Happy Meal Banned

netrox · 11-03-2010, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

You might get even more repulsed in SF, they now banned Happy Meals.

AFP: McDonald's slams San Francisco ban on Happy Meals

You don't really understand the Happy Meal ban? They didn't BAN the happy meal, they banned the toys that come with the happy meal (junk) and I completely support the ban. I want the kids to be rewarded for eating well, not for eating junk.

I fully support the ban.

kokonut · 11-03-2010, 06:58 PM

Repost...

SF bans Happy Meals in SF

netrox · 11-03-2010, 07:04 PM

it should be in this thread because it's a political thing.

I want more taxes on junk food. I mean A LOT Of taxes.

souggy · 11-03-2010, 07:08 PM

Wirelessly posted

Why tax junk food? Just stop subdizing the oil industry, the pesticide industry and the corn industry, then junk food will be more expensive than organic.

There is absolutely no reason to tax any further when you look at the loopholes being exploited by the argibusiness corporations. It's time to close those loopholes.

**Foxrac** · 11-03-2010, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by souggy

Wirelessly posted

Why tax junk food? Just stop subdizing the oil industry, the pesticide industry and the corn industry, then junk food will be more expensive than organic.

There is absolutely no reason to tax any further when you look at the loopholes being exploited by the argibusiness corporations. It's time to close those loopholes.

kokonut · 11-03-2010, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by souggy

Wirelessly posted

Why tax junk food? Just stop subdizing the oil industry, the pesticide industry and the corn industry, then junk food will be more expensive than organic.

Organic food aren't known for their cheap way of growing in the agribusiness.

Now, is cheese a junk food? What about chicken? Ground beef? Tomatoes? Bread? Onions?

**TXgolfer** · 11-03-2010, 07:26 PM

Those toys are AWESOME!!! I often buy Happy Meals for homeless kids but keep the toys for myself

souggy · 11-03-2010, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Organic food aren't known for their cheap way of growing in the agribusiness.

Now, is cheese a junk food? What about chicken? Ground beef? Tomatoes? Bread? Onions?

Chemicals are not cheap either. The government subsidized these products so farmers could afford them, which in turn produce cheaper food. \

Yes, junk food is cheap to PURCHASE, but it's not cheap to PRODUCE; for the ease of buying food in the supermarket aisle, we are already paying for it. I am not talking about our health, but rather in a monetary sense. We are just not seeing the true cost of junk food on our receipts; it's coming out of our paycheques and payrolls long before us as a consumer have a say in what we buy. Organic farmers don't have the benefit of the subsidiarity programs-- direct or indirect.

Plus, I thought the Republican M.O. is reduced taxes?

netrox · 11-03-2010, 07:29 PM

"Why tax junk food? Just stop subdizing the oil industry, the pesticide industry and the corn industry, then junk food will be more expensive than organic."

First, when you tax junk food, that goes to healthcare. How you eat makes a difference in your health.

Second, sugar itself is ALWAYS cheaper than anything that's organic because conventional produce are much cheaper - you spray bugs to kill them and as a result, you save your crops and that means huge savings. Organics are ALWAYS more expensive and there's NO evidence supporting that organics are better for you. ZERO. As long as you eat plenty of plants, you'll live as long as those who eat organics.

Organic sugar is just pure non-sense - all refined sugar go through a lot of chemical processes to make it white and last for a looooong time. Same with flour. And salt.

Most synthetic pesticides are MUCH safer than natural pesticides - for example, they developed synthetic versions of natural pesticide that gives more toxicity for insects but significantly lower toxicity for humans. In other words, it's less toxic for humans. Also, they disappear quickly from produce. Eating any residues will be metabolized safely with NO toxic effects. If we used natural pesticides, we'd be more likely to be poisoned.

You can make organic foods and they're still as bad as conventional foods. You can use organic sugar in soda and it's STILL not better for you than a coke with sugar. It's still sugar - still junk.

We should focus on how diet affect health in the long term and we know from countless studies - the more junk food you eat, the worse your health will be. The MORE you eat, the fatter you get. So, in order to combat medical costs, you should pay MORE taxes for what you eat.

**TXgolfer** · 11-03-2010, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

. The MORE you eat, the fatter you get. So, in order to combat medical costs, you should pay MORE taxes for what you eat.

Or just pay your own damn health care and quit depending on others to do it....That was easy

souggy · 11-03-2010, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

"Why tax junk food? Just stop subdizing the oil industry, the pesticide industry and the corn industry, then junk food will be more expensive than organic."

First, when you tax junk food, that goes to healthcare. How you eat makes a difference in your health.

Second, sugar itself is ALWAYS cheaper than anything that's organic because conventional produce are much cheaper - you spray bugs to kill them and as a result, you save your crops and that means huge savings. Organics are ALWAYS more expensive and there's NO evidence supporting that organics are better for you. ZERO. As long as you eat plenty of plants, you'll live as long as those who eat organics.

Organic sugar is just pure non-sense - all refined sugar go through a lot of chemical processes to make it white and last for a looooong time. Same with flour. And salt.

Most synthetic pesticides are MUCH safer than natural pesticides - for example, they developed synthetic versions of natural pesticide that gives more toxicity for insects but significantly lower toxicity for humans. In other words, it's less toxic for humans. Also, they disappear quickly from produce. Eating any residues will be metabolized safely with NO toxic effects. If we used natural pesticides, we'd be more likely to be poisoned.

You can make organic foods and they're still as bad as conventional foods. You can use organic sugar in soda and it's STILL not better for you than a coke with sugar. It's still sugar - still junk.

We should focus on how diet affect health in the long term and we know from countless studies - the more junk food you eat, the worse your health will be. The MORE you eat, the fatter you get. So, in order to combat medical costs, you should pay MORE taxes for what you eat.

People won't spend so much on junk food if the true costs are revealed. If you look at how much the government spends on the agribusiness industry, it's more expensive than growing organics. Why?

The fact of the matter is, it costs the taxpayers more to produce a can of coke than it to have a home-made orange juice, even though you can buy a can of coke at 50 cent a can and oranges at a dollar a pound.

**saywhatkid** · 11-03-2010, 07:41 PM

Do we really need a ban on this? Poor Johnny. These people will need to drive to Sausalito to get their Happy Meals?

netrox · 11-03-2010, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Or just pay your own damn health care and quit depending on others to do it....That was easy

I am sorry but you gotta think for the country, not for yourself.

But again, perhaps you should realize that if you don't eat junk, you don't pay taxes? You get rewarded with more money for yourself.

**saywhatkid** · 11-03-2010, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

I am sorry but you gotta think for the country, not for yourself.

But again, perhaps you should realize that if you don't eat junk, you don't pay taxes? You get rewarded with more money for yourself.

So, who decides what qualifies as junk food? Don't you think these food companies such as Hostess, Mars Candy, etc and fast food franchises might find a way to keep their products off that list? More legislation to steer people to choose what someone thinks is the best choice for them, along with more lobby money?
I will NEVER eat a Happy Meal in my life, but why should some Senator in DC tell me I cannot buy them for the kid next door?

kokonut · 11-03-2010, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by souggy

Chemicals are not cheap either. The government subsidized these products so farmers could afford them, which in turn produce cheaper food. \

Yes, junk food is cheap to PURCHASE, but it's not cheap to PRODUCE; for the ease of buying food in the supermarket aisle, we are already paying for it. I am not talking about our health, but rather in a monetary sense. We are just not seeing the true cost of junk food on our receipts; it's coming out of our paycheques and payrolls long before us as a consumer have a say in what we buy. Organic farmers don't have the benefit of the subsidiarity programs-- direct or indirect.

Plus, I thought the Republican M.O. is reduced taxes?

Organic food cannot be grown or harvested in greater bulk because the economies of scale cannot be achieved adequately since it requires more acres to grow them, even more water in some cases. Organic food is pretty much a "luxury" food than anything else. I still have questions on energy efficiency and economy of scale issues. These things cannot be done overnight. This is a long term prospect because of our infrastructure already in place.

kokonut · 11-03-2010, 08:31 PM

I can certainly increase my intake by eating more fruits and vegetables but that doesn't mean I will get fatter.

So, poor people are now forced to spend more on taxes but get less food in return?

Man, I'm not a health nut on telling people how they should live and what they can or cannot eat.

**TXgolfer** · 11-03-2010, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

I am sorry but you gotta think for the country, not for yourself.

But again, perhaps you should realize that if you don't eat junk, you don't pay taxes? You get rewarded with more money for yourself.

I do my part.....I don't live off of the Government.

**TXgolfer** · 11-03-2010, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywhatkid

So, who decides what qualifies as junk food? Don't you think these food companies such as Hostess, Mars Candy, etc and fast food franchises might find a way to keep their products off that list? More legislation to steer people to choose what someone thinks is the best choice for them, along with more lobby money?
I will NEVER eat a Happy Meal in my life, but why should some Senator in DC tell me I cannot buy them for the kid next door?

See we agree.....well except that a 2am Big Mac after a night of drinking can be pretty tasty.

**Foxrac** · 11-03-2010, 09:35 PM

I'm taking txgolfer and kokonut to McDonald's to eat for just fun and pleasant.

Netrox, you got 25 cents of apple on your table.

**TXgolfer** · 11-03-2010, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

I'm taking txgolfer and kokonut to McDonald's to eat for just fun and pleasant.

Netrox, you got 25 cents of apple on your table.

Can I play on the Hamburgler slide???

I am surprised libs haven't ended the Hamburgler saying he corrupts children's minds..... I bet somewhere a lib defense atty has used that as a defense.

kokonut · 11-03-2010, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Can I play on the Hamburgler slide???

I am surprised libs haven't ended the Hamburgler saying he corrupts children's minds..... I bet somewhere a lib defense atty has used that as a defense.

Quote:

WASHINGTON—Tell it to the judge, Ronald: A nutrition watchdog group will sue McDonald’s if the fast-food chain continues to use toys to promote Happy Meals. According to the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, using toys to lure small children into McDonald’s is unfair and deceptive marketing and is illegal under various state consumer protection laws. CSPI today served McDonald’s a notice of its intent to sue, fulfilling a legal requirement of several states in which CSPI might bring the lawsuit.

“McDonald’s is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children,” said CSPI litigation director Stephen Gardner. “McDonald’s use of toys undercuts parental authority and exploits young children’s developmental immaturity—all this to induce children to prefer foods that may harm their health. It’s a creepy and predatory practice that warrants an injunction.”

CSPI to Sue McDonald's If It Continues Using Toys to Market Junk Food to Children ~ Newsroom ~ News from CSPI ~ Center for Science in the Public Interest

Ooohhh...how seedy. Using toys to "lure" small children into McDonald's. I thought parents take them in first. Bunch of nutty people nowadays.

Hey, TXgolfer, remember the good old days when Cracker Jacks box had some real neat toys inside? Something to look forward to go along with some good and yummy eating.

**deafskeptic** · 11-03-2010, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywhatkid

So, who decides what qualifies as junk food? Don't you think these food companies such as Hostess, Mars Candy, etc and fast food franchises might find a way to keep their products off that list? More legislation to steer people to choose what someone thinks is the best choice for them, along with more lobby money?
I will NEVER eat a Happy Meal in my life, but why should some Senator in DC tell me I cannot buy them for the kid next door?

Yeah. It's a very authorian thing to do. I try to avoid fast food places due to my health issues but i would not tell others what to eat.

netrox · 11-04-2010, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywhatkid

So, who decides what qualifies as junk food? Don't you think these food companies such as Hostess, Mars Candy, etc and fast food franchises might find a way to keep their products off that list? More legislation to steer people to choose what someone thinks is the best choice for them, along with more lobby money?
I will NEVER eat a Happy Meal in my life, but why should some Senator in DC tell me I cannot buy them for the kid next door?

First question: of course, we have to have a panel of independent nutritionists and food social scientists to determine what is acceptable and what isn't and give recommendations. If fast food companies can get around and get their foods off the list of taxed foods, then great! That means better nutrition for people.

Second question: it's about making them pay for their poor choices. Do you think we should pay for their poor choices they make? No.

Remember, before FDA was created, many businesses and people fiercely opposed the idea of FDA and argued that it violates their rights but thank goodness! Since FDA was created, we have safer foods. We live longer. We have safer drugs. We have way much fewer poisonings.

However, FDA is NOT in the position to dictate our diets, only to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of products.

Now, imagine if FDA just stopped, do you honestly think companies will have noble interest and tell you how to eat well and how to take drugs and all that? Hell no. It just doesn't work. Look at underdeveloped countries.. eek! They don't have age restrictions on drinking and smoking. Their food supply is not regulated - bad water, bad sanitarian habits. They died very young, about 40 years old.

So, yes, we need regulations if they will provide long term benefits for us.

netrox · 11-04-2010, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Ooohhh...how seedy. Using toys to "lure" small children into McDonald's. I thought parents take them in first. Bunch of nutty people nowadays.

Hey, TXgolfer, remember the good old days when Cracker Jacks box had some real neat toys inside? Something to look forward to go along with some good and yummy eating.

So, you don't have a problem with rewarding toys to children who are getting fat with junk food? Yes or no?

netrox · 11-04-2010, 01:24 AM

Again, once again, please understand the difference - I am NOT suggesting the ban of foods of any kind!!! I am suggesting that you should pay MORE taxes for junk food, you are NOT prevented from eating junk food whatsoever.

I'll eat junk food but I don't mind paying MORE taxes if that will pay more for healthcare and influence people to change their behaviors.

kokonut · 11-04-2010, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

So, you don't have a problem with rewarding toys to children who are getting fat with junk food? Yes or no?

No. It's not your decision, either. It's a parental one. Having a Happy Meal with toys once in awhile isn't correlative with those who are overweight or tend to get fat. My kids are thin. They've gotten Happy Meals with toys over the years growing up. What's next, out of control soup Nazi? Oh wait, we already have one. They're in SF.

**TXgolfer** · 11-04-2010, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

So, you don't have a problem with rewarding toys to children who are getting fat with junk food? Yes or no?

No

kokonut · 11-04-2010, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netrox

Again, once again, please understand the difference - I am NOT suggesting the ban of foods of any kind!!! I am suggesting that you should pay MORE taxes for junk food, you are NOT prevented from eating junk food whatsoever.

I'll eat junk food but I don't mind paying MORE taxes if that will pay more for healthcare and influence people to change their behaviors.

Yet it is still taxing the poor with more taxes they are forced to pay when buying food which is a necessity.

netrox · 11-04-2010, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

I'm taking txgolfer and kokonut to McDonald's to eat for just fun and pleasant.

Netrox, you got 25 cents of apple on your table.

Hahaha I wouldn't even want to go with you.

I'd rather eat at Jason's Deli, Mama Fu's, PF Chang's, Pei Wei, Katz, TGIF, Japanese sushi bars, outback, texas land and cattle, Souper Salad (cheap!) and places like that.
Oh yes, Chiptole is good, not bad! It's quite good for a fast food restaurant. I hope to see more fast food restaurants like that.

So, shoo away. Have fun with Ronald! And be nice to kids at the playground - don't steal their toys.

netrox · 11-04-2010, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Yet it is still taxing the poor with more taxes they are forced to pay when buying food which is a necessity.

Tough shit. At least they pay for healthcare. I don't.

11-03-2010, 06:58 PM	#2 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	Repost... SF bans Happy Meals in SF __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

11-03-2010, 07:08 PM	#4 (permalink)
souggy Registered User Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pacific Northwest Posts: 9,541	Wirelessly posted Why tax junk food? Just stop subdizing the oil industry, the pesticide industry and the corn industry, then junk food will be more expensive than organic. There is absolutely no reason to tax any further when you look at the loopholes being exploited by the argibusiness corporations. It's time to close those loopholes. DeafCaroline and airportcop like this. __________________ "It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don’t understand it." - Richard Freynman

11-03-2010, 07:26 PM	#7 (permalink)
TXgolfer Dream Weaver Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Everywhere Posts: 17,634	Those toys are AWESOME!!! I often buy Happy Meals for homeless kids but keep the toys for myself airportcop likes this. __________________ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. - Romans 12:21 Sometimes at night, I see their faces. I feel the traces they've left on my soul

11-03-2010, 07:41 PM	#12 (permalink)
saywhatkid Emerging from the sun Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In space Posts: 7,242 Blog Entries: 2	Do we really need a ban on this? Poor Johnny. These people will need to drive to Sausalito to get their Happy Meals? airportcop likes this. __________________ "Be faithful in small things because it is in them that your strength lies." ~ Mother Teresa

11-03-2010, 08:31 PM	#16 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	I can certainly increase my intake by eating more fruits and vegetables but that doesn't mean I will get fatter. So, poor people are now forced to spend more on taxes but get less food in return? Man, I'm not a health nut on telling people how they should live and what they can or cannot eat. airportcop likes this. __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

11-03-2010, 07:04 PM	#3 (permalink)
netrox Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 4,780	it should be in this thread because it's a political thing. I want more taxes on junk food. I mean A LOT Of taxes.

11-03-2010, 07:29 PM	#9 (permalink)
netrox Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 4,780	"Why tax junk food? Just stop subdizing the oil industry, the pesticide industry and the corn industry, then junk food will be more expensive than organic." First, when you tax junk food, that goes to healthcare. How you eat makes a difference in your health. Second, sugar itself is ALWAYS cheaper than anything that's organic because conventional produce are much cheaper - you spray bugs to kill them and as a result, you save your crops and that means huge savings. Organics are ALWAYS more expensive and there's NO evidence supporting that organics are better for you. ZERO. As long as you eat plenty of plants, you'll live as long as those who eat organics. Organic sugar is just pure non-sense - all refined sugar go through a lot of chemical processes to make it white and last for a looooong time. Same with flour. And salt. Most synthetic pesticides are MUCH safer than natural pesticides - for example, they developed synthetic versions of natural pesticide that gives more toxicity for insects but significantly lower toxicity for humans. In other words, it's less toxic for humans. Also, they disappear quickly from produce. Eating any residues will be metabolized safely with NO toxic effects. If we used natural pesticides, we'd be more likely to be poisoned. You can make organic foods and they're still as bad as conventional foods. You can use organic sugar in soda and it's STILL not better for you than a coke with sugar. It's still sugar - still junk. We should focus on how diet affect health in the long term and we know from countless studies - the more junk food you eat, the worse your health will be. The MORE you eat, the fatter you get. So, in order to combat medical costs, you should pay MORE taxes for what you eat.

11-03-2010, 09:35 PM	#19 (permalink)
Foxrac Need Stormtroopers? Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Zaphias Posts: 32,520	I'm taking txgolfer and kokonut to McDonald's to eat for just fun and pleasant. Netrox, you got 25 cents of apple on your table. airportcop likes this. __________________ In Moto We Trust

11-04-2010, 01:24 AM	#25 (permalink)
netrox Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 4,780	Again, once again, please understand the difference - I am NOT suggesting the ban of foods of any kind!!! I am suggesting that you should pay MORE taxes for junk food, you are NOT prevented from eating junk food whatsoever. I'll eat junk food but I don't mind paying MORE taxes if that will pay more for healthcare and influence people to change their behaviors.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode