City of Davis to institute new ordinance on soda "ban" with kid's meals

1235712

Replies

  • tomatoey
    tomatoey Posts: 5,459 Member
    FWIW I think this is totally a step in the right direction.

    All a person has to do to be a parent is make an error of omission on a single night. Don't tell me they're all living up to idealized moral and educational obligations as guardians. Did anyone see the video of the woman swinging an infant (must have been less than 6 months old) around a washtub like a piece of cloth?

    The gov't here is arriving at a way of helping kids of less than thoughtful parents. Good for the gov't and good for those kids.
  • ncboiler89
    ncboiler89 Posts: 2,408 Member
    Government going to government.
  • gertudejekyl
    gertudejekyl Posts: 385 Member
    fricking ridiculous !
  • ncboiler89
    ncboiler89 Posts: 2,408 Member
    fricking ridiculous !

    We can say that however they are just doing what they think will get them elected. We are sheep and vote for incumbents and fall for fear mongering.
  • jitterbugginlovin
    jitterbugginlovin Posts: 11 Member
    So no, the government shouldn't "ban" food choices. But how much of a ban is this, its still readily available for anyone who wants to get it for their kid. They just have to specifically ask for it after they are given the "more preferable" options first. I don't see how that is much different than a lot of other things stores and advertising agencies can do to you. Just the other day I had to get my oil changed and the mechanic gave me the more expensive premium option first. I had to tell him "no thank you, I'll take the regular cheap stuff". It really wasn't much of an inconvenience for me. But wasn't he kind of doing the same thing, giving me the option his company would prefer I pick first? Except that wasn't for my health or well being, it was so he can make more money off of me...
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Packerjohn 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?
    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.

    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

    9285851.png

    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.


  • jesikalovesyou
    jesikalovesyou Posts: 172 Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    ninerbuff 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 in other words your parent(s) didn't work and educate you adequately and you had inadequate oral hygiene habits.
    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 you're educating him on better options right?
    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!
    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?

    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

    9285851.png

    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.
  • coreyreichle
    coreyreichle Posts: 1,039 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    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.

    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

    9285851.png

    Um, that's exactly one of those roles of government: To regulate trade....
  • buffveganme
    buffveganme Posts: 73 Member
    ninerbuff 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 in other words your parent(s) didn't work and educate you adequately and you had inadequate oral hygiene habits.

    Where does it say anywhere that the parents didn't work (and even if they didn't what does that have to do with the case in point)?

    Anyway, I say bring on the junk tax, stop making crap food the cheap option, and the next generation will be a lot better off!


    I agree with the 'junk/sin tax'! It might help pay for the health care needed eventually for those that have lived unhealthy lives and now 'eat up' - no pun intended - all our health care resources as they become sick as they age.


    Also, 'crap food' as suggested should be more expensive - if government wants to become involved, I say they should subsidize farmers - organic would be great! Also, offer those individuals who are living healthy lives tax incentives/benefits - have supplements, etc., a part of health plans, etc.,

    Um, our government already heavily subsidizes the farming industry-look into the Farm Bill, the newest one which was signed by President Obama last year. Interestingly, two of the biggest subsidized crops are corn and soy, which are a couple of the main ingredients in so much of the 'processed junk' food out there :p

    Absolutely! USDA policies favor the production of commodity crops that are now lucrative on global markets, including corn, soy, cotton, wheat, rice and oats.

    I believe in the US your policies discourage farmers from growing fruits and vegetables. For example, farmers who grow crops such as corn and soy are not eligible for subsidies if they also grow fruits and vegetables on the same land.

  • buffveganme
    buffveganme Posts: 73 Member
    RGv2 wrote: »
    ninerbuff 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 in other words your parent(s) didn't work and educate you adequately and you had inadequate oral hygiene habits.

    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.,

  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    JPW1990 wrote: »
    JPW1990 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.
  • JPW1990
    JPW1990 Posts: 2,427 Member
    JPW1990 wrote: »
    JPW1990 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.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Childhood obesity rates are out of control.
    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.

    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

    9285851.png

    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.
  • 999tigger
    999tigger Posts: 5,236 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    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.
  • Chrysalid2014
    Chrysalid2014 Posts: 1,040 Member
    edited June 2015
    Jaxxie1181 wrote: »
    ninerbuff 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
  • loganrandy69
    loganrandy69 Posts: 24 Member
    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.
  • jennifer_417
    jennifer_417 Posts: 12,346 Member
    ninerbuff 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 in other words your parent(s) didn't work and educate you adequately and you had inadequate oral hygiene habits.

    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!
    Yea! Let's make it more expensive so there are even less food options available to the poor! Wait...
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    JPW1990 wrote: »
    JPW1990 wrote: »
    JPW1990 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?
  • tigerblue
    tigerblue Posts: 1,526 Member
    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!
  • RGv2
    RGv2 Posts: 5,785 Member
    RGv2 wrote: »
    ninerbuff 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 in other words your parent(s) didn't work and educate you adequately and you had inadequate oral hygiene habits.

    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.