| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: << 2 3 4 [5] 6 |
MegZee
My bunny
Member since 5/06 8777 total posts
Name:
Meaghan
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
as far as marketing to children - I can't remember the last time I saw a mcdonald's commercial geared towards children - maybe I don't watch the channels that have them though.
Lately they have been about coffee and smoothies and salads (which, btw, a chicken caesar salad is usually worse nutritionally for you than a cheeseburger)
as a kid, I wanted mcdonalds bc i liked the fries, i never thought oh I want a toy - i had better toys at home!!
|
Posted 11/4/10 11:45 AM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
heathergirl
Cocktail Time!
Member since 10/08 4978 total posts
Name:
American mouth
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by Meaghan729
as far as marketing to children - I can't remember the last time I saw a mcdonald's commercial geared towards children - maybe I don't watch the channels that have them though.
Lately they have been about coffee and smoothies and salads (which, btw, a chicken caesar salad is usually worse nutritionally for you than a cheeseburger)
as a kid, I wanted mcdonalds bc i liked the fries, i never thought oh I want a toy - i had better toys at home!!
Totally true. The commercials I see depict adults eating McD's, and ones that DO feature children actually do show them eating chicken nuggest and apple dippers w/milk. Still isn't a world class nutritionally sound meal, but better than a cheeseburger and fries w/soda.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 11:48 AM |
| |
|
eddiesmommy
best buds!
Member since 5/09 11524 total posts
Name:
Melissa
|
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. Im not saying that targeting children is "right" but its certainly not illegal and regardless of the advertising, its ultimately 100% up to the parent.
Im also the other side of the coin, I do allow my DS to have McDs.....but as a once in a while meal. I am responsible for what goes in my sons mouth even if he watched commercials for Happy Meals ALL DAY LONG on a loop. Im responsible for that, so I do not let him eat it 4Xs a week. I say no, its really as simple as that.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 11:49 AM |
| |
|
CookiePuss
Cake from Outer Space!
Member since 5/05 14021 total posts
Name:
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by eddiesmommy
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.
It was more about the power of advertising more then tobacco as compared to fast food.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 11:50 AM |
| |
|
eddiesmommy
best buds!
Member since 5/09 11524 total posts
Name:
Melissa
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Interesting tidbit on McDs advertising initiative:
McDonald’s USA - In November 2006, McDonald's USA signed on as one of 10 charter members to the Council for Better Business Bureau's Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. As part of the initiative, McDonald’s USA announced specific pledges to use advertising and marketing resources to promote children’s well-being. National commercials geared toward children under twelve only feature meals that meet specific nutrition criteria consistent with healthy dietary choices (no more than 600 calories, no more than 35% of calories from fat and 10% of calories from saturated fat, and no more than 35% total sugar by weight). McDonald’s USA also advertises healthy lifestyle messages and limits use of third-party licensed characters to scenarios that promote healthy lifestyle choices.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 11:52 AM |
| |
|
eddiesmommy
best buds!
Member since 5/09 11524 total posts
Name:
Melissa
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by morgie124
.
It was more about the power of advertising more then tobacco as compared to fast food.
Yes, we all get the power of advertising (I WORK in print and retail advertising). Our point was that regardless of advertising, its ultimately the parents responsibility.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 11:53 AM |
| |
|
heathergirl
Cocktail Time!
Member since 10/08 4978 total posts
Name:
American mouth
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by eddiesmommy
Interesting tidbit on McDs advertising initiative:
McDonald’s USA - In November 2006, McDonald's USA signed on as one of 10 charter members to the Council for Better Business Bureau's Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. As part of the initiative, McDonald’s USA announced specific pledges to use advertising and marketing resources to promote children’s well-being. National commercials geared toward children under twelve only feature meals that meet specific nutrition criteria consistent with healthy dietary choices (no more than 600 calories, no more than 35% of calories from fat and 10% of calories from saturated fat, and no more than 35% total sugar by weight). McDonald’s USA also advertises healthy lifestyle messages and limits use of third-party licensed characters to scenarios that promote healthy lifestyle choices.
I posted this above:
Totally true. The commercials I see depict adults eating McD's, and ones that DO feature children actually do show them eating chicken nuggest and apple dippers w/milk. Still isn't a world class nutritionally sound meal, but better than a cheeseburger and fries w/soda.
Kudos to them for attempting to limit the images and marketing towards kids in some way.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 11:56 AM |
| |
|
CookiePuss
Cake from Outer Space!
Member since 5/05 14021 total posts
Name:
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by eddiesmommy
Our point was that regardless of advertising, its ultimately the parents responsibility.
I don't disagree with that point.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 11:56 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
Interesting tidbit on McDs advertising initiative:
McDonald’s USA - In November 2006, McDonald's USA signed on as one of 10 charter members to the Council for Better Business Bureau's Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. As part of the initiative, McDonald’s USA announced specific pledges to use advertising and marketing resources to promote children’s well-being. National commercials geared toward children under twelve only feature meals that meet specific nutrition criteria consistent with healthy dietary choices (no more than 600 calories, no more than 35% of calories from fat and 10% of calories from saturated fat, and no more than 35% total sugar by weight). McDonald’s USA also advertises healthy lifestyle messages and limits use of third-party licensed characters to scenarios that promote healthy lifestyle choices.
I posted this above:
Totally true. The commercials I see depict adults eating McD's, and ones that DO feature children actually do show them eating chicken nuggest and apple dippers w/milk. Still isn't a world class nutritionally sound meal, but better than a cheeseburger and fries w/soda.
Kudos to them for attempting to limit the images and marketing towards kids in some way.
In regards to this, McD advertises for brand recognition. They put those commercials out there to give the illusion of McD being healthy and to get you through the door. If they really wanted to promote healthy living, they would have a lot more healthy choices on the menu. Even the seemingly healthy choices aren't all that healthy.
I really don't believe an empire built on french fries and fatty meat patties wants the consumer to become wise in regards to eating healthy.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 12:00 PM |
| |
|
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
Interesting tidbit on McDs advertising initiative:
McDonald’s USA - In November 2006, McDonald's USA signed on as one of 10 charter members to the Council for Better Business Bureau's Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. As part of the initiative, McDonald’s USA announced specific pledges to use advertising and marketing resources to promote children’s well-being. National commercials geared toward children under twelve only feature meals that meet specific nutrition criteria consistent with healthy dietary choices (no more than 600 calories, no more than 35% of calories from fat and 10% of calories from saturated fat, and no more than 35% total sugar by weight). McDonald’s USA also advertises healthy lifestyle messages and limits use of third-party licensed characters to scenarios that promote healthy lifestyle choices.
I posted this above:
Totally true. The commercials I see depict adults eating McD's, and ones that DO feature children actually do show them eating chicken nuggest and apple dippers w/milk. Still isn't a world class nutritionally sound meal, but better than a cheeseburger and fries w/soda.
Kudos to them for attempting to limit the images and marketing towards kids in some way.
In regards to this, McD advertises for brand recognition. They put those commercials out there to give the illusion of McD being healthy and to get you through the door. If they really wanted to promote healthy living, they would have a lot more healthy choices on the menu. Even the seemingly healthy choices aren't all that healthy.
I really don't believe an empire built on french fries and fatty meat patties wants the consumer to become wise in regards to eating healthy.
We've covered this already....the dont have to be healthy, they are a burger and fry joint. Anyone who is so disillusioned to think McDs is healthy is a moron.
Of course advertising gets the people in the door, I know why people advertise, its what I do for a living. However again, YOU still make that choice to walk through that door and as a parent YOU still make the choice to order the fries instead of the apples.
Its also not really for brand recognition, McDs and Coke are the two most recognized logos in the world, they have the market cornered there already. Thats a whole other thread though.
They have done all they are obligated to do, they show their healthier options in their ads and they have them available in the stores. What it boils down to AGAIN....is that regardless.....IT IS UP TO THE PARENT.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 12:19 PM |
| |
|
CrankyPants
I'm cranky
Member since 7/06 18178 total posts
Name:
Mama Cranky
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
This is half arsed. If they want to really make this meaningful, they need to ban fast food for anyone under 18.
Not saying they SHOULD do this but if fast food is as unhealthy as alcohol and cigarettes, then there is a case to treat it the same.
In my world, we don't have fast food often (about 3 or 4 times a year). I probably shouldn't even get it that often-but I do. I don't need the government to tell me it's not good for my kids and to not give it to my kids. However, I know plenty of people who give it their kids all the time. Yes, it's their business but if the kids are ballooning up or their arteries are dying isn't it a form of child abuse at some level? I'm not talking about the person who gets it 1x a week or something like that. I'm talking about the person who gets it several times a week/day.
Before I get flamed, I don't think the government should ban fast food. And I don't care if there is a toy or not. I just wish that some parents didn't give it to their kids as much as they do. I wish there wasn't a need to keep thinking up ways to get people to eat less fast food.
Also, a box of whole wheat pasta costs $1, feed a family of 5 and is far more nutritional then anything on the mcdonalds menu. You can add jar sauce for another $1.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 12:21 PM |
| |
|
heathergirl
Cocktail Time!
Member since 10/08 4978 total posts
Name:
American mouth
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
I really wish that people would read threads and see what most things have already been stated. There is a major lack of wellness eduction for lower-income families who just don't understand proper diet and nutrition and therefore, don't understand that a box of pasta and sauce goes farther than McD's...WE GET IT but they don't and the only way the government should be involved is in providing funding for those types of programs at the lowest level.
Some people choose to feed their kids McD's, knowing full well it isn't healthy or nutritious for their kids. They know the ramifications, choose to ignore it, then complain that we should just ban it all together because they lack the willpower to say NO.
Some people choose to feed their kids McD's because they do not know better, they do not understand proper nutrition, and it is a very vicious cycle.
Message edited 11/4/2010 12:34:42 PM.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 12:31 PM |
| |
|
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 CrankyPants
Also, a box of whole wheat pasta costs $1, feed a family of 5 and is far more nutritional then anything on the mcdonalds menu. You can add jar sauce for another $1.
I don't know where you live - but the whole wheat pasta my family eats is $4 a pound. I jump for joy when it's on sale for $2.50 (and I stock up like a mad woman). I can't speak to a jar of sauce because I make my own, but again, I wait for a sale and stock up on crushed tomatoes etc.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 12:35 PM |
| |
|
CrankyPants
I'm cranky
Member since 7/06 18178 total posts
Name:
Mama Cranky
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by DancinBarefoot
Posted by CrankyPants
Also, a box of whole wheat pasta costs $1, feed a family of 5 and is far more nutritional then anything on the mcdonalds menu. You can add jar sauce for another $1.
I don't know where you live - but the whole wheat pasta my family eats is $4 a pound. I jump for joy when it's on sale for $2.50 (and I stock up like a mad woman). I can't speak to a jar of sauce because I make my own, but again, I wait for a sale and stock up on crushed tomatoes etc.
Even at $4, that's cheaper than feeding a family of 5 at micky D's.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 12:37 PM |
| |
|
heathergirl
Cocktail Time!
Member since 10/08 4978 total posts
Name:
American mouth
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by CrankyPants
Posted by DancinBarefoot
Posted by CrankyPants
Also, a box of whole wheat pasta costs $1, feed a family of 5 and is far more nutritional then anything on the mcdonalds menu. You can add jar sauce for another $1.
I don't know where you live - but the whole wheat pasta my family eats is $4 a pound. I jump for joy when it's on sale for $2.50 (and I stock up like a mad woman). I can't speak to a jar of sauce because I make my own, but again, I wait for a sale and stock up on crushed tomatoes etc.
Even at $4, that's cheaper than feeding a family of 5 at micky D's.
I previously stated:
A proper, nutritious menu will easily run the average American family not at the poverty level around $150 per week; that includes lean proteins, the recommended servings of fresh fruits and veggies, whole grains and milk. And that is JUST food, no other household items. If you live on $22k (2009 poverty level stat) per year, there is no way you are going to be able to afford that kind of money in groceries.
Message edited 11/4/2010 12:38:48 PM.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 12:38 PM |
| |
|
Salason
♥
Member since 6/05 9878 total posts
Name:
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by Meaghan729
as far as marketing to children - I can't remember the last time I saw a mcdonald's commercial geared towards children - maybe I don't watch the channels that have them though.
QUOTE]
I havent read the whole thread yet but unfortunately Sesame Street (on Sprout at least) frequently has McD's commercials featuring kids rght before it starts. And DS loves it and reacts to it. HOWEVER he wouldnt even know what it was if I never exposed him to it so I don't blame anyone but myself for that one (FTR I really kick myself for it). Even when he reacts to the commercial though, he's long forgetten about it by lunchtime...
|
| Posted 11/4/10 12:41 PM |
| |
|
heathergirl
Cocktail Time!
Member since 10/08 4978 total posts
Name:
American mouth
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by Salason
Posted by Meaghan729
as far as marketing to children - I can't remember the last time I saw a mcdonald's commercial geared towards children - maybe I don't watch the channels that have them though.
QUOTE]
I havent read the whole thread yet but unfortunately Sesame Street (on Sprout at least) frequently has McD's commercials featuring kids rght before it starts. And DS loves it and reacts to it. HOWEVER he wouldnt even know what it was if I never exposed him to it so I don't blame anyone but myself for that one (FTR I really kick myself for it). Even when he reacts to the commercial though, he's long forgetten about it by lunchtime...
Exactly. He may cry for it for a few minutes, but he will forget it quickly. It's critical for a parent to stand their ground in those few minutes instead of giving in.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 12:43 PM |
| |
|
CrankyPants
I'm cranky
Member since 7/06 18178 total posts
Name:
Mama Cranky
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by heathergirl
I really wish that people would read threads and see what most things have already been stated. There is a major lack of wellness eduction for lower-income families who just don't understand proper diet and nutrition and therefore, don't understand that a box of pasta and sauce goes farther than McD's...WE GET IT but they don't and the only way the government should be involved is in providing funding for those types of programs at the lowest level.
Some people choose to feed their kids McD's, knowing full well it isn't healthy or nutritious for their kids. They know the ramifications, choose to ignore it, then complain that we should just ban it all together because they lack the willpower to say NO.
Some people choose to feed their kids McD's because they do not know better, they do not understand proper nutrition, and it is a very vicious cycle.
I really wish that some people would understand that some things are worth repeating and in colorful language.
I also don't think we need a whole seminar for people to understand that a box of pasta is cheaper and healthier than a happy meal. That is not a complex concept.
People are making the decision to feed themselves/their kids a basic diet of fast food because to them it tastes good and it's convenient and and it's a "luxury" they can afford and they can't resist it for whatever reason.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 12:43 PM |
| |
|
CrankyPants
I'm cranky
Member since 7/06 18178 total posts
Name:
Mama Cranky
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by heathergirl
Posted by CrankyPants
Posted by DancinBarefoot
Posted by CrankyPants
Also, a box of whole wheat pasta costs $1, feed a family of 5 and is far more nutritional then anything on the mcdonalds menu. You can add jar sauce for another $1.
I don't know where you live - but the whole wheat pasta my family eats is $4 a pound. I jump for joy when it's on sale for $2.50 (and I stock up like a mad woman). I can't speak to a jar of sauce because I make my own, but again, I wait for a sale and stock up on crushed tomatoes etc.
Even at $4, that's cheaper than feeding a family of 5 at micky D's.
I previously stated:
A proper, nutritious menu will easily run the average American family not at the poverty level around $150 per week; that includes lean proteins, the recommended servings of fresh fruits and veggies, whole grains and milk. And that is JUST food, no other household items. If you live on $22k (2009 poverty level stat) per year, there is no way you are going to be able to afford that kind of money in groceries.
Thanks but I did in fact READ your post the first time.
No one is saying a $150 a week budget. I'm not saying they need a full on healthy diet. A diet wherein you eat pasta and sauce every night is far more nutritious than eating fast food every night.
Is is the perfect diet? No, of course not. But it is far better and less expensive than a fast food diet. In my eyes, "better" is good enough. You don't have to go from crappy diet to perfect diet. You just have to be going in the right direction.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 12:47 PM |
| |
|
heathergirl
Cocktail Time!
Member since 10/08 4978 total posts
Name:
American mouth
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by CrankyPants
Posted by heathergirl
Posted by CrankyPants
Posted by DancinBarefoot
Posted by CrankyPants
Also, a box of whole wheat pasta costs $1, feed a family of 5 and is far more nutritional then anything on the mcdonalds menu. You can add jar sauce for another $1.
I don't know where you live - but the whole wheat pasta my family eats is $4 a pound. I jump for joy when it's on sale for $2.50 (and I stock up like a mad woman). I can't speak to a jar of sauce because I make my own, but again, I wait for a sale and stock up on crushed tomatoes etc.
Even at $4, that's cheaper than feeding a family of 5 at micky D's.
I previously stated:
A proper, nutritious menu will easily run the average American family not at the poverty level around $150 per week; that includes lean proteins, the recommended servings of fresh fruits and veggies, whole grains and milk. And that is JUST food, no other household items. If you live on $22k (2009 poverty level stat) per year, there is no way you are going to be able to afford that kind of money in groceries.
Thanks but I did in fact READ your post the first time.
No one is saying a $150 a week budget. I'm not saying they need a full on healthy diet. A diet wherein you eat pasta and sauce every night is far more nutritious than eating fast food every night.
Is is the perfect diet? No, of course not. But it is far better and less expensive than a fast food diet. In my eyes, "better" is good enough. You don't have to go from crappy diet to perfect diet. You just have to be going in the right direction.
I don't understand why you are arguing with me...I am a nutritionist for crying out loud so I am well versed and educated in what consitutues or does not constitue a healthy diet. The point I have been trying to make in this mess is parents who lack the willpower to say NO and then complain that it should be banned. No one is forcing them to eat it, they choose so of their own volition. People who are at the poverty level do not have has many options.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 12:49 PM |
| |
|
eddiesmommy
best buds!
Member since 5/09 11524 total posts
Name:
Melissa
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
IMO, bottom line is, all the advertising/marketing in the world, does not negate free will.
Message edited 11/4/2010 1:25:42 PM.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 1:02 PM |
| |
|
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
People who are at the poverty level do not have has many options.
This is it in a nutshell. The portion of the public that lives above the poverty level and doesn't have contact with people at or below poverty don't understand that concept.
Poverty is so much more than not having enough money. It's also not having an education, and not understanding what healthy eating is all about. It's about not having the actual ability to see that spending $5 on a box of pasta and sauce is better than $5 on McDonalds.
The average person can be picked up from their life here on Long Island and be transported to Iowa with $20 and figure out how to make it. The average poverty stricken person cannot - they just don't have the resources.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 1:03 PM |
| |
|
CrankyPants
I'm cranky
Member since 7/06 18178 total posts
Name:
Mama Cranky
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
Posted by heathergirl
Posted by CrankyPants
Posted by heathergirl
Posted by CrankyPants
Posted by DancinBarefoot
Posted by CrankyPants
Also, a box of whole wheat pasta costs $1, feed a family of 5 and is far more nutritional then anything on the mcdonalds menu. You can add jar sauce for another $1.
I don't know where you live - but the whole wheat pasta my family eats is $4 a pound. I jump for joy when it's on sale for $2.50 (and I stock up like a mad woman). I can't speak to a jar of sauce because I make my own, but again, I wait for a sale and stock up on crushed tomatoes etc.
Even at $4, that's cheaper than feeding a family of 5 at micky D's.
I previously stated:
A proper, nutritious menu will easily run the average American family not at the poverty level around $150 per week; that includes lean proteins, the recommended servings of fresh fruits and veggies, whole grains and milk. And that is JUST food, no other household items. If you live on $22k (2009 poverty level stat) per year, there is no way you are going to be able to afford that kind of money in groceries.
Thanks but I did in fact READ your post the first time.
No one is saying a $150 a week budget. I'm not saying they need a full on healthy diet. A diet wherein you eat pasta and sauce every night is far more nutritious than eating fast food every night.
Is is the perfect diet? No, of course not. But it is far better and less expensive than a fast food diet. In my eyes, "better" is good enough. You don't have to go from crappy diet to perfect diet. You just have to be going in the right direction.
I don't understand why you are arguing with me...I am a nutritionist for crying out loud so I am well versed and educated in what consitutues or does not constitue a healthy diet. The point I have been trying to make in this mess is parents who lack the willpower to say NO and then complain that it should be banned. No one is forcing them to eat it, they choose so of their own volition. People who are at the poverty level do not have has many options.
I'm not arguing with you-you've made some assumptions that I didn't read the thread or read your post. I did. I still felt called to point out the above.
As a nutrionist, why are you comparing the cost of a happy meal to a full course, nutrient rich diet? There is middle ground/degrees of healthy.
Monetarily, it would be hard to make the jump from Mcdonalds to lean protein/veggie/fruits every day. But it wouldn't be hard for someone to go from McDonalds to pasta or generic cheerios.
People at the poverty level do not have a lot of choices-agreed. But a Big Mac and Fries is neither the cheapest nor the most nutritious meal. I suspect some people continue to choose it because 1-they think it tastes good and 2-they feel like it's a "luxury" within their reach.
I also don't think that most of the people buying fast food are the down and out. I suspect the middle class consumes it most often so the whole this is all I can afford doesn't really fly. Most people know that fast food is no good for you, they choose to eat it anyway because they like it. Until they can summon the will power to resist the desire, they will eat it. Some people probably do wish the government would ban it so they wouldn't be able to give in to it. Ah, but I digress.
Message edited 11/4/2010 1:31:45 PM.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 1:21 PM |
| |
|
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 DancinBarefoot
Posted by heathergirl
People who are at the poverty level do not have has many options.
This is it in a nutshell. The portion of the public that lives above the poverty level and doesn't have contact with people at or below poverty don't understand that concept.
Poverty is so much more than not having enough money. It's also not having an education, and not understanding what healthy eating is all about. It's about not having the actual ability to see that spending $5 on a box of pasta and sauce is better than $5 on McDonalds.
The average person can be picked up from their life here on Long Island and be transported to Iowa with $20 and figure out how to make it. The average poverty stricken person cannot - they just don't have the resources.
poverty has been around A LOT longer than mcdonalds. people eat it b.c it's there and it tastes good.
some of the most iconic food in the world is "poor" people food. and poverty stricket people around the world do not rely on Mickey d's for their survival.
you can feed your family for two days with a bag or dried lentils, a carrot and an onion. or a ham hock and a big bushel of greens.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 1:22 PM |
| |
|
cjik
Welcome 2010!
Member since 2/06 8879 total posts
Name:
|
Re: San Francisco bans the Happy Meal
I think it's ridiculous, and really does nothing to address the problem.
One big issue is the availability and affordability of healthy food. Some neighborhoods in NYC really don't have much to offer people BUT junk food.
The other is the fact that more and more kids are sedentary. The third is that families are busy and sometimes, the healthy meals slide.
Banning happy meals won't help.
|
| Posted 11/4/10 1:24 PM |
| |
|
| Pages: << 2 3 4 [5] 6 |
