City of Davis to institute new ordinance on soda "ban" with kid's meals
Replies
-
That's Davis.
0 -
My bad, I left out the word "on" after work.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
So in other words your parent(s) didn't work and educate you adequately and you had inadequate oral hygiene habits.jesikalovesyou wrote: »I don't drink soda, my husband does, but my kids also don't. I grew up drinking soda and Kool-aid. I was always overweight and obese and I know drinking soda and such doesn't help. I also had cavities all the time.
Where does it say anywhere that the parents didn't work (and even if they didn't what does that have to do with the case in point)?
Lol, that's done a lot to reduce the use of alcohol, gas and cigarettes right?Anyway, I say bring on the junk tax, stop making crap food the cheap option, and the next generation will be a lot better off!
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
-
This content has been removed.
-
Lol, and you don't think that today's kids today won't ride a bike or drive a car outside the city limits to be able to buy one? Do you have kids?Chrysalid2014 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Kids roaming the neighborhood with spare cash buying themselves Happy Meals is really the target here? Really?Chrysalid2014 wrote: »It is not up to the government what drink option I provide my child. Fast food is not meant to be an everyday option. Each is a treat. So if I choose to give my child a soda on a special trip to McDonald's that's my decision and no one should judge or tell me that I cannot do so. The person that judges or criticizes has no idea what or why we are at McDonald's.
I believe we also need to teach children that everything in moderation (when it comes to food) is ok. To strictly so absoultely no sugar or candy or soda ever. Will back fire when they are older and make the choices soley on their own.
I think you've missed the point. The idea that the parent *can* buy it for the child – just as he/she can legally give their underage child a glass of wine at dinner – but the child can't go out and have a soda binge with his pocket money.
I think for me the soda overconsumption thing started when I was around 11-12, when I had pocket money. My friends and I used to sneak off the school grounds to get to the pop machine at the gas station down the street.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
My bad, I left out the word "on" after work.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
So in other words your parent(s) didn't work and educate you adequately and you had inadequate oral hygiene habits.jesikalovesyou wrote: »I don't drink soda, my husband does, but my kids also don't. I grew up drinking soda and Kool-aid. I was always overweight and obese and I know drinking soda and such doesn't help. I also had cavities all the time.
Where does it say anywhere that the parents didn't work (and even if they didn't what does that have to do with the case in point)?
Lol, that's done a lot to reduce the use of alcohol, gas and cigarettes right?Anyway, I say bring on the junk tax, stop making crap food the cheap option, and the next generation will be a lot better off!
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Probably not the example you wanted to use. Smoking has dropped exponentially since tax hikes started piling on. A pack of cigarettes these days costs close to what a carton was 30 years ago.0 -
I'm in favor of the ordinance, and get a little frustrated when people react as though it's some horrible example of government over-reach. Decisions focused on public health are sensitive, for sure, but this one is a good example of a helpful one. Parents still have complete autonomy over deciding what they want to purchase for their child.
I'm also not a fan of starting a thread like this, really, as it just seems like flame-bait that can easily transition into the sort of political debate that I thought was discouraged on these boards. What's the purpose of the thread?
But I'm new here, so maybe I'm off-base.
So you don't see this as overreach? When does it reach that point for you? When the government imposes choices upon you rather than others?
0 -
I don't see how that even comes close to winning the inevitable court challenge.0
-
Lol, and you don't think that today's kids today won't ride a bike or drive a car outside the city limits to be able to buy one? Do you have kids?
If a kid is going to be so desperate for a soda that they'll take public transit to the next city over to buy one, then clearly an ordinance like this is needed.
0 -
I don't see how that even comes close to winning the inevitable court challenge.
How is it any different from saying certain things can't be advertised at eye level for kids? You can still buy them pop, they can still drink pop, it's just not the first option presented to them. That's really all this is - a restriction on how pop can be advertised to kids, in this case, it can't be default bundled with kids meals.0 -
girlviernes wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »It's ridiculous. Dad, do you want water or milk with your happy meal for junior? Soda! Okay.
They're passing a law so they look like they're doing something, but you can still order the soda. The parents still, as they should, have the choice.
Context. No one knows if junior is getting milk every other time and this time soda is a treat or what. This is not a matter for laws to decide.
It's actually about changing the defaults. That does affect peoples behaviors. The idea is to make the default option the healthier option. I agree that soda shouldn't be banned, but I don't see a problem with this particular policy.
That's not a government decision. That's a decision that should be market-driven.
0 -
California has good and bad intentions. The ban on smoking in public areas was smart. This one, not so smart IMO.That's california for you, if they had their way we'd have no rights at all.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
If a rational argument can be made as to why the prohibition is a legit exercise of power, that's one thing. Even if I don't agree, it probably wouldnt seem illegitimate. If it's just illegitimate pandering stupidity, it's just illegitimate pandering stupidity.girlviernes wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
How about the companies and customers involved sort out what the default should be?girlviernes wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »It's ridiculous. Dad, do you want water or milk with your happy meal for junior? Soda! Okay.
They're passing a law so they look like they're doing something, but you can still order the soda. The parents still, as they should, have the choice.
Context. No one knows if junior is getting milk every other time and this time soda is a treat or what. This is not a matter for laws to decide.
It's actually about changing the defaults. That does affect peoples behaviors. The idea is to make the default option the healthier option. I agree that soda shouldn't be banned, but I don't see a problem with this particular policy.
The problem is government mandates affecting the dealings of consensual transactions.
I get it, but I guess I have a different view of the role of government. But I'm curious, what are your thoughts about regulations of the sale of cigarettes and alcohol to minors? Is there any role for government there? This is not to draw an equivalence between those substances and soda, but I want to see how far your issue with government mandates goes.
Twelve ounces of Coke has 130 calories and 30.8 carbs. Bad, so bad, for the children.
Twelve ounces of orange juice has 167 calories and 38.69 grams of carbs. Oooh, healthy.
Yeah, orange juice has vitamin C and some fiber. If you think fortifying Coke with vitamin C would change the mind of people who make decisions like this, I suggest that you're mistaken.
It's about demonizing a particular food, for which people on this very board are chastised daily. You've probably done it yourself.0 -
GuitarJerry wrote: »Children believe ads.
Calling BS on that.
My 10 and 12 year olds have a BETTER sense of when someone is trying to sell them than most adults I know.
0 -
Good
And there will be lectures from certified by MFP that 250 calories from carbs in doughnuts is the same as that from lentils and black beans.
I don't want to pay for their food and dentist and diabetes
-1 -
professionalHobbyist wrote: »Good
And there will be lectures from certified by MFP that 250 calories from carbs in doughnuts is the same as that from lentils and black beans.
I don't want to pay for their food and dentist and diabetes
More strawman arguments from you. When you can intelligently engage in a conversation, please let us know.
As people have repeatedly noted ... your donut line is based on false assertions by you. It is said that from an energy perspective, a calorie is a calorie ... not from a nutritional perspective.-5 -
I have three kids (7, 8 and 10)-1 hates any kind of soda and the other 2 only like Sprite/Sierra Mist. We usually eat out as a family once a week and I never get them kids meals-they could eat two of those things and still be hungry
They split adult entrees and then the soda hating kid gets lemonade (she has to take a dairy pill and the lemonade makes it more tolerable), and the other two split the drink/s that come with the adult entree. And yep, I have no problem at all with them getting Sprite. All three of my kids are healthy/healthy weights, so them drinking soda once or twice a week isn't going to make me lose sleep. 0 -
How many of you if favor of this support the government saying what YOU can order as a default option?-2
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
So in other words your parent(s) didn't work and educate you adequately and you had inadequate oral hygiene habits.jesikalovesyou wrote: »I don't drink soda, my husband does, but my kids also don't. I grew up drinking soda and Kool-aid. I was always overweight and obese and I know drinking soda and such doesn't help. I also had cavities all the time.
Where does it say anywhere that the parents didn't work (and even if they didn't what does that have to do with the case in point)?
Anyway, I say bring on the junk tax, stop making crap food the cheap option, and the next generation will be a lot better off!
I agree with the 'junk/sin tax'! It might help pay for the health care needed eventually for those that have lived unhealthy lives and now 'eat up' - no pun intended - all our health care resources as they become sick as they age.
Also, 'crap food' as suggested should be more expensive - if government wants to become involved, I say they should subsidize farmers - organic would be great! Also, offer those individuals who are living healthy lives tax incentives/benefits - have supplements, etc., a part of health plans, etc.,
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »How many of you if favor of this support the government saying what YOU can order as a default option?
They aren't saying what you can order. They are just changing the default. I like caramel macchiatos. If it's not on the menu, I can still request it. It's not unavailable.0 -
buffveganme wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
So in other words your parent(s) didn't work and educate you adequately and you had inadequate oral hygiene habits.jesikalovesyou wrote: »I don't drink soda, my husband does, but my kids also don't. I grew up drinking soda and Kool-aid. I was always overweight and obese and I know drinking soda and such doesn't help. I also had cavities all the time.
Where does it say anywhere that the parents didn't work (and even if they didn't what does that have to do with the case in point)?
Anyway, I say bring on the junk tax, stop making crap food the cheap option, and the next generation will be a lot better off!
I agree with the 'junk/sin tax'! It might help pay for the health care needed eventually for those that have lived unhealthy lives and now 'eat up' - no pun intended - all our health care resources as they become sick as they age.
Also, 'crap food' as suggested should be more expensive - if government wants to become involved, I say they should subsidize farmers - organic would be great! Also, offer those individuals who are living healthy lives tax incentives/benefits - have supplements, etc., a part of health plans, etc.,
Um, our government already heavily subsidizes the farming industry-look into the Farm Bill, the newest one which was signed by President Obama last year. Interestingly, two of the biggest subsidized crops are corn and soy, which are a couple of the main ingredients in so much of the 'processed junk' food out there
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »How many of you if favor of this support the government saying what YOU can order as a default option?
Why would I care what the "default" option is. I'm wondering if you understand what the word "option" means?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
buffveganme wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
So in other words your parent(s) didn't work and educate you adequately and you had inadequate oral hygiene habits.jesikalovesyou wrote: »I don't drink soda, my husband does, but my kids also don't. I grew up drinking soda and Kool-aid. I was always overweight and obese and I know drinking soda and such doesn't help. I also had cavities all the time.
Where does it say anywhere that the parents didn't work (and even if they didn't what does that have to do with the case in point)?
Anyway, I say bring on the junk tax, stop making crap food the cheap option, and the next generation will be a lot better off!
I agree with the 'junk/sin tax'! It might help pay for the health care needed eventually for those that have lived unhealthy lives and now 'eat up' - no pun intended - all our health care resources as they become sick as they age.
Also, 'crap food' as suggested should be more expensive - if government wants to become involved, I say they should subsidize farmers - organic would be great! Also, offer those individuals who are living healthy lives tax incentives/benefits - have supplements, etc., a part of health plans, etc.,
What if I told you I do get an incentive on my medical deductables for being healthy, and being healthy includes eating out a few times per week, with some sodas and beers mixed in.0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »buffveganme wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
So in other words your parent(s) didn't work and educate you adequately and you had inadequate oral hygiene habits.jesikalovesyou wrote: »I don't drink soda, my husband does, but my kids also don't. I grew up drinking soda and Kool-aid. I was always overweight and obese and I know drinking soda and such doesn't help. I also had cavities all the time.
Where does it say anywhere that the parents didn't work (and even if they didn't what does that have to do with the case in point)?
Anyway, I say bring on the junk tax, stop making crap food the cheap option, and the next generation will be a lot better off!
I agree with the 'junk/sin tax'! It might help pay for the health care needed eventually for those that have lived unhealthy lives and now 'eat up' - no pun intended - all our health care resources as they become sick as they age.
Also, 'crap food' as suggested should be more expensive - if government wants to become involved, I say they should subsidize farmers - organic would be great! Also, offer those individuals who are living healthy lives tax incentives/benefits - have supplements, etc., a part of health plans, etc.,
Um, our government already heavily subsidizes the farming industry-look into the Farm Bill, the newest one which was signed by President Obama last year. Interestingly, two of the biggest subsidized crops are corn and soy, which are a couple of the main ingredients in so much of the 'processed junk' food out there
Yes. I'd say we should just stop ag subsidies entirely, but that would be political! ;-)0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
If a rational argument can be made as to why the prohibition is a legit exercise of power, that's one thing. Even if I don't agree, it probably wouldnt seem illegitimate. If it's just illegitimate pandering stupidity, it's just illegitimate pandering stupidity.girlviernes wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
How about the companies and customers involved sort out what the default should be?girlviernes wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »It's ridiculous. Dad, do you want water or milk with your happy meal for junior? Soda! Okay.
They're passing a law so they look like they're doing something, but you can still order the soda. The parents still, as they should, have the choice.
Context. No one knows if junior is getting milk every other time and this time soda is a treat or what. This is not a matter for laws to decide.
It's actually about changing the defaults. That does affect peoples behaviors. The idea is to make the default option the healthier option. I agree that soda shouldn't be banned, but I don't see a problem with this particular policy.
The problem is government mandates affecting the dealings of consensual transactions.
I get it, but I guess I have a different view of the role of government. But I'm curious, what are your thoughts about regulations of the sale of cigarettes and alcohol to minors? Is there any role for government there? This is not to draw an equivalence between those substances and soda, but I want to see how far your issue with government mandates goes.
Twelve ounces of Coke has 130 calories and 30.8 carbs. Bad, so bad, for the children.
Twelve ounces of orange juice has 167 calories and 38.69 grams of carbs. Oooh, healthy.
Yeah, orange juice has vitamin C and some fiber. If you think fortifying Coke with vitamin C would change the mind of people who make decisions like this, I suggest that you're mistaken.
It's about demonizing a particular food, for which people on this very board are chastised daily. You've probably done it yourself.
Alright, I would agree that the policy probably stems from similar thought process as "added sugar = the devil" which I disagree with, but it is pretty clear on a population level that drinking calories regularly contributes to being in caloric surplus (not the case in people who are actively monitoring, but that is very much atypical).
I take a fairly pragmatic view of government interference. I think we are interfered on all the time. It's not inherently good or bad. It is definitely something we as citizens should question (e.g., in this thread), and it is often the case the there are unintended consequences or the policies are simply misguided and ineffective. I'm curious to see whether they find effects with this policy. Have there been findings from the soda restrictions in NYC? We have a huge obesity problem in this nation, and Brian Wasink's body of work suggests these changes may be helpful. I think they are worth a shot (given an adequate plan to assess their impact). I don't see them as impinging on parental rights, since they are free to order a soda for their kids for whatever reason they choose. In general, I think similarly to government action against smoking (which has been effective), I think a public health/systems-focused approach is important.
I can see why people who are more concerned about governmental interference would be against this action, of course.
Agreed on parity of fruit juice and soda, same w/ chocolate milk.0 -
buffveganme wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
So in other words your parent(s) didn't work and educate you adequately and you had inadequate oral hygiene habits.jesikalovesyou wrote: »I don't drink soda, my husband does, but my kids also don't. I grew up drinking soda and Kool-aid. I was always overweight and obese and I know drinking soda and such doesn't help. I also had cavities all the time.
Where does it say anywhere that the parents didn't work (and even if they didn't what does that have to do with the case in point)?
Anyway, I say bring on the junk tax, stop making crap food the cheap option, and the next generation will be a lot better off!
I agree with the 'junk/sin tax'! It might help pay for the health care needed eventually for those that have lived unhealthy lives and now 'eat up' - no pun intended - all our health care resources as they become sick as they age.
Also, 'crap food' as suggested should be more expensive - if government wants to become involved, I say they should subsidize farmers - organic would be great! Also, offer those individuals who are living healthy lives tax incentives/benefits - have supplements, etc., a part of health plans, etc.,
What if I told you I do get an incentive on my medical deductables for being healthy, and being healthy includes eating out a few times per week, with some sodas and beers mixed in.
Yep we do too-extra HAS contributions for having good blood panels/healthy weight/blood pressure. I pass with flying colors, and I eat All the food that I like, including fast food, diet soda, beer etc etc
0 -
I hate when this happens. So, maybe when kids are born we should just hand them over to the government for 18 years, since they "know" sooo much more about parenting than regular people. I get that there is the option for the parent to just buy a soda for the kid... but I don't see the harm in a low cal soda. I know as a kid, and even now most the time, I am not a fan of water(though I try to force it when I can) and milk has always made me sick and nauseous. I was given milk as a kid... and made to drink it sometimes, because I think my mom thought I was being difficult when I said it made me sick. -.--2
-
jesikalovesyou wrote: »
So in other words your parent(s) didn't work and educate you adequately and you had inadequate oral hygiene habits.jesikalovesyou wrote: »I don't drink soda, my husband does, but my kids also don't. I grew up drinking soda and Kool-aid. I was always overweight and obese and I know drinking soda and such doesn't help. I also had cavities all the time.
So you're educating him on better options right?I see parents all the time buying large sodas for their kids (and toddlers!) and they just sit there slurping down probably all the calories they need in a day.
I think teaching kids to drink water (and even milk) will help them in the long run. My son will ask for water before anything else. When we go out, he would choose a banana as a treat over doughnuts or cookies any day.
So if we ban drugs and alcohol or keep them away from kids, that's a for sure way to ensure they don't engage in either?We give them the tools (or take the bad stuff out of the forefront) and it will help them learn healthy habits for the future!
Education is more important than banning. Lots and lots of kids who become legal adults at 18 engage in activities/food/behaviors that they weren't allowed to do under too strict a rule.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yeah. My parents didn't educate me on healthy eating habits. They fed us terrible food and didn't tell us what was good for us.
My parents were drug addicts and alcoholics. When they got clean, they made sure that we weren't doing any drugs whatsoever. Yes. It is easier for the parents to teach the kids if they aren't bombarded with the terrible stuff. I never saw people doing drugs or drinking at all growing up, so it was easier to not do drugs or drink.
In Japan, they give water with your meal. Unless it is a chain (like McDonald's), you will automatically get a glass of water. Getting soda or juice isn't a thing. You have to specially request it if it is that important to you. I feel they are doing it right.
Am I missing something? Every restaurant I've been to, with the exception of fast food places, serves water by default. Just like Japan. I find it annoying because I hate drinking water and the extra glasses clutter up the table. Only difference is the waitstaff then ask if I want something else to drink.
Anywho, yes it's overreach. If the government wants to put in their 2 cents, let them fund infomercials and the like to educate. That's within their purview. Otherwise they can butt out.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions