San Fransisco happy meal ban backfires

Recovering fund...
atheistSuperfan
Recovering fundamentalist's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2011-03-14
User is offlineOffline
San Fransisco happy meal ban backfires

I'm glad to see California's politicans hard at work. Eye-wink

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/29/victory-mcdonalds-outsmarts-san-francisco-on-happy-meal-ban/

Remember when San Fran “banned” Happy Meals by requiring fruit and vegetables to be served with any meal that includes a toy? Question: What if the meal doesn’t automatically include the toy? What if the toy’s “optional,” purchasable with a Happy Meal plus a small additional fee that you’ll be happy to pay just to shut up that screaming brat who wants the toy, mom, c’monnnnn?

I can’t shake the feeling that government intrusion produces higher costs, less choice, and inefficiency.

Come Dec. 1, you can still buy the Happy Meal. But it doesn’t come with a toy. For that, you’ll have to pay an extra 10 cents.

Huh. That hardly seems to have solved the problem (though adults and children purchasing unhealthy food can at least take solace that the 10 cents is going to Ronald McDonald House charities). But it actually gets worse from here. Thanks to Supervisor Eric Mar’s much-ballyhooed new law, parents browbeaten into supplementing their preteens’ Happy Meal toy collections are now mandated to buy the Happy Meals.

Today and tomorrow mark the last days that put-upon parents can satiate their youngsters by simply throwing down $2.18 for a Happy Meal toy. But, thanks to the new law taking effect on Dec. 1, this is no longer permitted. Now, in order to have the privilege of making a 10-cent charitable donation in exchange for the toy, you must buy the Happy Meal. Hilariously, it appears Mar et al., in their desire to keep McDonald’s from selling grease and fat to kids with the lure of a toy have now actually incentivized the purchase of that grease and fat — when, beforehand, a put-upon parent could get out cheaper and healthier with just the damn toy.

In other words, they dropped the healthy options from the Happy Meal, split off the toy — which is the only part most kids care about — and now require you to buy a tasty Meal comprised of a lardburger and death fries in order to get the prize for an extra dime. Your kid gets (a) something to play with and (b) fat, and you get momentary peace of mind. And San Francisco gets … a lesson? Nah. They won’t learn.

Exit question one: Won’t San Fran have the last laugh here? I thought McD’s already agreed to healthy-up their Happy Meals nationwide, even though pretty much no one — at McDonald’s — actually chooses the healthy option. Go figure. Exit question two: Why don’t they just wait for your kid to get obese and then take him away instead?

Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4679
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Recovering fundamentalist

Recovering fundamentalist wrote:

Exit question one: Won’t San Fran have the last laugh here? I thought McD’s already agreed to healthy-up their Happy Meals nationwide, even though pretty much no one — at McDonald’s — actually chooses the healthy option. Go figure.

If San Fran continues to pursue McD's eventually McD's will say fuck you and go sell their food elsewhere. Every time some stupid ass ordnance is passed, they will adjust their business model in a way that keeps it *gasp* profitable. If the city decides to continue brow beating them trying to turn McD's into McGranola and they start losing money in San Fran stores, they will close them. The corporation doesn't give a fuck about the stores if they aren't profitable. Then San Fran has fewer jobs, less dining options etc. and will blame the big bad business for leaving. I bet you the same dumb-asses who pass these laws probably enjoy a big mac from time to time and will probably miss it when its gone.

 

Recovering fundamentalist wrote:

Exit question two: Why don’t they just wait for your kid to get obese and then take him away instead?

 

This is a pet peeve of mine. Kids aren't fat because they eat junk. When I was a kid, I didn't eat any veggies, ate every pizza and bag of chips I could get. It wasn't until I was 16 that I discovered vegetables and fruit could be delicious. And damn near every kid I knew had similarly unhealthy diets. The difference is we exercised. If we were in the house on a nice day our parents would create boring chores until we figured out that you didn't want to be found. If your kid is fat, kick their ass outside. Take away the video games and television and make them create their own entertainment. If they are getting enough exercise, it doesn't matter what they eat. With a few exceptions, kids have really fast metabolisms. Make them play tag and *gasp* dodge ball. If you do have a kid with weight issues, it is your responsibility to deal with it and control their diet. Don't deprive everyone else of their fries because you or your kid is fat. 

 

 

And if I see Michelle Obama's fat ass on another of my favorite cooking shows preaching at me to eat healthy, I'm going to throw the damn tv out the window. Lose your own fat ass before preaching at me bitch. I watch cooking shows for sinfully delicious, artery clogging, indulgent, luxurious foods prepared by the most talented chefs in the world. Not spinach wrapped around baked fish, I can figure out how to make that on my own. And same to you Huckabee. Why is it always the fat politicians obsessed with controlling what everyone else eats? 

 

 

Then I was watching "Chopped" the other week and they had school cooks competing. They commented on how terrible it was that kids weren't getting enough to eat and they needed more meals at school in addition to the breakfast AND lunch they already get.... then turned around and talked about how fat the kids were. If the kids are fat they are not starving to death. Missing a meal won't kill them. Hell, I don't think anyone ate lunch at school except on pizza and taco day. Nothing else was edible. Most of the food was thrown away, we had big barrels we filled that were then sent to slop for the pigs. Yet, these people assure me that the kids are going hungry.... while at the same time the biggest concern is obesity......wtf. I can't stand the fucking stupidity and the idiots who sit there and think all of this is anything other than complete insanity.

 

/rant

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 Why would McDonald's do

 Why would McDonald's do that? They're getting a dime on toys that it cost them a nickel to purchase.

Wouldn't surprise me if they sponsored the ordinance so they could charge for the toys.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10738
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Lmao. Got to give props to

Lmao. Got to give props to McD's.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Recovering fund...
atheistSuperfan
Recovering fundamentalist's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2011-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Recovering fundamentalist wrote:

Exit question one: Won’t San Fran have the last laugh here? I thought McD’s already agreed to healthy-up their Happy Meals nationwide, even though pretty much no one — at McDonald’s — actually chooses the healthy option. Go figure.

If San Fran continues to pursue McD's eventually McD's will say fuck you and go sell their food elsewhere. Every time some stupid ass ordnance is passed, they will adjust their business model in a way that keeps it *gasp* profitable. If the city decides to continue brow beating them trying to turn McD's into McGranola and they start losing money in San Fran stores, they will close them. The corporation doesn't give a fuck about the stores if they aren't profitable. Then San Fran has fewer jobs, less dining options etc. and will blame the big bad business for leaving. I bet you the same dumb-asses who pass these laws probably enjoy a big mac from time to time and will probably miss it when its gone.

 

Recovering fundamentalist wrote:

Exit question two: Why don’t they just wait for your kid to get obese and then take him away instead?

 

This is a pet peeve of mine. Kids aren't fat because they eat junk. When I was a kid, I didn't eat any veggies, ate every pizza and bag of chips I could get. It wasn't until I was 16 that I discovered vegetables and fruit could be delicious. And damn near every kid I knew had similarly unhealthy diets. The difference is we exercised. If we were in the house on a nice day our parents would create boring chores until we figured out that you didn't want to be found. If your kid is fat, kick their ass outside. Take away the video games and television and make them create their own entertainment. If they are getting enough exercise, it doesn't matter what they eat. With a few exceptions, kids have really fast metabolisms. Make them play tag and *gasp* dodge ball. If you do have a kid with weight issues, it is your responsibility to deal with it and control their diet. Don't deprive everyone else of their fries because you or your kid is fat. 

 

 

And if I see Michelle Obama's fat ass on another of my favorite cooking shows preaching at me to eat healthy, I'm going to throw the damn tv out the window. Lose your own fat ass before preaching at me bitch. I watch cooking shows for sinfully delicious, artery clogging, indulgent, luxurious foods prepared by the most talented chefs in the world. Not spinach wrapped around baked fish, I can figure out how to make that on my own. And same to you Huckabee. Why is it always the fat politicians obsessed with controlling what everyone else eats? 

 

 

Then I was watching "Chopped" the other week and they had school cooks competing. They commented on how terrible it was that kids weren't getting enough to eat and they needed more meals at school in addition to the breakfast AND lunch they already get.... then turned around and talked about how fat the kids were. If the kids are fat they are not starving to death. Missing a meal won't kill them. Hell, I don't think anyone ate lunch at school except on pizza and taco day. Nothing else was edible. Most of the food was thrown away, we had big barrels we filled that were then sent to slop for the pigs. Yet, these people assure me that the kids are going hungry.... while at the same time the biggest concern is obesity......wtf. I can't stand the fucking stupidity and the idiots who sit there and think all of this is anything other than complete insanity.

 

/rant

Amen.

 

On a side note, this reminds me of another "controversy" that popped up a few years ago. KFC released a "Double Down Sandwich" which had two slices of chicken breast used as the "bun" - some food Nazis were b*tching about it for "promoting unhealthy eating" or something - then it turns out that it actually had less calories and fat than a Big Mac, or most every other item on KFC's menu. Laughing out loud There's no logic behind this kind of thinking.

Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical


Squady
Theist
Posts: 28
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
 If McD's can adjust their

 If McD's can adjust their business model in a way that keeps it profitable... so can we adjust to that for our children's health benefit and our family's financial well being.