City of Davis to institute new ordinance on soda "ban" with kid's meals
Replies
-
They have a good University though. My mom got her PHD there.galgenstrick wrote: »There's nothing in Davis besides corn and cows... So the children are used to being deprived from anything fun.
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 -
loganrandy69 wrote: »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.
YES!!
0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »I used to live in Davis!! Wow, small world.
My mother got a "littering" ticket for dumping ice out of a cup on the concrete. She had ice water.
We were waiting to pick my sister up from her elementary school in our car in the middle of summer. Someone came and knocked on our window and told us to turn off our car (and AC) because it was "wasteful".
A majority of the people there either bike or drive (on the road) golf carts.
In other words.... I am not suprised. At all.
It's not known as the People's Republic of Davis for nothing. You gotta walk lock-step there.....or ELSE!
That said, I kind of agree with this ban. Obesity is a serious epidemic. Serious situations sometimes require otherwise drastic measures. Will this single ban in a white affluent community make a difference for the kids growing up there? Probably not. But it is sending a message. It is setting a position. It serves to educate and move the public closer towards healthy eating.
Look at how much discussion it has spawned here? Think how many people read that newspaper article in a newspaper 90 miles away from Davis. I will guess it has gotten TV coverage also.
You can whine about big brother. But this does no impinge on you. It does not take away a choice. It just makes the wrong choice a bit more difficult.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »I used to live in Davis!! Wow, small world.
My mother got a "littering" ticket for dumping ice out of a cup on the concrete. She had ice water.
We were waiting to pick my sister up from her elementary school in our car in the middle of summer. Someone came and knocked on our window and told us to turn off our car (and AC) because it was "wasteful".
A majority of the people there either bike or drive (on the road) golf carts.
In other words.... I am not suprised. At all.
Haha, this immediately made me think of the smug episode of South Park. It's funny how there is an episode to address just about any absurd topic.
Wouldn't be surprised if many of the residents enjoy the smell of their own farts.0 -
jesikalovesyou wrote: »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.
I'm not saying they bring you water with your drink. They only bring water, nothing else. If you want a different kind of drink, you have to order it. They don't ask.
They don't bring water with your drink. You sit down, water is either already on the table, or is brought immediately. Later, you're asked if you want to order a drink.
So, yes, the only difference is that in the US you're asked if you want to order something other than water. Unless the Japanese are ignorant of other available drink choices, I don't think that's the relevant issue. More likely, the Japanese are accustomed to drinking water regularly, or the other drinks are much more expensive than they are in the US. Or, maybe their water generally tastes better. Plenty of areas in the US have water that tastes awful.0 -
It's not. What I don't think you see here, is that this is a good precedence for the city to eventually get an approval to start taxing beverages with added sugar. They've already done it with bottle/canned drinks to raise state revenue (CRV in California). You pay CRV on top of cost of the bottle/canned drink.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.
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 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »
Common sense isn't common in any area of life.
And that's why we have the Darwin Awards 0 -
Jaxxie1181 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Since when is it the government's job to make parental decisions in the US?
Is the government stopping the parents from buying soda for their kids?
bingo.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »A lot of people's regular, everyday meals are fast food these days. There's nothing wrong with having milk and water be the default, easier option.
The food culture in America clearly needs to change and this is a small step in that direction -- we need a new normal.
This is basically how I feel.
On the whole, I don't think it's going to do any good, but I also can't see any possible harm from regulating what is in essence marketing aimed at children, which we already do anyway.
This is how I feel as well.0 -
jesikalovesyou wrote: »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.
I'm not saying they bring you water with your drink. They only bring water, nothing else. If you want a different kind of drink, you have to order it. They don't ask.
They don't bring water with your drink. You sit down, water is either already on the table, or is brought immediately. Later, you're asked if you want to order a drink.
So, yes, the only difference is that in the US you're asked if you want to order something other than water. Unless the Japanese are ignorant of other available drink choices, I don't think that's the relevant issue. More likely, the Japanese are accustomed to drinking water regularly, or the other drinks are much more expensive than they are in the US. Or, maybe their water generally tastes better. Plenty of areas in the US have water that tastes awful.
Ah, yes, I believe that would be Laurens, SC that you're thinking of there.
Edited for quote fail and unintentional rage post.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?
That's a good question, and would make a difference here.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »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
Good. Anything that at least puts a little break on marketers exploiting children for profit is ace.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.
That's very much not how it's consumed by a lot of kids today0 -
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?
That's a good question, and would make a difference here.
I just continued reading and saw that you have to purchase a different drink. Now I'm in the "that sucks" camp.
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.
Where, exactly, does it say that soda or juice need to cost extra?
If you order a milkshake as part of the meal, it costs extra, because a milkshake is a premium drink -- it's more expensive to make than other drinks (likewise, cappuccino like drinks are also usually up-charged from standard coffee in breakfast meals). However, in milk vs soda, soda costs pennies on the dollar compared to milk and bottled water, and is part of the reason soda has historically been the default. This means that the company doesn't need to upcharge from a profit standpoint when the customer requests soda instead of the default milk/bottled water option. If they choose to do it, it will be either a) solely because they can and people will still pay, or b) taxes or other costs relating to soda have gone up. Given the price and profit difference between milk and soda, the former is more likely at least for quite some time. If anything changes, pricewise, because of an ordinance like this, it will be the base price of the Happy Meal, itself, to account for the higher priced drink being the default.0 -
^Dragonwolf wrote: »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.
Where, exactly, does it say that soda or juice need to cost extra?
If you order a milkshake as part of the meal, it costs extra, because a milkshake is a premium drink -- it's more expensive to make than other drinks (likewise, cappuccino like drinks are also usually up-charged from standard coffee in breakfast meals). However, in milk vs soda, soda costs pennies on the dollar compared to milk and bottled water, and is part of the reason soda has historically been the default. This means that the company doesn't need to upcharge from a profit standpoint when the customer requests soda instead of the default milk/bottled water option. If they choose to do it, it will be either a) solely because they can and people will still pay, or b) taxes or other costs relating to soda have gone up. Given the price and profit difference between milk and soda, the former is more likely at least for quite some time. If anything changes, pricewise, because of an ordinance like this, it will be the base price of the Happy Meal, itself, to account for the higher priced drink being the default.
I do know McDonald's adds a drink upcharge regardless of the drink requested, but that's here in SC, I don't know if that's all across the board or if it's a store to store basis. Just my $0.020 -
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 about the people that have deteriorating health as they age, that didn't eat "junk foods"
Should we not have to help pay for their health care as well? Who gets to decide what illnesses or causes are worthy of treatment? You? The government?
If you don't understand the concept of insurance, you might want to look into it, so you can intelligently speak on the subject without such hatred of others who are different from you.
How far are you willing to take this how much of your free will are you willing to give up for more control over everyone you think is making bad decisions. What happens when they come for you and your choices?0 -
It's not. What I don't think you see here, is that this is a good precedence for the city to eventually get an approval to start taxing beverages with added sugar. They've already done it with bottle/canned drinks to raise state revenue (CRV in California). You pay CRV on top of cost of the bottle/canned drink.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.
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
Didn't they do something like that in NYC, I believe certain size drinks were banned or taxed, and has since been reversed?0 -
It clearly says "sell" and "purchase". The milk or water is included with the cost of the children's meal. The soda *cannot* be included in the children's meal.Dragonwolf wrote: »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.
Where, exactly, does it say that soda or juice need to cost extra?
If you order a milkshake as part of the meal, it costs extra, because a milkshake is a premium drink -- it's more expensive to make than other drinks (likewise, cappuccino like drinks are also usually up-charged from standard coffee in breakfast meals). However, in milk vs soda, soda costs pennies on the dollar compared to milk and bottled water, and is part of the reason soda has historically been the default. This means that the company doesn't need to upcharge from a profit standpoint when the customer requests soda instead of the default milk/bottled water option. If they choose to do it, it will be either a) solely because they can and people will still pay, or b) taxes or other costs relating to soda have gone up. Given the price and profit difference between milk and soda, the former is more likely at least for quite some time. If anything changes, pricewise, because of an ordinance like this, it will be the base price of the Happy Meal, itself, to account for the higher priced drink being the default.
0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »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.
Where, exactly, does it say that soda or juice need to cost extra?
If you order a milkshake as part of the meal, it costs extra, because a milkshake is a premium drink -- it's more expensive to make than other drinks (likewise, cappuccino like drinks are also usually up-charged from standard coffee in breakfast meals). However, in milk vs soda, soda costs pennies on the dollar compared to milk and bottled water, and is part of the reason soda has historically been the default. This means that the company doesn't need to upcharge from a profit standpoint when the customer requests soda instead of the default milk/bottled water option. If they choose to do it, it will be either a) solely because they can and people will still pay, or b) taxes or other costs relating to soda have gone up. Given the price and profit difference between milk and soda, the former is more likely at least for quite some time. If anything changes, pricewise, because of an ordinance like this, it will be the base price of the Happy Meal, itself, to account for the higher priced drink being the default.
It clearly says "sell" and "purchase". The milk or water is included with the cost of the children's meal. The soda *cannot* be included in the children's meal.Dragonwolf wrote: »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.
Where, exactly, does it say that soda or juice need to cost extra?
If you order a milkshake as part of the meal, it costs extra, because a milkshake is a premium drink -- it's more expensive to make than other drinks (likewise, cappuccino like drinks are also usually up-charged from standard coffee in breakfast meals). However, in milk vs soda, soda costs pennies on the dollar compared to milk and bottled water, and is part of the reason soda has historically been the default. This means that the company doesn't need to upcharge from a profit standpoint when the customer requests soda instead of the default milk/bottled water option. If they choose to do it, it will be either a) solely because they can and people will still pay, or b) taxes or other costs relating to soda have gone up. Given the price and profit difference between milk and soda, the former is more likely at least for quite some time. If anything changes, pricewise, because of an ordinance like this, it will be the base price of the Happy Meal, itself, to account for the higher priced drink being the default.
Yep, this has nothing to do with upcharging, and I didn't say it did. The ordnance specifically says a beverage alternative to the milk or water needs to be purchased. So if you want to let your kid have that evil sprite with their happy meal you have to pay more.......because.....you have to buy it separately.0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »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.
Where, exactly, does it say that soda or juice need to cost extra?
If you order a milkshake as part of the meal, it costs extra, because a milkshake is a premium drink -- it's more expensive to make than other drinks (likewise, cappuccino like drinks are also usually up-charged from standard coffee in breakfast meals). However, in milk vs soda, soda costs pennies on the dollar compared to milk and bottled water, and is part of the reason soda has historically been the default. This means that the company doesn't need to upcharge from a profit standpoint when the customer requests soda instead of the default milk/bottled water option. If they choose to do it, it will be either a) solely because they can and people will still pay, or b) taxes or other costs relating to soda have gone up. Given the price and profit difference between milk and soda, the former is more likely at least for quite some time. If anything changes, pricewise, because of an ordinance like this, it will be the base price of the Happy Meal, itself, to account for the higher priced drink being the default.
It clearly says "sell" and "purchase". The milk or water is included with the cost of the children's meal. The soda *cannot* be included in the children's meal.Dragonwolf wrote: »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.
Where, exactly, does it say that soda or juice need to cost extra?
If you order a milkshake as part of the meal, it costs extra, because a milkshake is a premium drink -- it's more expensive to make than other drinks (likewise, cappuccino like drinks are also usually up-charged from standard coffee in breakfast meals). However, in milk vs soda, soda costs pennies on the dollar compared to milk and bottled water, and is part of the reason soda has historically been the default. This means that the company doesn't need to upcharge from a profit standpoint when the customer requests soda instead of the default milk/bottled water option. If they choose to do it, it will be either a) solely because they can and people will still pay, or b) taxes or other costs relating to soda have gone up. Given the price and profit difference between milk and soda, the former is more likely at least for quite some time. If anything changes, pricewise, because of an ordinance like this, it will be the base price of the Happy Meal, itself, to account for the higher priced drink being the default.
Yep, this has nothing to do with upcharging, and I didn't say it did. The ordnance specifically says a beverage alternative to the milk or water needs to be purchased. So if you want to let your kid have that evil sprite with their happy meal you have to pay more.......because.....you have to buy it separately.
If a 50 cent upcharge on a drink is the make or break for going to McDonald's in the first place, you'd be better off cooking at home for half the cost to begin with.0 -
Yep, this has nothing to do with upcharging, and I didn't say it did. The ordnance specifically says a beverage alternative to the milk or water needs to be purchased. So if you want to let your kid have that evil sprite with their happy meal you have to pay more.......because.....you have to buy it separately.
Alternative or substitute.
I used the milkshake as an analogy. Milkshakes aren't offered as part of any of the bundled meals, either, but you can order it and it replaces the default drink (aka - it's a substitute). There is an upcharge for this substitution, because milkshakes are premium drinks and cost the company more to make than the default drinks.
In other words, you can still order a soda with your Happy Meal if that's what floats your boat, and odds are pretty good it won't cost you any more (because it's actually cheaper than the now-default drinks) and if it does, it will most likely be due to the restaurant charging more because the market is willing to bear it (aka because they can).0 -
loganrandy69 wrote: »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...
Alberta has a distracted driving law. So all the distracted driving habits are covered, including putting on mascara. I collect kooky criminal news, and this one is one of my favourites for distracted driving - Woman charged with breast feeding while driving.
I looked up the city of Davis. My city's a little bigger so I see this little social experiment as a novelty rather than a trend. Is Davis also tracking it's childhood obesity rates? I'd be curious to see how it stacks up, say, in ten years.0 -
It's illegal to be obese or wear anything other than hemp clothing in Davis.loganrandy69 wrote: »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...
Alberta has a distracted driving law. So all the distracted driving habits are covered, including putting on mascara. I collect kooky criminal news, and this one is one of my favourites for distracted driving - Woman charged with breast feeding while driving.
I looked up the city of Davis. My city's a little bigger so I see this little social experiment as a novelty rather than a trend. Is Davis also tracking it's childhood obesity rates? I'd be curious to see how it stacks up, say, in ten years.
0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »Yep, this has nothing to do with upcharging, and I didn't say it did. The ordnance specifically says a beverage alternative to the milk or water needs to be purchased. So if you want to let your kid have that evil sprite with their happy meal you have to pay more.......because.....you have to buy it separately.
Alternative or substitute.
I used the milkshake as an analogy. Milkshakes aren't offered as part of any of the bundled meals, either, but you can order it and it replaces the default drink (aka - it's a substitute). There is an upcharge for this substitution, because milkshakes are premium drinks and cost the company more to make than the default drinks.
In other words, you can still order a soda with your Happy Meal if that's what floats your boat, and odds are pretty good it won't cost you any more (because it's actually cheaper than the now-default drinks) and if it does, it will most likely be due to the restaurant charging more because the market is willing to bear it (aka because they can).
Not sure how you're missing this....the ordinance is taking soda out of the bundled kids meal. Adding a soda to it would be substituting the soda for milk or water.
Before:
Happy Meal w/ included beverage (Milk, water, soda) = $3.99
Now:
Happy Meal w/ included beverage ( now only Milk, water) = $3.99 add substitute small beverage $1.00 = 4.99.
I'm pretty sure that would mean that adding a small soda to your happy meal would add an extra dollar to the meal, unless the local Mickey D's is going to drop the price of the meal to compensate for the cost of the add'l soda to keep the price point the same.
(Note: Arbitrary Guesstamate Prices Used)0 -
I think it's a good decision. Obviously america has a weight problem. Some know I believe it's not due to "inactivity". I already posted studies showing that "exercise" doesn't produce weight loss. The issue is the food we eat.
Comments like "it's not the governments job to make parent decisions for the kids" if the parents can't take care of their kids properly someone has to step in. I have seen countless women who are struggling with their weight on MFP. One reason is because they end up buying junk food for the kids, and the mother over consumes it. WHat are these parents teaching their kids?
It never made sense to me when people have foods they have problems with "junk foods that cause them to over eat and binge" in the house. Their common response is, "I shouldn't need to punish my kids because I am trying to lose weight." So what's the objective, let your kids get over weight?
I went off tangent of my original post. As @guitarjerry said, marketing to kids isn't cool. We have ot keep in mind food companies are a business. If you had a business of selling something, such as cars. Wouldn't you wan tto sell as many cars as you can and get people interested in your product and keep on buying it?
It's no different for food companies, they have a product, they want to make profit. They have food scientists making these foods as close to addicting as possible. They're not stupid, give as much flavor/taste as possible that people like, and put it in smallest volume possible. What is this? High caloric density foods, they digest quickly, so who wants more? It tastes good too.. so we should all just keep on buying and buying and buying.
Just as you say exercise is not the reason people are obese. Food is also not the reason people are obese.
Personal decisions are. If a person is aware that something lacks nutrients and contains high calorie content and chooses to indulge anyway, that is not the fault of the inanimate food item. If a person does not know that the food is high in caloric content and over consumption could lead to weight gain and poor health, that is an education issue, again not the foods fault.0 -
They have a good University though. My mom got her PHD there.galgenstrick wrote: »There's nothing in Davis besides corn and cows... So the children are used to being deprived from anything fun.
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
Yup. I got my applied physics degree from UC Davis :-)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
As gas prices increase (around $4.00 a gallon seems to be the magic mark) due to crude, taxes, etc., sales of less fuel efficient vehicles shift to those that are more fuel efficient, so gas price does make a difference.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102186856
Low gas prices are spurring increased purchases of less fuel efficient vehicles. This shifts when gas prices go up.
From the article:
As fuel prices have fallen, so has the fuel economy of the typical new vehicle, despite mandates to improve it, according to the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI).
As recently as August, the average was 25.8 miles per gallon; it fell to just 25.3 miles per gallon last month. UMTRI researcher Michael Sivak noted there has been "less demand for more fuel-efficient vehicles because of the decreasing price of gasoline."
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »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?
Is it the government forcing something, or the corporations that have perpetuated unhealthy habits because they want to make a profit?0 -
The government has no business telling anyone what they can and cannot order with their meal. This is ridiculous.
Do you pay taxes? If you don't know, government pays over 50% of the health care costs in the US. Chances are pretty good that when little Johnny or Janie develops becomes diabetic, with a bunch of pop being a significantly contributing factor you're going to be paying for the health care costs.
You good with that?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