City of Davis to institute new ordinance on soda "ban" with kid's meals
Replies
-
brianpperkins wrote: »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?
Nice failure to answer the question. It's amazing how supportive people are of infringement on freedoms when they aren't inconvenienced while failing to see the impact on all of society.
Having to ask for something is not an infringement on your freedom. Not being allowed to vote - that's an infringement. You act like they're banning pop. All they've done is changed the order process from:
What kind of drink with that?
Coke
to
Water, milk or juice?
Coke
Yeah, major lose of personal freedoms there.
The infringement here is not on the rights of the customers, but on the rights of the business owners. Much more frequently, we're seeing the government step in and tell business owners what goods and services they must or must not offer their customers. There are cities banning the use of plastic bags, for example, or forcing businesses to charge their customers for using plastic bags. Requiring businesses to change their menu to suit those in power is very much an infringement.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »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?
Nice failure to answer the question. It's amazing how supportive people are of infringement on freedoms when they aren't inconvenienced while failing to see the impact on all of society.
Having to ask for something is not an infringement on your freedom. Not being allowed to vote - that's an infringement. You act like they're banning pop. All they've done is changed the order process from:
What kind of drink with that?
Coke
to
Water, milk or juice?
Coke
Yeah, major lose of personal freedoms there.
The infringement here is not on the rights of the customers, but on the rights of the business owners. Much more frequently, we're seeing the government step in and tell business owners what goods and services they must or must not offer their customers. There are cities banning the use of plastic bags, for example, or forcing businesses to charge their customers for using plastic bags. Requiring businesses to change their menu to suit those in power is very much an infringement.
That's irrelevant here. They already offer juice, milk, water, pop, coffee, tea, and milkshakes. They are still allowed to offer juice, milk, water, pop, coffee, tea, and milkshakes. This is, at best, a cosmetic menu change, same as requiring nutritional information.0 -
Due to bad parenting. Kids don't pay for groceries. Obese kids usually follow the eating pattern of their parents or are ALLOWED to eat as much as they want.MoiAussi93 wrote: »Childhood obesity rates are out of control.
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
I imagine this is supposed to challenge the assumptions of the parent.
McD's Happy Meal = burger, fries, soda, toy, parent gets Happy Meal, doesn't think twice. McD's Happy Meal = burger, fries, toy, water/milk, lots of parents order that, don't think twice. Some think "hmm, should I get my kid a soda? Maybe that's not a normal drink for a kid." Others think: "my kid likes soda and I have no problem with it" and ask for a soda.
When I was a kid I rarely had soda, but did at McD's when we went (as a rare treat) and I see nothing harmful in that. I do think society today is such that for lots of people soda is seen as a regular standard every day drink for kids (and in part because some families eat fast food so often where soda is the normal side). So challenging the assumption that soda should be the default drink choice is not a terrible idea.
Will it actually help? I doubt it, in part because I think it's so prevalent that the parents' whose kids are most at risk of obesity are probably still going to order the soda without second thought (as well as have it at home, along with lots of other high cal/low nutrient foods), but it's possible it could and I see no harm in experimenting with it. It doesn't prevent anyone from getting a soda.0 -
The PARENT should be making the prominent option, not the government. When I order a kids meal for my kid, I order milk for her instead of soda. But again, that's the option I make based on common sense.
Telling businesses how and what they can and can't advertise (and fining them for it if not compliant) shouldn't be the governments job.
My belief is this is just a step to an eventual "sin" tax on sugared items.
Err thats what it says. parents can choose soda if they want, they just arent given it as a default option, but have to make the conscious decision to order it. Cant see why you are getting your knickers in a twist over this. Its only a city council.
So what if theres a sugar tax, thats what taxes and rule by government does. Its the nature of a public health policy. Most western countries are facing an obesity epidemic, besides the direct impact on the wellbeing of your citizens, then I cant see a problem in using public policy to help pay for the consequences at source.0 -
Jaxxie1181 wrote: »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.
^^^^ Well put!
In the UK there was a similar thing happening on a slightly wider scale: i.e. a campaign pushing for gov't legislation to prevent supermarkets putting sweets (aka candy) next to the check-outs. I think they are giving the supermarkets a chance to do it voluntarily first, and most of them now are doing so. They found lot of the people requesting this legislation were parents because their children would have a sweets tantrum while they were waiting in the queue.
http://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Regulation/Junk-free-checkout-campaign-launched
0 -
Its just another of those feel good laws that don't DO anything. There are a million of them, and they just clog up everything so someone can say "I fought for THIS" and get re-elected.
The most recent one that drives me nuts is texting while driving. It SOUNDS great - and it sure gets touted by politicians as the greatest thing since sliced bread. In reality, it doesn't DO anything. Why? Because even though texting while driving is illegal, using your phone GPS, dialing someone to call, browsing through iTunes, hell, even playing candy crush is NOT illegal. Eating a happy meal while driving - not illegal. Applying makeup - not illegal.
This law doesn't DO anything - but it sure sounds good in a re-election ad.0 -
Yea! Let's make it more expensive so there are even less food options available to the poor! Wait...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!
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »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?
Nice failure to answer the question. It's amazing how supportive people are of infringement on freedoms when they aren't inconvenienced while failing to see the impact on all of society.
Having to ask for something is not an infringement on your freedom. Not being allowed to vote - that's an infringement. You act like they're banning pop. All they've done is changed the order process from:
What kind of drink with that?
Coke
to
Water, milk or juice?
Coke
Yeah, major lose of personal freedoms there.
The infringement here is not on the rights of the customers, but on the rights of the business owners. Much more frequently, we're seeing the government step in and tell business owners what goods and services they must or must not offer their customers. There are cities banning the use of plastic bags, for example, or forcing businesses to charge their customers for using plastic bags. Requiring businesses to change their menu to suit those in power is very much an infringement.
That's irrelevant here. They already offer juice, milk, water, pop, coffee, tea, and milkshakes. They are still allowed to offer juice, milk, water, pop, coffee, tea, and milkshakes. This is, at best, a cosmetic menu change, same as requiring nutritional information.
How is it irrelevant? You don't believe it is an infringement of my freedom of speech to tell me that I can't encourage my customers to purchase soda for their children?0 -
I have super-active athletic sons (now teens--one swims competitively and plays football, and one swims and runs cross country and track). Getting enough calories to maintain or gain weight has always been an issue for them. The "government approved" meals would be starvation for my guys. It bugs me when I am told what my kids should or shouldn't eat. I know their situations better. Shouldn't I be able to make the choice?
Even in their private school cafeteria, I have to buy double meals for them to have enough.
We are not all fat slobs!0 -
buffveganme 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.,
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.
That's great - you must live outside Canada? I wish I had the same! Families with children can currently deduct their 'physical activity sport' expense on their taxes, but there is nothing in place for 'healthy eating' or for individuals. Our government will not allow one to claim supplements, etc.,
I'd rather be able to deduct the cost of my kid's sports than get a check for $400 at the beginning of thr year for smoking my physical.0 -
-
This seems like a non-issue to me. While I rarely order happy meals anymore because my kids are older, when I did order them, I just asked for the drink I wanted up front. And those few times I didn't ask up front, they simply asked me what drink I wanted. There was no pushing of sodas or any other type of drink.
Also, happy meals cost the same whether you get milk, soda, or juice, so why would there even be a need to push sodas? It would definitely push my buttons if they said parents could not order sodas for their kids, but this just seems like another useless ruling that really amounts to nothing.0 -
This seems like a non-issue to me. While I rarely order happy meals anymore because my kids are older, when I did order them, I just asked for the drink I wanted up front. And those few times I didn't ask up front, they simply asked me what drink I wanted. There was no pushing of sodas or any other type of drink.
Also, happy meals cost the same whether you get milk, soda, or juice, so why would there even be a need to push sodas? It would definitely push my buttons if they said parents could not order sodas for their kids, but this just seems like another useless ruling that really amounts to nothing.
That's where I need some clarification in this case. It says that the parents can still order soda, is that at an extra charge?0 -
buffveganme 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.,
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.
That's great - you must live outside Canada? I wish I had the same! Families with children can currently deduct their 'physical activity sport' expense on their taxes, but there is nothing in place for 'healthy eating' or for individuals. Our government will not allow one to claim supplements, etc.,
I'd rather be able to deduct the cost of my kid's sports than get a check for $400 at the beginning of thr year for smoking my physical.
That's really not what anyone would support...0 -
There's nothing in Davis besides corn and cows... So the children are used to being deprived from anything fun.0
-
galgenstrick wrote: »There's nothing in Davis besides corn and cows... So the children are used to being deprived from anything fun.
LOL! But at least it has a McDonald's!
0 -
buffveganme wrote: »buffveganme 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.,
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.
That's great - you must live outside Canada? I wish I had the same! Families with children can currently deduct their 'physical activity sport' expense on their taxes, but there is nothing in place for 'healthy eating' or for individuals. Our government will not allow one to claim supplements, etc.,
I'd rather be able to deduct the cost of my kid's sports than get a check for $400 at the beginning of thr year for smoking my physical.
That's really not what anyone would support...
?
No one would support doing really well (smoking?) your physical?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
Well to be fair most of us need gasoline to get to and from work...esp. those living in rural communities with no public transportation options available. As a real estate agent, I can't be without a vehicle and I often drive over 100 miles a day some days...gasoline tax notwithstanding, I have no choice.
0 -
I'm bored, so I read the ordinance. You must *purchase* a soda for your child, if you wish. It will not be provided with the meal. See below. Emphasis mine.This seems like a non-issue to me. While I rarely order happy meals anymore because my kids are older, when I did order them, I just asked for the drink I wanted up front. And those few times I didn't ask up front, they simply asked me what drink I wanted. There was no pushing of sodas or any other type of drink.
Also, happy meals cost the same whether you get milk, soda, or juice, so why would there even be a need to push sodas? It would definitely push my buttons if they said parents could not order sodas for their kids, but this just seems like another useless ruling that really amounts to nothing.
That's where I need some clarification in this case. It says that the parents can still order soda, is that at an extra charge?
17.02.02 Default Beverages In Children’s Meals.
(a) On and after September 1, 2015 a restaurant that sells a children’s meal that
includes a beverage shall make the default beverage offered with the children’s
meal one of the following:
(1) Water, sparkling water, or flavored water, with no added natural or artificial
sweeteners;
(2) Milk or non-dairy milk alternatives.
(b) Nothing in this Section prohibits a restaurant’s ability to sell, or a customer’s
ability to purchase, a substitute or alternative beverage instead of the default
beverage offered with a children’s meal, if requested by the purchaser of the
children’s meal.
(c) All restaurants shall complete an initial self-certification certifying whether they
offer children’s meals and if so, certifying that they comply with the provisions of
this Section 17.02.02. Subsequently, restaurants that sell children’s meals shall
complete an annual self-certification, certifying that they comply with the
provisions of this Section 17.02.02, as may be modified from time to time at the
discretion of the City.
0 -
Jaxxie1181 wrote: »
I know quite a few people who have a hard time paying their bills, yet manage to have $$ for smokes.0 -
I'm bored, so I read the ordinance. You must *purchase* a soda for your child, if you wish. It will not be provided with the meal. See below. Emphasis mine.This seems like a non-issue to me. While I rarely order happy meals anymore because my kids are older, when I did order them, I just asked for the drink I wanted up front. And those few times I didn't ask up front, they simply asked me what drink I wanted. There was no pushing of sodas or any other type of drink.
Also, happy meals cost the same whether you get milk, soda, or juice, so why would there even be a need to push sodas? It would definitely push my buttons if they said parents could not order sodas for their kids, but this just seems like another useless ruling that really amounts to nothing.
That's where I need some clarification in this case. It says that the parents can still order soda, is that at an extra charge?
17.02.02 Default Beverages In Children’s Meals.
(a) On and after September 1, 2015 a restaurant that sells a children’s meal that
includes a beverage shall make the default beverage offered with the children’s
meal one of the following:
(1) Water, sparkling water, or flavored water, with no added natural or artificial
sweeteners;
(2) Milk or non-dairy milk alternatives.
(b) Nothing in this Section prohibits a restaurant’s ability to sell, or a customer’s
ability to purchase, a substitute or alternative beverage instead of the default
beverage offered with a children’s meal, if requested by the purchaser of the
children’s meal.
(c) All restaurants shall complete an initial self-certification certifying whether they
offer children’s meals and if so, certifying that they comply with the provisions of
this Section 17.02.02. Subsequently, restaurants that sell children’s meals shall
complete an annual self-certification, certifying that they comply with the
provisions of this Section 17.02.02, as may be modified from time to time at the
discretion of the City.
OK, so it is a true "nanny state" law that is truely banning of the inclusion of soda with the meal. Good thing we have the government around to tell me what my kid can and can't have with their meal. No junior, you can't have that sugary coke, but you can have that sugary juice. Makes sense.0 -
I'm bored, so I read the ordinance. You must *purchase* a soda for your child, if you wish. It will not be provided with the meal. See below. Emphasis mine.This seems like a non-issue to me. While I rarely order happy meals anymore because my kids are older, when I did order them, I just asked for the drink I wanted up front. And those few times I didn't ask up front, they simply asked me what drink I wanted. There was no pushing of sodas or any other type of drink.
Also, happy meals cost the same whether you get milk, soda, or juice, so why would there even be a need to push sodas? It would definitely push my buttons if they said parents could not order sodas for their kids, but this just seems like another useless ruling that really amounts to nothing.
That's where I need some clarification in this case. It says that the parents can still order soda, is that at an extra charge?
17.02.02 Default Beverages In Children’s Meals.
(a) On and after September 1, 2015 a restaurant that sells a children’s meal that
includes a beverage shall make the default beverage offered with the children’s
meal one of the following:
(1) Water, sparkling water, or flavored water, with no added natural or artificial
sweeteners;
(2) Milk or non-dairy milk alternatives.
(b) Nothing in this Section prohibits a restaurant’s ability to sell, or a customer’s
ability to purchase, a substitute or alternative beverage instead of the default
beverage offered with a children’s meal, if requested by the purchaser of the
children’s meal.
(c) All restaurants shall complete an initial self-certification certifying whether they
offer children’s meals and if so, certifying that they comply with the provisions of
this Section 17.02.02. Subsequently, restaurants that sell children’s meals shall
complete an annual self-certification, certifying that they comply with the
provisions of this Section 17.02.02, as may be modified from time to time at the
discretion of the City.
OK, so it is a true "nanny state" law that is truely banning of the inclusion of soda with the meal. Good thing we have the government around to tell me what my kid can and can't have with their meal. No junior, you can't have that sugary coke, but you can have that sugary juice. Makes sense.
To be fair, they also banned juice. Not that it makes it any better. ;-)0 -
I live in CA which has one of the highest prices per gallon of gas and in an area which is the 3rd largest commuter's nightmare in the US. SUV's are a big staple of that commute (which is an average of an hour one way). California also has more cars per capita than any state. Sporting 2 of top 3 worst commutes in the US, along with one of the highest costs per gallon of gas, and along with the state with the most cars, and one of the most highest tax rates in the country, you'd have a hard time convincing me adding an extra tax would deter usage. It hasn't yet after all these years.Packerjohn wrote: »
They did this with gas and tobacco products. Adding "sin" tax does little to deter usage. Obesity is an issue due to lack of concern at HOW MUCH someone is consuming. Not just WHAT someone is consuming. There are lots and lots of healthy people who consume sugared drinks within a decent calorie amount. There are sugared teas, juices, coffee, etc. that don't fall under the same scrutiny as soda, yet yield some of the same amounts in grams.Packerjohn wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Since when is it the government's job to make parental decisions in the US?
Well since childhood obesity is run rampant, many parents don't do anything about it and the government is paying over 50% of healthcare costs.
How about a $.05 per ounce tax on pop, mandated to go to healthcare? Wonder how many people would buy the 64 oz bladder buster at $4.50 vs $.99?
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
Talk to someone who works in the auto industry about what happens to sales of pick ups and large SUVs vs small cars when the price of gas is over $4 a gallon vs $2.50. Ask them if the price of gas deters usage. BTW, would personally have no problem with a similar tax on the other sugared items mentioned.
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 -
I'm bored, so I read the ordinance. You must *purchase* a soda for your child, if you wish. It will not be provided with the meal. See below. Emphasis mine.This seems like a non-issue to me. While I rarely order happy meals anymore because my kids are older, when I did order them, I just asked for the drink I wanted up front. And those few times I didn't ask up front, they simply asked me what drink I wanted. There was no pushing of sodas or any other type of drink.
Also, happy meals cost the same whether you get milk, soda, or juice, so why would there even be a need to push sodas? It would definitely push my buttons if they said parents could not order sodas for their kids, but this just seems like another useless ruling that really amounts to nothing.
That's where I need some clarification in this case. It says that the parents can still order soda, is that at an extra charge?
17.02.02 Default Beverages In Children’s Meals.
(a) On and after September 1, 2015 a restaurant that sells a children’s meal that
includes a beverage shall make the default beverage offered with the children’s
meal one of the following:
(1) Water, sparkling water, or flavored water, with no added natural or artificial
sweeteners;
(2) Milk or non-dairy milk alternatives.
(b) Nothing in this Section prohibits a restaurant’s ability to sell, or a customer’s
ability to purchase, a substitute or alternative beverage instead of the default
beverage offered with a children’s meal, if requested by the purchaser of the
children’s meal.
(c) All restaurants shall complete an initial self-certification certifying whether they
offer children’s meals and if so, certifying that they comply with the provisions of
this Section 17.02.02. Subsequently, restaurants that sell children’s meals shall
complete an annual self-certification, certifying that they comply with the
provisions of this Section 17.02.02, as may be modified from time to time at the
discretion of the City.
OK, so it is a true "nanny state" law that is truely banning of the inclusion of soda with the meal. Good thing we have the government around to tell me what my kid can and can't have with their meal. No junior, you can't have that sugary coke, but you can have that sugary juice. Makes sense.
I don't see juice on this list of provided options, actually:
(1) Water, sparkling water, or flavored water, with no added natural or artificial
sweeteners;
(2) Milk or non-dairy milk alternatives.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »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?
Nice failure to answer the question. It's amazing how supportive people are of infringement on freedoms when they aren't inconvenienced while failing to see the impact on all of society.
Having to ask for something is not an infringement on your freedom. Not being allowed to vote - that's an infringement. You act like they're banning pop. All they've done is changed the order process from:
What kind of drink with that?
Coke
to
Water, milk or juice?
Coke
Yeah, major lose of personal freedoms there.
The infringement here is not on the rights of the customers, but on the rights of the business owners. Much more frequently, we're seeing the government step in and tell business owners what goods and services they must or must not offer their customers. There are cities banning the use of plastic bags, for example, or forcing businesses to charge their customers for using plastic bags. Requiring businesses to change their menu to suit those in power is very much an infringement.
That's irrelevant here. They already offer juice, milk, water, pop, coffee, tea, and milkshakes. They are still allowed to offer juice, milk, water, pop, coffee, tea, and milkshakes. This is, at best, a cosmetic menu change, same as requiring nutritional information.
How is it irrelevant? You don't believe it is an infringement of my freedom of speech to tell me that I can't encourage my customers to purchase soda for their children?
Constitutionally speaking, no it's not.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
I'm bored, so I read the ordinance. You must *purchase* a soda for your child, if you wish. It will not be provided with the meal. See below. Emphasis mine.This seems like a non-issue to me. While I rarely order happy meals anymore because my kids are older, when I did order them, I just asked for the drink I wanted up front. And those few times I didn't ask up front, they simply asked me what drink I wanted. There was no pushing of sodas or any other type of drink.
Also, happy meals cost the same whether you get milk, soda, or juice, so why would there even be a need to push sodas? It would definitely push my buttons if they said parents could not order sodas for their kids, but this just seems like another useless ruling that really amounts to nothing.
That's where I need some clarification in this case. It says that the parents can still order soda, is that at an extra charge?
17.02.02 Default Beverages In Children’s Meals.
(a) On and after September 1, 2015 a restaurant that sells a children’s meal that
includes a beverage shall make the default beverage offered with the children’s
meal one of the following:
(1) Water, sparkling water, or flavored water, with no added natural or artificial
sweeteners;
(2) Milk or non-dairy milk alternatives.
(b) Nothing in this Section prohibits a restaurant’s ability to sell, or a customer’s
ability to purchase, a substitute or alternative beverage instead of the default
beverage offered with a children’s meal, if requested by the purchaser of the
children’s meal.
(c) All restaurants shall complete an initial self-certification certifying whether they
offer children’s meals and if so, certifying that they comply with the provisions of
this Section 17.02.02. Subsequently, restaurants that sell children’s meals shall
complete an annual self-certification, certifying that they comply with the
provisions of this Section 17.02.02, as may be modified from time to time at the
discretion of the City.
OK, so it is a true "nanny state" law that is truely banning of the inclusion of soda with the meal. Good thing we have the government around to tell me what my kid can and can't have with their meal. No junior, you can't have that sugary coke, but you can have that sugary juice. Makes sense.
I don't see juice on this list of provided options, actually:
(1) Water, sparkling water, or flavored water, with no added natural or artificial
sweeteners;
(2) Milk or non-dairy milk alternatives.
That's fair. I'm not sure where I was reading juice at.
I still stand by my statement of:
"so it is a true "nanny state" law that is truely banning of the inclusion of soda with the meal. Good thing we have the government around to tell me what my kid can and can't have with their meal."0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
I'm bored, so I read the ordinance. You must *purchase* a soda for your child, if you wish. It will not be provided with the meal. See below. Emphasis mine.This seems like a non-issue to me. While I rarely order happy meals anymore because my kids are older, when I did order them, I just asked for the drink I wanted up front. And those few times I didn't ask up front, they simply asked me what drink I wanted. There was no pushing of sodas or any other type of drink.
Also, happy meals cost the same whether you get milk, soda, or juice, so why would there even be a need to push sodas? It would definitely push my buttons if they said parents could not order sodas for their kids, but this just seems like another useless ruling that really amounts to nothing.
That's where I need some clarification in this case. It says that the parents can still order soda, is that at an extra charge?
17.02.02 Default Beverages In Children’s Meals.
(a) On and after September 1, 2015 a restaurant that sells a children’s meal that
includes a beverage shall make the default beverage offered with the children’s
meal one of the following:
(1) Water, sparkling water, or flavored water, with no added natural or artificial
sweeteners;
(2) Milk or non-dairy milk alternatives.
(b) Nothing in this Section prohibits a restaurant’s ability to sell, or a customer’s
ability to purchase, a substitute or alternative beverage instead of the default
beverage offered with a children’s meal, if requested by the purchaser of the
children’s meal.
(c) All restaurants shall complete an initial self-certification certifying whether they
offer children’s meals and if so, certifying that they comply with the provisions of
this Section 17.02.02. Subsequently, restaurants that sell children’s meals shall
complete an annual self-certification, certifying that they comply with the
provisions of this Section 17.02.02, as may be modified from time to time at the
discretion of the City.
OK, so it is a true "nanny state" law that is truely banning of the inclusion of soda with the meal. Good thing we have the government around to tell me what my kid can and can't have with their meal. No junior, you can't have that sugary coke, but you can have that sugary juice. Makes sense.
I don't see juice on this list of provided options, actually:
(1) Water, sparkling water, or flavored water, with no added natural or artificial
sweeteners;
(2) Milk or non-dairy milk alternatives.
That's fair. I'm not sure where I was reading juice at.
I still stand by my statement of:
"so it is a true "nanny state" law that is truely banning of the inclusion of soda with the meal. Good thing we have the government around to tell me what my kid can and can't have with their meal."
I really don't understand why it's such a big deal to ask for soda if you want your kid to have it.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
I'm bored, so I read the ordinance. You must *purchase* a soda for your child, if you wish. It will not be provided with the meal. See below. Emphasis mine.This seems like a non-issue to me. While I rarely order happy meals anymore because my kids are older, when I did order them, I just asked for the drink I wanted up front. And those few times I didn't ask up front, they simply asked me what drink I wanted. There was no pushing of sodas or any other type of drink.
Also, happy meals cost the same whether you get milk, soda, or juice, so why would there even be a need to push sodas? It would definitely push my buttons if they said parents could not order sodas for their kids, but this just seems like another useless ruling that really amounts to nothing.
That's where I need some clarification in this case. It says that the parents can still order soda, is that at an extra charge?
17.02.02 Default Beverages In Children’s Meals.
(a) On and after September 1, 2015 a restaurant that sells a children’s meal that
includes a beverage shall make the default beverage offered with the children’s
meal one of the following:
(1) Water, sparkling water, or flavored water, with no added natural or artificial
sweeteners;
(2) Milk or non-dairy milk alternatives.
(b) Nothing in this Section prohibits a restaurant’s ability to sell, or a customer’s
ability to purchase, a substitute or alternative beverage instead of the default
beverage offered with a children’s meal, if requested by the purchaser of the
children’s meal.
(c) All restaurants shall complete an initial self-certification certifying whether they
offer children’s meals and if so, certifying that they comply with the provisions of
this Section 17.02.02. Subsequently, restaurants that sell children’s meals shall
complete an annual self-certification, certifying that they comply with the
provisions of this Section 17.02.02, as may be modified from time to time at the
discretion of the City.
OK, so it is a true "nanny state" law that is truely banning of the inclusion of soda with the meal. Good thing we have the government around to tell me what my kid can and can't have with their meal. No junior, you can't have that sugary coke, but you can have that sugary juice. Makes sense.
I don't see juice on this list of provided options, actually:
(1) Water, sparkling water, or flavored water, with no added natural or artificial
sweeteners;
(2) Milk or non-dairy milk alternatives.
That's fair. I'm not sure where I was reading juice at.
I still stand by my statement of:
"so it is a true "nanny state" law that is truely banning of the inclusion of soda with the meal. Good thing we have the government around to tell me what my kid can and can't have with their meal."
I really don't understand why it's such a big deal to ask for soda if you want your kid to have it.
If I'm reading it correctly, that would now cost extra.0 -
The government has no business telling anyone what they can and cannot order with their meal. This is ridiculous.0
-
Lame.
I grew up (and generations before me grew up) getting a couple bucks from our parents and going to the local store to buy a pop and a bag of chips.
I won't go into my rant about controlled vs. non-controlled choices, but having a soda here and there, having some candy here and there, or having WHATEVER once in awhile DOES NOT contribute to being overweight/unhealthy/etc. What does contribute to that is the fact that this generation is glued to TV's, tablets, cell phones and other forms of technology.
To each their own, it's the parents decision. Personally I don't believe there is anything wrong with a kid having a soda once in awhile. For us, we were brought up in an environment that rarely had pop available in the house. It was a treat to have it at a birthday party, going out for fast food (again, that didn't happen often either) or to have on a Saturday with your friends.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions