|
You must be a logged in user to report a bad post!
San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 |
DancinBarefoot
06ers Rock!!
Member since 1/07 9537 total posts
Name:
The One My Mother Gave Me ;-)
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by GoldenRod
Posted by morgie124
The ban is because they are specifically marketing to children with the toy. That is what the ban is based on. Not just the fact that there is a toy in there with an unhealthy meal...it's that the commercials and advertising is directly aimed at children much like cigarette commercials had done before they were banned.
.... and Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft push their video games at kids, so we should ban those because it makes kids not exercise. We should ban M&M commercials, too, since candy causes obesity.
It's a slippery slope, and one I'd rather not get on. *I'll* decide what my DC can and can't eat. I don't need the gov't to parent my kids for me.
The US Supreme Court just had oral arguments about violent video games.
|
Posted 11/4/10 10:47 AM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
CookiePuss
Cake from Outer Space!
Member since 5/05 14021 total posts
Name:
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by heathergirl
You are grasping at straws to make the comparison. Are you saying the toy or the food is the hazardous substance in this case?
The trans fat, sodium content, high frutose corn syrup, saturated fat ...I think they can be considered hazardous to one's health.
If the toy is so insignificant, what does it matter if it's banned? If it doesn't matter if it's there why should it matter that it isn't there?
|
| Posted 11/4/10 10:49 AM |
| |
|
heathergirl
Cocktail Time!
Member since 10/08 4978 total posts
Name:
American mouth
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by morgie124
Posted by heathergirl
You are grasping at straws to make the comparison. Are you saying the toy or the food is the hazardous substance in this case?
The trans fat, sodium content, high frutose corn syrup, saturated fat ...I think they can be considered hazardous to one's health.
If the toy is so insignificant, what does it matter if it's banned? If it doesn't matter if it's there why should it matter that it isn't there?
I could give a rats azz if there is a toy or not. The point I'm making is that the toy being in there or not is not going to stop people from eating there. They know it isn't good for you even if you don't list the nutrition facts. Make the choice for yourself, you don't need the government policing these places or banning them. And this is coming from a nutritionist 
|
| Posted 11/4/10 10:54 AM |
| |
|
DancinBarefoot
06ers Rock!!
Member since 1/07 9537 total posts
Name:
The One My Mother Gave Me ;-)
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by heathergirl
Posted by morgie124
Posted by heathergirl
You are grasping at straws to make the comparison. Are you saying the toy or the food is the hazardous substance in this case?
The trans fat, sodium content, high frutose corn syrup, saturated fat ...I think they can be considered hazardous to one's health.
If the toy is so insignificant, what does it matter if it's banned? If it doesn't matter if it's there why should it matter that it isn't there?
I could give a rats azz if there is a toy or not. The point I'm making is that the toy being in there or not is not going to stop people from eating there. They know it isn't good for you even if you don't list the nutrition facts. Make the choice for yourself, you don't need the government policing these places or banning them. And this is coming from a nutritionist
No, the toy being there or not isn't going to stop people from eating there. However, if McDonald's doesn't have a toy in the Happy Meal, then the TV commercial advertising said toy goes away as well. If the commercial isn't on TV, then the child doesn't see it. If the child doesn't see it, then the child isn't thinking about it. IF the child isn't thinking about then the child is NOT throwing a temper tantrum begging for McDonalds. If there is no temper tantrum, then the overworked, underpaid, often single mother doesn't throw up her hands and give in because it's just easier.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 10:58 AM |
| |
|
blondiebabyZ
Ohhhh yeaaahh!!
Member since 6/10 1033 total posts
Name:
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by morgie124
Posted by heathergirl
You are grasping at straws to make the comparison. Are you saying the toy or the food is the hazardous substance in this case?
The trans fat, sodium content, high frutose corn syrup, saturated fat ...I think they can be considered hazardous to one's health.
If the toy is so insignificant, what does it matter if it's banned? If it doesn't matter if it's there why should it matter that it isn't there?
I personally think the toy matters bc thats been a tradition (i think) I mean as a kid McDonalds was a treat and getting your happy meal with your toy was a joy. I think its rediculous they are taking the toys away bc parents (not all parents) but the ones who are behind this lame ban are doing is feeding their kids fattening foods to keep them quiet and not putting them thru any exercise. Most children these days (again not claiming all) but most eat junk food and sit inside playing video games getting no exercise. What they should do is put a rule on parents to get their kids out and play. Theres no kids outside playing anymore, socializnig.
And to note that cigarette commericals influenced smoking is nonsense. Noone sees commercials and is like "oh i need to start smoking" thats picked up thru peers.
I think its getting scary on how much they are starting to set rules and bans on and think its just going to get worse.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 10:59 AM |
| |
|
CookiePuss
Cake from Outer Space!
Member since 5/05 14021 total posts
Name:
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by heathergirl
Make the choice for yourself, you don't need the government policing these places or banning them. And this is coming from a nutritionist
I think the health care bill changed a lot of that.
BTW...I agree with you insomuch as I should be held responsible for what I eat and what I feed my children. However, some might feel that when you have your hand in my pocket looking for aid with health care costs you forgo your right to make all independent decisions.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 11:03 AM |
| |
|
heathergirl
Cocktail Time!
Member since 10/08 4978 total posts
Name:
American mouth
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by DancinBarefoot
Posted by heathergirl
Posted by morgie124
Posted by heathergirl
You are grasping at straws to make the comparison. Are you saying the toy or the food is the hazardous substance in this case?
The trans fat, sodium content, high frutose corn syrup, saturated fat ...I think they can be considered hazardous to one's health.
If the toy is so insignificant, what does it matter if it's banned? If it doesn't matter if it's there why should it matter that it isn't there?
I could give a rats azz if there is a toy or not. The point I'm making is that the toy being in there or not is not going to stop people from eating there. They know it isn't good for you even if you don't list the nutrition facts. Make the choice for yourself, you don't need the government policing these places or banning them. And this is coming from a nutritionist
No, the toy being there or not isn't going to stop people from eating there. However, if McDonald's doesn't have a toy in the Happy Meal, then the TV commercial advertising said toy goes away as well. If the commercial isn't on TV, then the child doesn't see it. If the child doesn't see it, then the child isn't thinking about it. IF the child isn't thinking about then the child is NOT throwing a temper tantrum begging for McDonalds. If there is no temper tantrum, then the overworked, underpaid, often single mother doesn't throw up her hands and give in because it's just easier.
That is nice in theory, but I think we are giving the kids far too much credit for running the show here. Maybe the mother should be more stern in telling the child that it is a treat, let him cry, or better yet, not introducing it to the point where the kid begs for it. Kids will cry for 5 or 10 minutes and then get over it. Throwing up your hands in frustration shows me that they'd rather not deal with their kid and give in just to please him.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 11:04 AM |
| |
|
CookiePuss
Cake from Outer Space!
Member since 5/05 14021 total posts
Name:
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by blondiebabyZ
And to note that cigarette commericals influenced smoking is nonsense. Noone sees commercials and is like "oh i need to start smoking" thats picked up thru peers.
Absolutely not ridiculous...it's well documented
Companies don't spend BILLIONS of dollars on advertising every year if it didn't work. PM bought Kraft just for the very fact that it couldn't advertise PM but it could advertise Kraft and they wanted to maintain and build brand recognition.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 11:08 AM |
| |
|
eddiesmommy
best buds!
Member since 5/09 11524 total posts
Name:
Melissa
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
I dont understand this, stop the advertising (which it wont, being that I WORK in advertising, McDs is not going to give up reaching their market, they will just find another way).
But I dont understand this, stop the advertising, take away the toy, ban the food, take out to additives. In ALL of the arguments for the ban where is the personal responsibility. I DO NOT understand how one can debate the notion that PARENTS be responsible for what goes in their childs mouth, regardless of the stupid toy in the box.
All day kids are bombarded with ads for toys, games, junk food, juices, etc......Does your kid have every toy or junk food he has seen an ad for....NO, bc you said NO.
So say NO to the McDs! Its your responsibility as a parent....regardless of the advertising or marketing. It is not for McDs to change the way theyve done business for 50 years...Ive said it before, its not McDs that has changed, it the culture. Some of the arguments here show just that.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 11:18 AM |
| |
|
eddiesmommy
best buds!
Member since 5/09 11524 total posts
Name:
Melissa
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by morgie124
Posted by blondiebabyZ
And to note that cigarette commericals influenced smoking is nonsense. Noone sees commercials and is like "oh i need to start smoking" thats picked up thru peers.
Absolutely not ridiculous...it's well documented
Companies don't spend BILLIONS of dollars on advertising every year if it didn't work. PM bought Kraft just for the very fact that it couldn't advertise PM but it could advertise Kraft and they wanted to maintain and build brand recognition.
the difference is they were marketing an ADULT product that was ILLEGAL for children to have and then would be ADDICTED to before they were able to fully understand the ramifications of their actions. A product that even in moderation could kill them.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 11:21 AM |
| |
|
heathergirl
Cocktail Time!
Member since 10/08 4978 total posts
Name:
American mouth
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by eddiesmommy
I dont understand this, stop the advertising (which it wont, being that I WORK in advertising, McDs is not going to give up reaching their market, they will just find another way).
But I dont understand this, stop the advertising, take away the toy, ban the food, take out to additives. In ALL of the arguments for the ban where is the personal responsibility. I DO NOT understand how one can debate the notion that PARENTS be responsible for what goes in their childs mouth, regardless of the stupid toy in the box.
All day kids are bombarded with ads for toys, games, junk food, juices, etc......Does your kid have every toy or junk food he has seen an ad for....NO, bc you said NO.
So say NO to the McDs! Its your responsibility as a parent....regardless of the advertising or marketing. It is not for McDs to change the way theyve done business for 50 years...Ive said it before, its not McDs that has changed, it the culture. Some of the arguments here show just that.
Absolutely. I also find it interesting that more people aren't weighing in on this argument. Maybe it's because you and I work in a field where we can understand this market and see things from a different perspective.
I also find it ridiculous when people try to sue fast food places for "making them" obese, etc. Clearly, these places are billion-dollar corporations, and they wouldn't be if people didn't buy their product. There is a market that they reach.
When I sit my azz on the couch and eat Oreos, I do it of my own volition. No one to blame but myself when the scale goes up. This is no different. Lack of personal responsibility is shocking.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 11:22 AM |
| |
|
heathergirl
Cocktail Time!
Member since 10/08 4978 total posts
Name:
American mouth
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by eddiesmommy
Posted by morgie124
Posted by blondiebabyZ
And to note that cigarette commericals influenced smoking is nonsense. Noone sees commercials and is like "oh i need to start smoking" thats picked up thru peers.
Absolutely not ridiculous...it's well documented
Companies don't spend BILLIONS of dollars on advertising every year if it didn't work. PM bought Kraft just for the very fact that it couldn't advertise PM but it could advertise Kraft and they wanted to maintain and build brand recognition.
the difference is they were marketing an ADULT product that was ILLEGAL for children to have and then would be ADDICTED to before they were able to fully understand the ramifications of their actions. A product that even in moderation could kill them.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
Thank you for making the point I was trying to but couldn't find the proper wording.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 11:23 AM |
| |
|
blondiebabyZ
Ohhhh yeaaahh!!
Member since 6/10 1033 total posts
Name:
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by eddiesmommy
I dont understand this, stop the advertising (which it wont, being that I WORK in advertising, McDs is not going to give up reaching their market, they will just find another way).
But I dont understand this, stop the advertising, take away the toy, ban the food, take out to additives. In ALL of the arguments for the ban where is the personal responsibility. I DO NOT understand how one can debate the notion that PARENTS be responsible for what goes in their childs mouth, regardless of the stupid toy in the box.
All day kids are bombarded with ads for toys, games, junk food, juices, etc......Does your kid have every toy or junk food he has seen an ad for....NO, bc you said NO.
So say NO to the McDs! Its your responsibility as a parent....regardless of the advertising or marketing. It is not for McDs to change the way theyve done business for 50 years...Ive said it before, its not McDs that has changed, it the culture. Some of the arguments here show just that.
ITA!!! It wasnt the commercials putting the food or cigarette in my mouth, it was my choice. Blaming advertising is just a scapegoat for people. I didnt see an ad and be like ohhh i have to do that! I made a choice being around fellow smokers to take up smoking. And these parents should make a choice to stop allowing their children to eat these fattening foods. And they need to take responsibility for it. McD's has been the same for all these years, nothings changed except us. Fast Food should be a TREAT like it was for us when we were children.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 11:26 AM |
| |
|
CookiePuss
Cake from Outer Space!
Member since 5/05 14021 total posts
Name:
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by heathergirl
Posted by eddiesmommy
Posted by morgie124
Posted by blondiebabyZ
And to note that cigarette commericals influenced smoking is nonsense. Noone sees commercials and is like "oh i need to start smoking" thats picked up thru peers.
Absolutely not ridiculous...it's well documented
Companies don't spend BILLIONS of dollars on advertising every year if it didn't work. PM bought Kraft just for the very fact that it couldn't advertise PM but it could advertise Kraft and they wanted to maintain and build brand recognition.
the difference is they were marketing an ADULT product that was ILLEGAL for children to have and then would be ADDICTED to before they were able to fully understand the ramifications of their actions. A product that even in moderation could kill them.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
Thank you for making the point I was trying to but couldn't find the proper wording.
They were not always marketed to strictly adults and they were marketed to children even after age restriction were put into place.
ETA: There are also several studies that suggest HFCS to be as addictive as tobacco. It wasn't that long ago that smoking was thought to cause no ill affects to your health.
Message edited 11/4/2010 11:33:48 AM.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 11:30 AM |
| |
|
blondiebabyZ
Ohhhh yeaaahh!!
Member since 6/10 1033 total posts
Name:
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by eddiesmommy
Posted by morgie124
Posted by blondiebabyZ
And to note that cigarette commericals influenced smoking is nonsense. Noone sees commercials and is like "oh i need to start smoking" thats picked up thru peers.
Absolutely not ridiculous...it's well documented
Companies don't spend BILLIONS of dollars on advertising every year if it didn't work. PM bought Kraft just for the very fact that it couldn't advertise PM but it could advertise Kraft and they wanted to maintain and build brand recognition.
the difference is they were marketing an ADULT product that was ILLEGAL for children to have and then would be ADDICTED to before they were able to fully understand the ramifications of their actions. A product that even in moderation could kill them.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
Im just trying say it was a choice that was made and noone is to blame but myself and the person making the choices. It wasnt the marketing. Just like i think its a choice the parents are making to feed their kids fast food constantly, its not the McD's marketing.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 11:31 AM |
| |
|
eddiesmommy
best buds!
Member since 5/09 11524 total posts
Name:
Melissa
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by morgie124
Posted by heathergirl
Posted by eddiesmommy
Posted by morgie124
Posted by blondiebabyZ
And to note that cigarette commericals influenced smoking is nonsense. Noone sees commercials and is like "oh i need to start smoking" thats picked up thru peers.
Absolutely not ridiculous...it's well documented
Companies don't spend BILLIONS of dollars on advertising every year if it didn't work. PM bought Kraft just for the very fact that it couldn't advertise PM but it could advertise Kraft and they wanted to maintain and build brand recognition.
the difference is they were marketing an ADULT product that was ILLEGAL for children to have and then would be ADDICTED to before they were able to fully understand the ramifications of their actions. A product that even in moderation could kill them.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
Thank you for making the point I was trying to but couldn't find the proper wording.
They were not always marketed to strictly adults and they were marketed to children even after age restriction were put into place.
We know, thats what they said. 
We said they they were marketing an ADULT product to children?
|
| Posted 11/4/10 11:31 AM |
| |
|
apples99
love my sunshine..
Member since 11/08 1535 total posts
Name:
me
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by eddiesmommy
I dont understand this, stop the advertising (which it wont, being that I WORK in advertising, McDs is not going to give up reaching their market, they will just find another way).
But I dont understand this, stop the advertising, take away the toy, ban the food, take out to additives. In ALL of the arguments for the ban where is the personal responsibility. I DO NOT understand how one can debate the notion that PARENTS be responsible for what goes in their childs mouth, regardless of the stupid toy in the box.
All day kids are bombarded with ads for toys, games, junk food, juices, etc......Does your kid have every toy or junk food he has seen an ad for....NO, bc you said NO.
So say NO to the McDs! Its your responsibility as a parent....regardless of the advertising or marketing. It is not for McDs to change the way theyve done business for 50 years...Ive said it before, its not McDs that has changed, it the culture. Some of the arguments here show just that.
I 100000000% agree with you.. BUT, we live in a society that is dichotomus. We have a group of people who are responsible adults and then there is another group that just feels, well if its readily available, then it should be consumed.
Also, as mentione before, majority of the people in the second group are at or below poverty level, which means the same govt pays for their needs. If you cannot make sound decisions, then someone needs to make it for you.. obesity is a public health crisis.
Back in the day, family and friends would actually tell someone spiriling out of control to curb the eating, go to the doctor, but now we don't - because its considered "rude" and there is a wider acceptance for this.
I don't know if anyone read an article about a former McDonald's staff member suing them because, he gained a ton of weight by taste testing their fries. I'm seriously.. what nonsense?
People need to accept the fact that eating crappy food is bad.. and of course, what its made of is even worse.. but that's a whole different topic.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 11:32 AM |
| |
|
heathergirl
Cocktail Time!
Member since 10/08 4978 total posts
Name:
American mouth
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by blondiebabyZ
Posted by eddiesmommy
I dont understand this, stop the advertising (which it wont, being that I WORK in advertising, McDs is not going to give up reaching their market, they will just find another way).
But I dont understand this, stop the advertising, take away the toy, ban the food, take out to additives. In ALL of the arguments for the ban where is the personal responsibility. I DO NOT understand how one can debate the notion that PARENTS be responsible for what goes in their childs mouth, regardless of the stupid toy in the box.
All day kids are bombarded with ads for toys, games, junk food, juices, etc......Does your kid have every toy or junk food he has seen an ad for....NO, bc you said NO.
So say NO to the McDs! Its your responsibility as a parent....regardless of the advertising or marketing. It is not for McDs to change the way theyve done business for 50 years...Ive said it before, its not McDs that has changed, it the culture. Some of the arguments here show just that.
ITA!!! It wasnt the commercials putting the food or cigarette in my mouth, it was my choice. Blaming advertising is just a scapegoat for people. I didnt see an ad and be like ohhh i have to do that! I made a choice being around fellow smokers to take up smoking. And these parents should make a choice to stop allowing their children to eat these fattening foods. And they need to take responsibility for it. McD's has been the same for all these years, nothings changed except us. Fast Food should be a TREAT like it was for us when we were children.
Absolutely. I smoke. I know the damages and repercussions but I still do it. And it will be my own fault if I were to get sick or become ill. Fortunately, I am almost completely off cigs and when I will be, it will have been a choice I made for myself and my health, and I am taking responsibility for myself. I am not blaming the tobacco companies. I wish I had never started in the first place, but that is neither here nor there. Philip Morris isn't forcing me to smoke, they are not coming to my house and making me do it.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 11:35 AM |
| |
|
CookiePuss
Cake from Outer Space!
Member since 5/05 14021 total posts
Name:
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by eddiesmommy
the difference is they were marketing an ADULT product that was ILLEGAL for children to have and then would be ADDICTED to before they were able to fully understand the ramifications of their actions. A product that even in moderation could kill them.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
Thank you for making the point I was trying to but couldn't find the proper wording.
They were not always marketed to strictly adults and they were marketed to children even after age restriction were put into place.
We know, thats what they said.
We said they they were marketing an ADULT product to children?
Tabacco was not always an adult product and was not always illegal for children to use. IT WAS MARKETED TO CHILDREN ACTIVELY.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 11:36 AM |
| |
|
heathergirl
Cocktail Time!
Member since 10/08 4978 total posts
Name:
American mouth
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by morgie124
Posted by eddiesmommy
the difference is they were marketing an ADULT product that was ILLEGAL for children to have and then would be ADDICTED to before they were able to fully understand the ramifications of their actions. A product that even in moderation could kill them.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
Thank you for making the point I was trying to but couldn't find the proper wording.
They were not always marketed to strictly adults and they were marketed to children even after age restriction were put into place.
We know, thats what they said.
We said they they were marketing an ADULT product to children?
Tabacco was not always an adult product and was not always illegal for children to use. IT WAS MARKETED TO CHILDREN ACTIVELY.
But when it became illegal and age limit was put on it, it was illegal for the tobacco companies to market to children.
McDonald's is not illegal and they are not breaking laws by marketing to children. Aint right, but it aint illegal.
Message edited 11/4/2010 11:40:15 AM.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 11:39 AM |
| |
|
Ophelia
she's baaccckkkk ;)
Member since 5/06 23378 total posts
Name:
remember, when Gulliver traveled....
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by eddiesmommy
I dont understand this, stop the advertising (which it wont, being that I WORK in advertising, McDs is not going to give up reaching their market, they will just find another way).
But I dont understand this, stop the advertising, take away the toy, ban the food, take out to additives. In ALL of the arguments for the ban where is the personal responsibility. I DO NOT understand how one can debate the notion that PARENTS be responsible for what goes in their childs mouth, regardless of the stupid toy in the box.
All day kids are bombarded with ads for toys, games, junk food, juices, etc......Does your kid have every toy or junk food he has seen an ad for....NO, bc you said NO.
So say NO to the McDs! Its your responsibility as a parent....regardless of the advertising or marketing. It is not for McDs to change the way theyve done business for 50 years...Ive said it before, its not McDs that has changed, it the culture. Some of the arguments here show just that.
I agree. and this is why my son will NEVER have a happy meal as long as I am around. EVER. bc I am his mother and I am uber vigilant about what goes into his body. b/c I don't want him eating a "chicken" nugget made of congealed bones and cartilage and random chicken parts then sprayed with components of gasoline and deep fried.
I agree about personal responsibility. 100%. but I also think these companies have the BIGGEST SET OF BALLS EVER for marketing such disgusting **** to children. really, it's positively shameful. and that should be taken to task for that.
and as for the single mother and poverty, we almost never had mcdonalds b/c we couldn't afford it. $5 on the dollar menu is also a loaf of white bread, american cheese, and some no frills tomato soup, which is a hell of a lot better than mickey d's.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 11:40 AM |
| |
|
DRMom
Two in Blue
Member since 5/05 20223 total posts
Name:
Melissa
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by staceyums81
Going on a tangent here...
Has anyone seen the documentary Food Inc? It's disgusting what they put in food today. Even if you do go to McDonalds and order a grilled chicken breast sandwich - a chicken breast should not be that big. They pump the chickens with antibiotics to make them grow, and some of them are so big they can't even walk. Lot's of stuff has corn in it too. I forget why that was bad but I think they use corn to make a lot of processed food. And you can get addicted to it. And it's so expensive to grow organic. I remember the one farmer they wanted to shut him down because he was an organic farmer and they said he was unsanitary because he was cutting the chickens up out in the open air outside. Totally ridiculous.
I guess my point is - banning a happy meal is not going to do anything in the grand scheme of things...
ETA: I think I remember something in the documentary about them using a chemical that had BLEACH in it to CLEAN the burgers so they were free of bacteria before they went to the fast food joints and supermarkets...
This is true. The reason why corn is bad is because they feed it to cows who should not be fed corn...they are supposed to eat grass. When fed they get all sorts of illnesses. Here is a link to a blog quoting Michael Pollan(one of teh foremost experts of our time on how feedlot beef is killing us and the environment.
Switching a cow from grass to grain is so disturbing to the animal’s digestive system that it can kill the animal if not done gradually and if the animal is not continually fed antibiotics. These animals are designed to forage, but we make them eat grain, primarily corn, in order to make them as fat as possible as fast as possible.
Author and small-scale cattleman Michael Pollan wrote recently in the New York Times about what happens to cows when they are taken off of pastures and put into feedlots and fed grain:
“Perhaps the most serious thing that can go wrong with a ruminant on corn is feedlot bloat. The rumen is always producing copious amounts of gas, which is normally expelled by belching during rumination. But when the diet contains too much starch and too little roughage, rumination all but stops, and a layer of foamy slime that can trap gas forms in the rumen. The rumen inflates like a balloon, pressing against the animal’s lungs. Unless action is promptly taken to relieve the pressure (usually by forcing a hose down the animal’s esophagus), the cow suffocates.
A corn diet can also give a cow acidosis. Unlike that in our own highly acidic stomachs, the normal pH of a rumen is neutral. Corn makes it unnaturally acidic, however, causing a kind of bovine heartburn, which in some cases can kill the animal but usually just makes it sick. Acidotic animals go off their feed, pant and salivate excessively, paw at their bellies and eat dirt. The condition can lead to diarrhea, ulcers, bloat, liver disease and a general weakening of the immune system that leaves the animal vulnerable to everything from pneumonia to feedlot polio.”
Link
Unfortunately, my DH and I cannot afford to eat all grass fed local meat. That is all my kids eat. They have never had McDonalds. Too bad the government won't subsidise organic and natural farmers the way they do corn farmers. Read about it. Its sickeneing really.
Anyway sorry for the rant, but as far as the OP....I do think parents need to be a bit more educated and realize that McDonalds(like ice cream, candy, cake etc.) is an occasional thing.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 11:42 AM |
| |
|
CookiePuss
Cake from Outer Space!
Member since 5/05 14021 total posts
Name:
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by heathergirl
McDonald's is not illegal and they are not breaking laws by marketing to children. Aint right, but it aint illegal.
I agree. Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with the ban but I can see both sides. I was just playing a little devil's advocate.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 11:43 AM |
| |
|
heathergirl
Cocktail Time!
Member since 10/08 4978 total posts
Name:
American mouth
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by Ophelia
Posted by eddiesmommy
I dont understand this, stop the advertising (which it wont, being that I WORK in advertising, McDs is not going to give up reaching their market, they will just find another way).
But I dont understand this, stop the advertising, take away the toy, ban the food, take out to additives. In ALL of the arguments for the ban where is the personal responsibility. I DO NOT understand how one can debate the notion that PARENTS be responsible for what goes in their childs mouth, regardless of the stupid toy in the box.
All day kids are bombarded with ads for toys, games, junk food, juices, etc......Does your kid have every toy or junk food he has seen an ad for....NO, bc you said NO.
So say NO to the McDs! Its your responsibility as a parent....regardless of the advertising or marketing. It is not for McDs to change the way theyve done business for 50 years...Ive said it before, its not McDs that has changed, it the culture. Some of the arguments here show just that.
I agree. and this is why my son will NEVER have a happy meal as long as I am around. EVER. bc I am his mother and I am uber vigilant about what goes into his body. b/c I don't want him eating a "chicken" nugget made of congealed bones and cartilage and random chicken parts then sprayed with components of gasoline and deep fried.
I agree about personal responsibility. 100%. but I also think these companies have the BIGGEST SET OF BALLS EVER for marketing such disgusting **** to children. really, it's positively shameful. and that should be taken to task for that.
and as for the single mother and poverty, we almost never had mcdonalds b/c we couldn't afford it. $5 on the dollar menu is also a loaf of white bread, american cheese, and some no frills tomato soup, which is a hell of a lot better than mickey d's.
I agree 100% with you that you are in charge of what Luce eats and I applaud you for standing up for it because a lot of people don't. And you and I have spoken about poor nutrition and government responsibility in education people at the poverty level in ways to eat healthier. Soemtimes people lack the education to understand that $5 on the dollar menu will feed you right now, but some bread, cheese and milk will go a lot farther.
I have heard so many excuses on this thread. Excuses are like azzholes, eveyone's got one 
Message edited 11/4/2010 11:46:29 AM.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 11:44 AM |
| |
|
eddiesmommy
best buds!
Member since 5/09 11524 total posts
Name:
Melissa
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by morgie124
Posted by eddiesmommy
the difference is they were marketing an ADULT product that was ILLEGAL for children to have and then would be ADDICTED to before they were able to fully understand the ramifications of their actions. A product that even in moderation could kill them.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
Thank you for making the point I was trying to but couldn't find the proper wording.
They were not always marketed to strictly adults and they were marketed to children even after age restriction were put into place.
We know, thats what they said.
We said they they were marketing an ADULT product to children?
Tabacco was not always an adult product and was not always illegal for children to use. IT WAS MARKETED TO CHILDREN ACTIVELY.
Ok, seriously, Im not going to debate tobacco. We are talking about McDs and happy meal toys. Not a product that is addictive and deadly even in moderation.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 11:44 AM |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 |
Potentially Related Topics:
Currently 371045 users on the LIFamilies.com Chat
|
Long Island Bridal Shows
|
