So i dont know if you guys have been following this, but san francisco tried to recently pass a law against happy meals. the premise being that happy meals have toys that encourage children to eat food that is bad for them.
The vote to ban happy meals was 8-3. Under the new system, if a resturaunt wants to include toys with the meal, the meal must meet certain nutritional guidelines.
The mayor vetoed it, but the vote is enough to override the veto.
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/...es_--_with.php
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-12/u...esert?_s=PM:US
So what do you guys think? IMO a ban on happy meals doesnt seem any more unreasonable than the ban on cigarette ads that were allegedly designed to make children want to smoke. IMO, probably more reasonable since happy meals are definitely marketed towards kids and some of the joe camel ads back in the day were a bit more ambiguous.
However, society seems to worry much more about smokers than ppl who overstuff their kids with hamburgers. i think that obesity kills more though.
Also, in one of hte articles related to this i remember reading that most parents take their kids to get fast foods at least once a week. ill have to dig that up . i think it was like 80%? which is ridiculous.
***ETA: To be clear, this law passing means that a happy meal or another meal targeted at a child would be less than 600 calories. thats really all that it translates to.***



Reply With Quote





Bookmarks