San Francisco bans Happy Meals
Topics: Regulation
09 Nov 2010
From: Ervan Darnell
--000e0cd72c00e16ecd0494abe3f1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
What a pathetic gesture of the overweening nanny state [1]. It's such a
liberal thing to do, ignore any individual desires in a rush of government
arrogance, impose a nutty law absent any good data, and feel good about the
extra increment of misery in the world.
This is a limit not on children, but on adults. Had the law banned minors
from shopping at McDonald's, you could just laugh at it. But this is a law
that bans decisions by parents, claiming that the SF city council knows more
about how to feed your kid than you do. What will you be banned from eating
next? Or, maybe buying the same food and the toy separate instead of
bundled.
It's ridiculous in principle, but it doesn't even make any sense if you
accept the concept:
1) All McDonald's needs to do is put in some cheap piece of fruit (how much
counts?) or vegetable. Kids can ignore the unappetizing extra and life goes
on. Poor people will have to pay a little more for the same food they were
already getting, and we can have some trash in our garbage dumps. That's
success in SF.
2) Is there any reason to think this will change an unhealthy diet? Versus
going to Burger King, or just buying a bag of chips, or stopping at
McDonald's in Daly City (next to SF) on the way home.
3) Where is the evidence any of this will work. What is intrinsically worse
about McDonald's nutrition than the French Laundry (a very upscale
restaurant)? Nothing I think, both have lots of fat and salt, without
much fiber. The difference is only that McDonald's is affordable so you can
eat more (not nearly as a tasty of course, but that's not relevant). I
guess it's back to taxing the poor so they'll eat less and declaring it good
for health. Oh yeah, the French Laundry has wine on the menu. Maybe they
should pass a law allowing McDonald's to serve wine (currently difficult by
virtue of needing a separate liquor license in locations where it won't be
granted)?
4) How is a Big Mac more nutrious without the toy? If McDonald's is
inherently bad, why don't they just ban McDonald's from serving kids instead
of just making it slightly less appealing? Yes, the toy is now a bribe to a
put a couple of grapes in the bag, but the law is also an incentive to skip
the toy.
Then, there is the bill of attainder aspect, punishing a particular company.
Line up now to bribe your councilmen that your restaurant has "nutritious"
food. Your taxes will rise twice, once explicitly for the happy meal
police and again implicitly to fund the bribery cost of running a
restaurant.
Not SF's jurisdiction, but if the government really wants to help kids
health, it should repeal the (cane) sugar tariff and cease subsidizing corn
so we get away from high fructose corn sugar. That's not happening though.
----------------
[1]
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hxL4HQtykZypdhfzj5ySK1Pj7o6g?docId=aeecc83d2a81483ebf2dafb8e3017dd9
--
Unsubscribe: kelvinistragnar+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/kelvinistragnar?hl=en
--000e0cd72c00e16ecd0494abe3f1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What a pathetic gesture of the overweening nanny state [1]. =A0It'=
s such a liberal thing to do, ignore any individual desires in a rush of go=
vernment arrogance, impose a nutty law absent any good data, and feel good =
about the extra increment of misery in the world.
This is a limit not on children, but on adults. Had the=
law banned minors from shopping at McDonald's, you could just laugh at=
it. =A0But this is a law that bans decisions by parents, claiming that the=
SF city council knows more about how to feed your kid than you do. =A0What=
will you be banned from eating next? =A0Or, maybe buying the same food and=
the toy separate instead of bundled.
It's ridiculous in principle, but it doesn't ev=
en make any sense if you accept the concept:
1) Al=
l McDonald's needs to do is put in some cheap piece of fruit (how much =
counts?) or vegetable. =A0Kids can ignore the unappetizing extra and life g=
oes on. =A0Poor people will have to pay a little more for the same food the=
y were already getting, and we can have some trash in our garbage dumps. =
=A0That's success in SF.
2) Is there any reason to think this will change an unh=
ealthy diet? =A0Versus going to Burger King, or just buying a bag of chips,=
or stopping at McDonald's in Daly City (next to SF) on the way home.=
=A0
3) Where is the evidence any of this will work. =A0What=
is=A0intrinsically=A0worse about McDonald's nutrition than the French =
Laundry (a very upscale restaurant)? =A0 =A0Nothing I think, both have lots=
of fat and salt, without much fiber. =A0The difference is only that McDona=
ld's is affordable so you can eat more (not nearly as a tasty of course=
, but that's not relevant). =A0I guess it's back to taxing the poor=
so they'll eat less and declaring it good for health. Oh yeah, the Fre=
nch Laundry has wine on the menu. =A0Maybe they should pass a law allowing =
McDonald's to serve wine (currently difficult by virtue of needing a se=
parate liquor license in locations where it won't be granted)?
4) How is a Big Mac more nutrious without the toy? =A0I=
f McDonald's is inherently bad, why don't they just ban McDonald=
9;s from serving kids instead of just making it slightly less appealing? =
=A0Yes, the toy is now a bribe to a put a couple of grapes in the bag, but =
the law is also an incentive to skip the toy.
Then, there is the bill of attainder aspect, punishing a par=
ticular company. Line up now to bribe your councilmen that your restaurant =
has "nutritious" food. =A0=A0Your taxes will rise twice, once exp=
licitly for the happy meal police and again implicitly to fund the bribery =
cost of running a restaurant.
Not SF's jurisdiction, but if the government really wants to h=
elp kids health, it should =A0repeal the (cane) sugar tariff and cease subs=
idizing corn so we get away
from high fructose corn sugar. =A0 That's not happening though.
<=
div>
--
Unsubscribe: kelvinistragnar+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
http://g=
roups.google.com/group/kelvinistragnar?hl en
--000e0cd72c00e16ecd0494abe3f1--
Home