U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-08-2010, 04:38 PM
 
1,443 posts, read 2,837,732 times
Reputation: 1240

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazznblues View Post
As if there is one true standard of determining which foods have no redeeming value!

So you are willing to trust a government bureacrat to decide for you? Who could be corrupted by any number of biases, just like you!

What about bacon? What about foie gras? How about cheese fries? Will you choose whether a burger is grilled or cooked on a griddle?

I cannot believe you want a government entity that involved in what you eat. I am perfectly capable of making my own choices for myself and my family.
There isn't a true written standard above all else but most McD's qualifies under no standard.

I'm no fan of bacon, foie gras, or most cheese fries, and as for a burger I really don't care whether it's grilled or griddled. These do qualify as food, 'course they, like anything else, could be made bad with all sorts of preservatives, hormones, and artificial/engineered ingredients, which is where the real problem lies - not necessarily all fat (and these problems are a big part of why McD's is not healthy.) And foie gras isn't marketed towards kids anyway, which is what the entire debate is about.

I do appreciate a goverment entity that is involved in what people eat when they're doing it for the betterment of society. This is nothing new. There are plenty of things that aren't allowed due to being health hazards. And here the council is requiring a cutback on things that everyone knows are bad for you, and yet there's such an outcry. Some of you are acting as if they're mandating set menus of what we have to eat for every meal, and that's just not the case. You and I are perfectly capable of making our own food choices, but there are many that aren't, hence the rising rates of obesity and diabetes and a plethora of other health problems.

Normally I'd say let people Darwin themselves away, but the kids should not be punished by early onset of disease just because their parents don't know better. It's also really disheartening to see what's happened to food these days, and most people don't even know how bad a lot of the stuff out there is for them. Including most of the people who are trying to defend their opposition to this decision. I don't even know why many of you are trying to defend this as you don't want intervention in your food, as the reason why food is so bad in the first place is because it's been corrupted by the big interests. Make it cheap and addictive, never mind the quality. If people only had real food to choose from, or at least 80% real food (and NOT the other way around), I doubt they'd flinch and in fact everyone would be better for it. And, I don't want to have to pay into the health care pool or taxes that go towards services to people that are too stupid to make proper eating choices.

I don't "trust a government bureacrat to decide" for me -- certainly you weren't being serious. It's that I know a good decision when I see one & this is it. The only bias I'm "corrupted" by is wanting to live in a healthy society. Yes, this is just a small step, but a good one.

Last edited by Radical347; 11-08-2010 at 04:53 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-08-2010, 04:49 PM
 
Location: DFW - Coppell / Las Colinas
29,893 posts, read 34,453,670 times
Reputation: 35859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical347 View Post
.I do appreciate a goverment entity that is involved in what people eat when they're doing it for the betterment of society.
What a crazy point this is. Who determines what's best for you ?

Hopefully you do. How much are you going to let them determine your healthy meals ? Do you think any Govt entity actually has common sense ?

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 05:28 PM
 
Location: San Diego, California Republic
16,129 posts, read 21,343,423 times
Reputation: 8308
Quote:
It's also really disheartening to see what's happened to food these days, and most people don't even know how bad a lot of the stuff out there is for them
I agree with this. However, rather than making laws such as this, why not educate people on these things?
Quote:
Make it cheap and addictive, never mind the quality. If people only had real food to choose from, or at least 80% real food
Sad but true but there are options. Everyday I see people pass right by the healthy options which are there for them to choose. They simply don't want to choose them.

I go to the grocery store and pick up chicken breast, fresh vegetables, yogurt and grape juice, not grape drink but grape juice, whole wheat bread and maybe a steak. Others shopping in the same store have pork chops or fattier beef cuts, maybe canned veges but usually chips and candy, ice cream, grape drink, not juice or more often sugary soda, maybe hollow white bread and perhaps bacon. Different people at the same store who choose very different items. The healthy choices are certainly there. It's not an 80/20 unhealthy choice trust me.

My point is, people will make whatever choices they want. Today it's McD's next will there be restrictions at the grocery stores too? If people want to eat unhealthy, they're gonna do it. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a world where that choice, or any other choices were taken away from anyone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 06:50 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in Kentucky
3,790 posts, read 7,551,518 times
Reputation: 2413
Before I get my posts deleted again...

I am not sure if someone mentioned this, but can't McD's get around this by simply asking the customer if they want to purchase the toy for 1 cent? There are ways around everything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 07:14 PM
 
Location: SW MO
23,605 posts, read 30,278,581 times
Reputation: 28965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentoo View Post
My point is, people will make whatever choices they want. Today it's McD's next will there be restrictions at the grocery stores too? If people want to eat unhealthy, they're gonna do it. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a world where that choice, or any other choices were taken away from anyone.
My wife and I prepare and eat healthy meals, with a very occasional splurge of something that might not be so healthy but tickles the tastebuds.

Some people need government to make decisions for them and believe they should be made for all others as well. In my experience, those who subscribe to such nanny government are those who cannot make good decisions on their own and need someone else or an entity to do so for them. Thankfully, not all of us are so afflicted!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2010, 07:17 PM
 
735 posts, read 1,050,339 times
Reputation: 344
Maybe instead of toys, McDonald's could give out "An Inconvenient Truth" action figures with every purchase. These would be fun and educational.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2010, 07:47 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
69,156 posts, read 79,283,931 times
Reputation: 38522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical347 View Post
There isn't a true written standard above all else but most McD's qualifies under no standard.

I'm no fan of bacon, foie gras, or most cheese fries, and as for a burger I really don't care whether it's grilled or griddled. These do qualify as food, 'course they, like anything else, could be made bad with all sorts of preservatives, hormones, and artificial/engineered ingredients, which is where the real problem lies - not necessarily all fat (and these problems are a big part of why McD's is not healthy.) And foie gras isn't marketed towards kids anyway, which is what the entire debate is about.

I do appreciate a goverment entity that is involved in what people eat when they're doing it for the betterment of society. This is nothing new. There are plenty of things that aren't allowed due to being health hazards. And here the council is requiring a cutback on things that everyone knows are bad for you, and yet there's such an outcry. Some of you are acting as if they're mandating set menus of what we have to eat for every meal, and that's just not the case. You and I are perfectly capable of making our own food choices, but there are many that aren't, hence the rising rates of obesity and diabetes and a plethora of other health problems.

Normally I'd say let people Darwin themselves away, but the kids should not be punished by early onset of disease just because their parents don't know better. It's also really disheartening to see what's happened to food these days, and most people don't even know how bad a lot of the stuff out there is for them. Including most of the people who are trying to defend their opposition to this decision. I don't even know why many of you are trying to defend this as you don't want intervention in your food, as the reason why food is so bad in the first place is because it's been corrupted by the big interests. Make it cheap and addictive, never mind the quality. If people only had real food to choose from, or at least 80% real food (and NOT the other way around), I doubt they'd flinch and in fact everyone would be better for it. And, I don't want to have to pay into the health care pool or taxes that go towards services to people that are too stupid to make proper eating choices.

I don't "trust a government bureacrat to decide" for me -- certainly you weren't being serious. It's that I know a good decision when I see one & this is it. The only bias I'm "corrupted" by is wanting to live in a healthy society. Yes, this is just a small step, but a good one.
sorry, no one has a right to tell another person what he or she can eat. If parents are not going to teach their kids about nutrician that is their problem. Besides what is seen as healthy today may not be 10 or 20 years from now. Standards keep changing. YOu prrobably were not alive when it was recommended by the government that kids drink a quart of milk a day. Yes, the hype came from the Dairy Association but it was on the suggested list put out by the government. I could go on and on about this, but the fact still remains: 1-an occassional "Happy Meal" isn't going to hurt any child and 2-it is up to parents to educate their kids about good eating habits, like educating them about other things. Don't you think, parents can just go to the next little town and get a Happy Meal without fruit. Besides are we talking sugar filled fruit or honest to goodness fresh oranges and apples?

Nita

ps: as for the rise in Diabetes and obesity: I have a theory on this and it isn't what Micky Ds is serving: 1-more people see doctors and more tests are done, thus many cases of diabetes that are detected would have gone unnoticed 30 or more years ago and 2-much of the obesity in kids is created from too much TV, too much time on the computers, too many parents driving the kids everywhere and yes, sugar added to everything. I would rather my kid enjoy a Happy Meal once every week or two than depend on cold cereal, pop tarts or such things for breakfast.

Last edited by nmnita; 11-09-2010 at 07:55 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2010, 01:18 PM
 
1,443 posts, read 2,837,732 times
Reputation: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post
Some people need government to make decisions for them and believe they should be made for all others as well. In my experience, those who subscribe to such nanny government are those who cannot make good decisions on their own and need someone else or an entity to do so for them. Thankfully, not all of us are so afflicted!
Not really quite sure where you pulled this out of, but I'm calling you out on it. It's the exact opposite. It's people who can't make good decisions for themselves that are so engrossed in their ways that they scream out when anyone tries to do anything remotely close to setting them straight. (see this topic for dozens of examples.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2010, 01:28 PM
 
1,443 posts, read 2,837,732 times
Reputation: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentoo View Post
I agree with this. However, rather than making laws such as this, why not educate people on these things?Sad but true but there are options. Everyday I see people pass right by the healthy options which are there for them to choose. They simply don't want to choose them.
This I agree with. I would love to see more people educated on things like this.

Quote:
I go to the grocery store and pick up chicken breast, fresh vegetables, yogurt and grape juice, not grape drink but grape juice, whole wheat bread and maybe a steak. Others shopping in the same store have pork chops or fattier beef cuts, maybe canned veges but usually chips and candy, ice cream, grape drink, not juice or more often sugary soda, maybe hollow white bread and perhaps bacon. Different people at the same store who choose very different items. The healthy choices are certainly there. It's not an 80/20 unhealthy choice trust me.
Hmm. I guess I'll give you that it's an exaggeration, although I don't think it's that much of one. There's way more white flour products > whole wheat in the store, the vast majority of anything in packages and the vast majority boxes isn't too good for you (although there are some exceptions), as well as all sodas. People that mostly stick to the fresh produce and meat sections are fine, but even most luncheon meat is too full of garbage imo.

Quote:
My point is, people will make whatever choices they want. Today it's McD's next will there be restrictions at the grocery stores too? If people want to eat unhealthy, they're gonna do it. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a world where that choice, or any other choices were taken away from anyone.
Perhaps, but with far less unhealthy choices to begin with, people will be making far fewer bad choices. Peanut butter and even chips don't have to be bad. What I would love to see the most is requiring the companies to cease production of all harmful additives that really shouldn't be in food products (and this could be a topic for a whole 'nother thread.). Many of these should never have been available to begin with, so I don't see it being taken away as a bad thing, and it's heartbreaking to see how many people have become dependent on them, most subconsciously. I realize this is a long way off, if it ever materializes at all. That way if the products aren't available to begin with, there would be no need for laws like this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2010, 01:30 PM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
16,115 posts, read 20,120,268 times
Reputation: 8203
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
My suggestion would be that you boycott San francisco, that could be really easy from New Jersey
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top