newsom's.

My point has been the same all along. This legislation follows a long line of 'feel good' legislation this board has passed that does almost nothing to deal with the problem it is attempting to address.

It would foolish to believe this law will end a huge crisis in this country. But I see it as a step in the right direction, not the wrong direction. It is a shot across the bow of these corporations that use predatory marketing targeted at kids as a business model.


The great French Marshall Lyautey once asked his gardener to plant a tree. The gardener objected that the tree was slow growing and would not reach maturity for 100 years. The Marshall replied, 'In that case, there is no time to lose; plant it this afternoon!'
President John F. Kennedy

 

[Good Luck]

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.

Thank you for once again pointing out how the modern liberal mind works. First you pass legislation taking over health care. Then you pass other unwanted, totalitarian - as well as useless - legislation under the excuse of keeping the first piece of bullshit big mommy government legislation affordable.

Of course, those who opposed universal care based on the idea that government would then use it as an excuse to regulate our behaviors regarding health were full blown paranoids, weren't they?

BTW: being that Happy Meals include the same toy selection for all their meals, some of which actually meet FDA health guidelines, tell us once more how the toy is a "hook" only for unhealthy meals?

 

[Socrtease]

I will admit that the right in this country is silent when the government interferes with businesses that sell items that the right dislikes. Take the Alabama case from 5 years ago where Alabama banned the sale of sex toys to adults. The state claimed that allowing the sale of sex toys would lead to criminal activities like prostitution. In this case, the LEFT, primarily through the ACLU, fought like hell against the state interfering in peoples private sex lives. The right was basically quiet. If you want to be consistent, you have to find both of these laws stupid, and far beyond the kind of regulation any true constitutionalist would believe the government, at any level, should be involved in. Stopping McDonalds from placing toys in their happy meals, or adult stores from happily selling sex toys is NOT something the government should be involved in.

 

[cawacko]

I will admit that the right in this country is silent when the government interferes with businesses that sell items that the right dislikes. Take the Alabama case from 5 years ago where Alabama banned the sale of sex toys to adults. The state claimed that allowing the sale of sex toys would lead to criminal activities like prostitution. In this case, the LEFT, primarily through the ACLU, fought like hell against the state interfering in peoples private sex lives. The right was basically quiet. If you want to be consistent, you have to find both of these laws stupid, and far beyond the kind of regulation any true constitutionalist would believe the government, at any level, should be involved in. Stopping McDonalds from placing toys in their happy meals, or adult stores from happily selling sex toys is NOT something the government should be involved in.

Whoa, whoa, whoa Soc. I remember that law and I remember screaming my f'ing head off about it. How can you ban sex toys??? That was freaking stupid.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Banning the toy is just a band-aid measure. We need to ban overeating. And the best way to do that is to limit people from buying excessive quantities of food. Limiting people to only 500 calories at any establishment a day will do wonders to solve over eating.

Bad idea.... Bars would be pissed. Every 2-3 drinks they cut people off?

The best way to get people in shape and to stop over eating is to make them pay for their own friggin health care.

100 pounds overweight? Congrats! You get to pay twice the premium as the person 100 pounds lighter than you.

 

[Socrtease]

Whoa, whoa, whoa Soc. I remember that law and I remember screaming my f'ing head off about it. How can you ban sex toys??? That was freaking stupid.

I am sure you did CW. But you are no more "the right" in this country than I am "the left" in this country, regardless of the fact that on MOST posts I get accused of being a leftist by DY and Dixie and others that are social conservatives. The "mainstream" right in this country would not stand up in opposition to a law that bans sex toys.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I am sure you did CW. But you are no more "the right" in this country than I am "the left" in this country, regardless of the fact that on MOST posts I get accused of being a leftist by DY and Dixie and others that are social conservatives. The "mainstream" right in this country would not stand up in opposition to a law that bans sex toys.

I am glad you brought up the sex toys case... it reminded me.... Grind's mom has a birthday coming up.

 

[Athena]

Bad idea.... Bars would be pissed. Every 2-3 drinks they cut people off?

The best way to get people in shape and to stop over eating is to make them pay for their own friggin health care.

100 pounds overweight? Congrats! You get to pay twice the premium as the person 100 pounds lighter than you.

How about we, the tax payer, not pay any health care costs and just let people be fat and stupid; drunk and stupid; doped up and stupid; fill in the blank and stupid?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

How about we, the tax payer, not pay any health care costs and just let people be fat and stupid; drunk and stupid; doped up and stupid; fill in the blank and stupid?

So your problem with my saying 'let people pay for their own friggin health care' is what???

 

[Athena]

So your problem with my saying 'let people pay for their own friggin health care' is what???

Whoa there Nelly, I was merely being more succinct. It is my position that the tax payer should not be paying for anyones health care but their own, period! Are you always so touchy?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

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

Why wouldn't they start a "PR offensive" against this asinine ruling??
What did you expect; that they would just roll over and blindly accept this?
Just because you're a sheep, doesn't mean that everyone else needs to fall into line and be sheared.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

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.

So basically; the Mayor of the Banana Republic of San Francisco has the ability to show some intelligence, as opposed to the rest of the flock, and actually realize that this was an asinine ordinance.
Now, because he doesn't fall into lock step with all the rest of the "feel gooders", he's to be demonized.
But then, that is the Liberal way.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Whoa, whoa, whoa Soc. I remember that law and I remember screaming my f'ing head off about it. How can you ban sex toys??? That was freaking stupid.

I heard that they were going to reinstate the sales; but there is a mandatory 5 day waiting period and the items have to be registered.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Whoa there Nelly, I was merely being more succinct. It is my position that the tax payer should not be paying for anyones health care but their own, period! Are you always so touchy?

yes he is...SF is cool...but often he gets spazzy like that

 

[Bfgrn]

Thank you for once again pointing out how the modern liberal mind works. First you pass legislation taking over health care. Then you pass other unwanted, totalitarian - as well as useless - legislation under the excuse of keeping the first piece of bullshit big mommy government legislation affordable.

Of course, those who opposed universal care based on the idea that government would then use it as an excuse to regulate our behaviors regarding health were full blown paranoids, weren't they?

BTW: being that Happy Meals include the same toy selection for all their meals, some of which actually meet FDA health guidelines, tell us once more how the toy is a "hook" only for unhealthy meals?

Here's some FACTS:

The annual health insurance premiums paid by the average American family now exceed the gross yearly income of a full-time minimum wage worker. Every 30 seconds, someone in the U.S. files for bankruptcy due to the costs of treating a health problem. Starbucks spends more on the health insurance of its workers than it does on coffee.

Medical care costs in the U.S. have not always been this excessive. This year, we will spend more than $2.5 trillion on medical care. But in 1950, five years before Ray Kroc opened the first franchised McDonald's restaurant, Americans only spent $8.4 billion ($70 billion in today's dollars). Even after adjusting for inflation, we now spend as much on health care every 10 days as we did in the entire year of 1950.

ref
-----------------------------------------
FDA health guidelines? USDA beef is banned in the rest of the world, because it is laced with steroids and chemicals that have been linked to cancer.
-----------------------------------------

'government would then use it as an excuse to regulate our behaviors'
Coming from a conservative, the people who demand government intrude into a woman's bedroom and control her uterus? Or conservatives who keep ripping away at the 4th amendment and challenging that it doesn't afford citizens the right to privacy because our founding fathers didn't use the word 'privacy'?

It's not liberals that are the problem, it's fat kids and fucking fat heads that are too immature and ignorant to be called adults.

Most U.S. youths unfit to serve, data show

By William H. McMichael - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Nov 5, 2009 16:56:21 EST

U.S. military-age youth are increasingly unfit to serve — mostly because they’re in such lousy shape.

According to the latest Pentagon figures, a full 35 percent, or more than one-third, of the roughly 31.2 million Americans aged 17 to 24 are unqualified for military service because of physical and medical issues. And, said Curt Gilroy, the Pentagon’s director of accessions, “the major component of this is obesity. We have an obesity crisis in the country. There’s no question about it.”
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/11/military_unfityouths_recruiting_110309w/

Obesity and risk of job disability in male firefighters

Background Obesity is a major public health problem and a workplace epidemic in Western societies. However, little is known about the association between obesity and job disability in specific occupational groups.

...

Conclusions Obesity is associated with higher risk of job disability in firefighters. Additional research is needed to further explore our findings. Our study may have economic and public health implications in other occupational settings.

http://occmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/58/4/245.full

December 25, 2008

Increasing obesity rate related to increased cost to society
Morbidities associated with obesity are also associated with high medical costs for care.

by Saad Shebrain, MD; Brant K. Oelschlager, MD

Researchers from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health addressed the prevalence of obesity and found the U.S. obesity rate has increased at an alarming rate over the past three decades, according to results of a recent study. The researchers expect that by 2030, 86% of U.S. adults will be overweight or obese, with related health care spending projected to be as much as $956.9 billion. They concluded that without a change in people’s eating habits or exercise habits, the figures will continue climbing to a public crisis.

From an economic standpoint, obesity is costly for both individuals and society, with its associated major health problems leading to substantial economic consequences for the U.S. health care system. This includes both direct and indirect costs. Direct medical costs may include preventive, diagnostic, and treatment services related to obesity; indirect costs relate to morbidity and mortality costs.

http://www.endocrinetoday.com/view.aspx?rid=35574

 

[Bfgrn]

Why wouldn't they start a "PR offensive" against this asinine ruling??
What did you expect; that they would just roll over and blindly accept this?
Just because you're a sheep, doesn't mean that everyone else needs to fall into line and be sheared.

No, I am not naive enough to believe those corporations wouldn't start a "PR offensive" or ' just roll over and blindly accept this'

But if you like to talk about sheep, why is it so hard to believe dirty energy corporations that would loose $billions of dollars if we passed a comprehensive energy policy and moved to clean energy wouldn't DO THE SAME?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

No, I am not naive enough to believe those corporations wouldn't start a "PR offensive" or ' just roll over and blindly accept this'

But if you like to talk about sheep, why is it so hard to believe dirty energy corporations that would loose $billions of dollars if we passed a comprehensive energy policy and moved to clean energy wouldn't DO THE SAME?

So now you want to spin this from you being a sheep, to yet another "rant-du-jour"!!

Amazing.
Forseen; but still amazing.

 

[Bfgrn]

So now you want to spin this from you being a sheep, to yet another "rant-du-jour"!!

Amazing.
Forseen; but still amazing.

Your constant obfuscation is not an argument, it is deflection.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Your constant obfuscation is not an argument, it is deflection.

Your constant desire to spin this into other discussions, is an obvious sign that even you have realized that your entire presentation was a major fail.