Bye-Bye Happy Meal Toys

[[KMA]Avenger]

WOW, i never knew that a toy could make a kid fat, i'll have to go dump all my kids toys now we all live and learn i spose.

all jokes and sarcasm aside, i agree with SS on this one, the parents are to blame if they cant control their kids, and thats talking from experience...

up until about 3 years ago, me and my family would eat at Mc's every Friday as a treat for the kids until i saw a YT film entitled, where's the beef, and another film about how Mc's makes its burgers, i instantly put my foot down and said "no more Mc's on a Friday boys". i obviously knew they weren't the healthiest food around but had no idea just how bad their food is. anyways, the point i'm making is that for about 2/3 weeks all i got (even from my wife) was moaning and "hissy fits" but that soon stopped and now we can walk or drive by a Mc's and nobody even looks at the building.

having said all that, isnt this against the constitution since corporations assumed the rights of individuals in the 1800's?

oh, and one other aspect to consider here, MANY people cant afford healthy food any more and simply live at restaurants like Mc's because its cheaper than a grocery store.
just something to keep in mind, not trying to justify it.

[xDaku]

I am not saying the parents are not to blame. But in a perfect world maybe expecting the parents to be responsible would work, but this is not a perfect world. Again, this law isn't changing any choice, and it isn't changing any responsibilities for any parents. They still have to make the choice of whether to let their kids eat at McDonalds. This law is just balancing it a bit towards a side that makes more logical sense. I personally don't see a problem in that.

For the corporate side, I can understand the argument, and that's where everyone's own personal opinion comes in tbh - in the sense that "Should McDonalds be allowed to advertise their product with free will" vs. "McDonalds is bad and should have some limitations" - but where the law for the society is concerned, I don't see a problem.

[MEZZANINE]

oh, and one other aspect to consider here, MANY people cant afford healthy food any more and simply live at restaurants like Mc's because its cheaper than a grocery store.
just something to keep in mind, not trying to justify it.

A good point, although this topic is more about the immoral marketing of their poor quality unhealthy produce aimed at children, corporate buying power dictates what many far too people eat.

How long will it be until just one super-corporation owns all the supermarkets and junk food outlets ? And when all the smaller competitors have been priced out of the market and all consumer choice eliminated who will regulate the crap they sell us if not the government ?

Who would you prefer in control of what you eat ?

Corporations who's only interest is profit margins, even if it costs lives.

Or

Governments who want to keep heathcare bills down and keep you healthy enough to work & pay taxes

[Cole]

I personally disagree with this state involvement for something like this (not saying it should be a free-for-all for companies, but common there's limits for involvement, when there's a rather real threat it's ok imo, such as campaigns against tobacco I totally support, but there isn't it a bit too much? I mean come on, that's quite a big assuming)

If the government doesn't step in, how do you control the irresponsible parents? Just have the kid lead that life because of irresponsible parents? You're arguing that the government shouldn't restrict people. Guess what? All laws restrict people. The government is there to create law for the betterment of society's health and economy. This law does both.

Even bigger question, why is it such a bad thing if an incentive to buy a happy meal is taken away from the kids, and thereby taking away the stress on the parents?

The government is not there to create law for the betterment of society's health and economy ... wow you're very wrong.

quote]
What is it here for then?
Ah yes...security only I suppose?
Adam Smith disciples and all that stuff..

up until about 3 years ago, me and my family would eat at Mc's every Friday as a treat for the kids until i saw a YT film entitled, where's the beef, and another film about how Mc's makes its burgers, i instantly put my foot down and said "no more Mc's on a Friday boys". i obviously knew they weren't the healthiest food around but had no idea just how bad their food is. anyways, the point i'm making is that for about 2/3 weeks all i got (even from my wife) was moaning and "hissy fits" but that soon stopped and now we can walk or drive by a Mc's and nobody even looks at the building.
.

A question I have for all of you who are against McDo for its food quality, why does average school canteen for example has food tasting like outdated food, while McDo is quite tasty compared to those?
If McDo is *that* dangerous while tasting much better than average canteen, doesn't that make those canteens more dangerous? Because when I eat McDos I don't taste outdated/crappy quality (not perfection sure, but it's still ok), unlike average canteeen.

[Empy]

having said all that, isnt this against the constitution since corporations assumed the rights of individuals in the 1800's?

Who cares about anything else? That is literally what I am getting at... I'm fairly positive it's either unconstitutional or breaking some law to infringe on the rights of corporations. Nothing else matters.

[xDaku]

having said all that, isnt this against the constitution since corporations assumed the rights of individuals in the 1800's?

Who cares about anything else? That is literally what I am getting at... I'm fairly positive it's either unconstitutional or breaking some law to infringe on the rights of corporations. Nothing else matters.

It's illegal to sell weed. It's illegal to put toys in McDonald bags. They're not infringing on any rights, strictly speaking. They're putting restrictions on something that could potentially be harmful. Not the toys itself, but the marketing objective of them. What infringement can you going to argue? Freedom of Speech? Nope.

I'm not fully aware of US law so if there is an argument that you can state that could infringe on these "individual" rights, which could apply to this situation please correct me.

Canadian law on the other hand in this case would not find this as an infringement on any rights in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And considering Canada has a higher standard of rights than US (UN statistics) I'm going to assume US doesn't have a written right that is being infringed here.

[Empy]

having said all that, isnt this against the constitution since corporations assumed the rights of individuals in the 1800's?

Who cares about anything else? That is literally what I am getting at... I'm fairly positive it's either unconstitutional or breaking some law to infringe on the rights of corporations. Nothing else matters.

It's illegal to sell weed. It's illegal to put toys in McDonald bags. They're not infringing on any rights, strictly speaking. They're putting restrictions on something that could potentially be harmful. Not the toys itself, but the marketing objective of them. What infringement can you going to argue? Freedom of Speech? Nope.

I'm not fully aware of US law so if there is an argument that you can state that could infringe on these "individual" rights, which could apply to this situation please correct me.

Canadian law on the other hand in this case would not find this as an infringement on any rights in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And considering Canada has a higher standard of rights than US (UN statistics) I'm going to assume US doesn't have a written right that is being infringed here.

It's legal to sell weed in California but an unconstitutional federal law kind of overrules it... so that's debatable. As I said it is not allowed in the constitution for the government to tell a business how it can advertise it's product. You could maybe make an argument if they were selling radioactive happy meal toys or there burgers gave you cancer or something but... it's food. The government can't step in and restrict things to make sure people eat what it thinks is good for them because people have the right to do whatever they want to their body, it's called personal freedom. If they want to eat McDonalds every day and die then that's fine it's their choice.

It's also the right of a business to operate however it wants as long as they're not causing harm to people, or stealing from them, or things like that. McDonalds is not doing that... they're making food, if you choose to eat it great, if you choose not to, cool. You can't argue McDonalds is harming anyone by selling food, as I said unless it gives you cancer after eating their food once. Eating too much of ANY food is bad for, of course McDonalds is a little worse, but it's not the thing killing you, you're killing yourself.

[xDaku]

having said all that, isnt this against the constitution since corporations assumed the rights of individuals in the 1800's?

Who cares about anything else? That is literally what I am getting at... I'm fairly positive it's either unconstitutional or breaking some law to infringe on the rights of corporations. Nothing else matters.

It's illegal to sell weed. It's illegal to put toys in McDonald bags. They're not infringing on any rights, strictly speaking. They're putting restrictions on something that could potentially be harmful. Not the toys itself, but the marketing objective of them. What infringement can you going to argue? Freedom of Speech? Nope.

I'm not fully aware of US law so if there is an argument that you can state that could infringe on these "individual" rights, which could apply to this situation please correct me.

Canadian law on the other hand in this case would not find this as an infringement on any rights in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And considering Canada has a higher standard of rights than US (UN statistics) I'm going to assume US doesn't have a written right that is being infringed here.

It's legal to sell weed in California but an unconstitutional federal law kind of overrules it... so that's debatable. As I said it is not allowed in the constitution for the government to tell a business how it can advertise it's product. You could maybe make an argument if they were selling radioactive happy meal toys or there burgers gave you cancer or something but... it's food. The government can't step in and restrict things to make sure people eat what it thinks is good for them because people have the right to do whatever they want to their body, it's called personal freedom. If they want to eat McDonalds every day and die then that's fine it's their choice.

It's also the right of a business to operate however it wants as long as they're not causing harm to people, or stealing from them, or things like that. McDonalds is not doing that... they're making food, if you choose to eat it great, if you choose not to, cool. You can't argue McDonalds is harming anyone by selling food, as I said unless it gives you cancer after eating their food once. Eating too much of ANY food is bad for, of course McDonalds is a little worse, but it's not the thing killing you, you're killing yourself.

Where in the constitution does it say "A government cannot restrict a business from full advertising". And the government is not restricting what food people eat, it's taking away an incentive. You do not see the porn industry advertised in public for example, but is not harmful at all. Would you say that the porn industry should be openly advertised and it is the parent's responsibility to make sure their kids don't go for it, when in reality these ads are researched and built JUST so the kids cause a problem for their parents?

The government is not claiming that McDonalds is harming anyone by selling food. It's claiming that their advertising is harmful, and truth be told it is. And you cannot argue that the parents should just say no to their kids, they'll listen now, they'll follow now, they'll still eat it later in their lives. These ads are meant to stick long term. Simple parents saying no will not solve the problem, despite how much we would like to believe it.

[MEZZANINE]

they'll still eat it later in their lives. These ads are meant to stick long term. Simple parents saying no will not solve the problem, despite how much we would like to believe it.

later... when they are adults?

you mean, an adult that has the legal free will do to whatever they please with their life?

Later doesnt have to mean adults, how many teenagers do you think eat this rubbish because of the marketing and advertising indoctrinating them from an early age to think it's good ?




Also adults do not have legal freedom to do what they want, recent drug trials in the UK showed that Alcohol and Tobacco are among the most harmful and addictive drugs available, where are Cannabis and Ecstasy are among the least harmful. The law is frequently backwards and dictated by out of date thinking and prejudice, and it takes a strong will on the part of politicians to make unpopular changes to the laws and bring them up to date.

Taking a stand against the marketing techniques of companies like McDonalds is no different in IMO to when they banned cigarette advertising, unpopular but for the greater good.

The numbers of new smokers dropped after cigarette advertising was banned, with restrictions on junkfood adverts/marketing will probably result in a thinner healthier population. I think the government should go further as they did with cigarettes and launch a public information campaign warning people about the damage junkfood does to you.

Anyone who hasnt seen it should download and watch a documentary called ''supersize me''

[xDaku]

Supersize Me is one horrifying documentary. That's sort of what I was basing off my attitude towards this. Even an 8th of what that guy did is harmful for a human being.

And once again, I repeat, they have the free will to do what they want now. The government took away one point that encouraged it. Same as cigarettes.

[Kit-Fox]

Removed

[[KMA]Avenger]

up until about 3 years ago, me and my family would eat at Mc's every Friday as a treat for the kids until i saw a YT film entitled, where's the beef, and another film about how Mc's makes its burgers, i instantly put my foot down and said "no more Mc's on a Friday boys". i obviously knew they weren't the healthiest food around but had no idea just how bad their food is. anyways, the point i'm making is that for about 2/3 weeks all i got (even from my wife) was moaning and "hissy fits" but that soon stopped and now we can walk or drive by a Mc's and nobody even looks at the building.
.

A question I have for all of you who are against McDo for its food quality, why does average school canteen for example has food tasting like outdated food, while McDo is quite tasty compared to those?
If McDo is *that* dangerous while tasting much better than average canteen, doesn't that make those canteens more dangerous? Because when I eat McDos I don't taste outdated/crappy quality (not perfection sure, but it's still ok), unlike average canteeen.

ever heard of "food additives"?

a Mc's burger has enough additives and preservatives that the burger can last up to 6 months and still be edible...you want that in your body? do you even understand how little nutrition their is in such a "food"?
food is not about taste, food is fuel and medicine for your body. with the right nutrition in your meals your body can repair almost any damage to it...do you even understand what i'm saying??

i'm not trying to be clever or put you down in ANY Way BUT, i was seriously considering not even replying to you (and i certainly wont reply to the rest of your post), you need to put a bit more critical thought into your posts and replies.




@SS, no Govt should have the right to dictate anything to anyone, and defo shouldn't have the power to come in and say "HEY, NO MORE TOYS TO SELL MEALS!".

if people are so weak that they have to eat at such places on a regular basis simply because "its fast and convenient" and cant be bothered to go and cook a nice tasty healthy meal for themselves, then they shouldn't be allowed to reproduce...end of story!

[Cole]

I asked this and hoped I would receive another answer, damn, I guess i was right when I thought "I soo expect that it will be about this so called experience made by this journalist or artist into their sittting room."
I don't think I recall there was a bailiff report to prove authenticity of this one, but I'm not going to believe by their word what an anti McDonald journalist/artist whatever she was, is trying to prove their guiltiness. I'm well aware of obesity issues with McDonald and all, but I'm not going to believe anything said against mcdonald. Talk about critical thought hehe.

Slight paranoia about preservatives, duh, I already bought "bio food", so called wonderfulest food of all, such as bio bread without any preservatives at all, more expensive than other breads...Very nice, almost every time I bought bio bread, there was mould coming in very quickly (was big bread so not possible to be consumed within one or two days). Whatever that mould is natural, I way prefer to eat industrial or semi industrial bread with preservatives than face bread that will be outdated before I can finish it. I have a deep disgust for mould into my food, it's like that. I couldn't care less if it means I will live two or three years less than what I could last if I only ate bio food.

Also, don't try to tell me this that it's not about taste, because there's a logical limit about taste, when your meal sometimes tastes like it's outdated and literally stinks (school canteen), then don't try to tell me it's not so bad. And also this food was far from being bio, it was utterly industrial to a level it wasn't funny. Don't try to tell me there wasn't additive or preservatives in canteen food, because they had to face controls and thus this had to appear secured to allow outdatedness; controls about taste obviously didn't exist, or if they did, the testers were quite amateurish. So what was your point considering I compared two different industrial foods saying one is ok and the other isn't in the tasting department?
It just meant that both were as industrial as each others but that McDo tasted better and thus was better than canteen food considering both were industrial.

[[KMA]Avenger]

i was reading your reply and trying to understand your position on the matter when i got to this part of the 2nd paragraph and stopped short of even finishing the sentence "I way prefer to eat industrial or semi industrial bread with preservatives than face bread that will be outdated before I...",

i don't even want to drop to your level of thinking. that sentence is an insult to humanity

you my friend deserve every illness thats associated with bad eating, and you also deserve the doctor to pump you full of drugs to "put you right" afterwards

i'm sorry to say that you have no understanding or knowledge of real food....here, go educate yourself:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 501596844#

also, watch a film called "Food Inc", then come and debate me about the merits of industrialised food and real food.
until you have a better understanding of what your saying i wont engage you in "intellectual" debate anymore


PS, you have failed to understand the OP's position on the matter.

PSS.

maybe we should have a topic split for a debate on food.

[xDaku]

I asked this and hoped I would receive another answer, damn, I guess i was right when I thought "I soo expect that it will be about this so called experience made by this journalist or artist into their sittting room."
I don't think I recall there was a bailiff report to prove authenticity of this one, but I'm not going to believe by their word what an anti McDonald journalist/artist whatever she was, is trying to prove their guiltiness. I'm well aware of obesity issues with McDonald and all, but I'm not going to believe anything said against mcdonald. Talk about critical thought hehe.

Slight paranoia about preservatives, duh, I already bought "bio food", so called wonderfulest food of all, such as bio bread without any preservatives at all, more expensive than other breads...Very nice, almost every time I bought bio bread, there was mould coming in very quickly (was big bread so not possible to be consumed within one or two days). Whatever that mould is natural, I way prefer to eat industrial or semi industrial bread with preservatives than face bread that will be outdated before I can finish it. I have a deep disgust for mould into my food, it's like that. I couldn't care less if it means I will live two or three years less than what I could last if I only ate bio food.

Also, don't try to tell me this that it's not about taste, because there's a logical limit about taste, when your meal sometimes tastes like it's outdated and literally stinks (school canteen), then don't try to tell me it's not so bad. And also this food was far from being bio, it was utterly industrial to a level it wasn't funny. Don't try to tell me there wasn't additive or preservatives in canteen food, because they had to face controls and thus this had to appear secured to allow outdatedness; controls about taste obviously didn't exist, or if they did, the testers were quite amateurish. So what was your point considering I compared two different industrial foods saying one is ok and the other isn't in the tasting department?
It just meant that both were as industrial as each others but that McDo tasted better and thus was better than canteen food considering both were industrial.

Big sentences. Flawed logic. Not all industrialized foods have the same statistics hence you can't compare one to the other and say one is better because it tastes better. Only way to do that is to have the exact same variables for everything else. You just gave the biggest excuse for eating McDonalds as your argument. Seriously flawed.