City of Davis to institute new ordinance on soda "ban" with kid's meals
Options
Replies
-
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 -
I know quite a few people who have a hard time paying their bills, yet manage to have $$ for smokes.
Same here, and when they have children going hungry and in poor health it infuriates me. My point is simply that I don't see as many smokers as I once did. I'm not sure if that's because of public smoking bans or the increase in cost of cigarettes or both. I know in traffic I don't see as many people with their cigarette clutching hand dangling out the window as I used to about ten years ago.
0 -
ninagray000 wrote: »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?
It's the government forcing something. Blaming corporations is just a plain copout.
0 -
-
Jaxxie1181 wrote: »
So, it's the corporations fault a person can't moderate their intake? You're giving the corporation too much power, and setting up the classic copout "it's the man's fault, not mine".0 -
So, it's the corporations fault a person can't moderate their intake? You're giving the corporation too much power, and setting up the classic copout "it's the man's fault, not mine".
Corporations know how to market. Do they directly control the consumer's actions? Of course not, but they have a heavy influence on consumers and know how to get to them - through the kids. Corporations have a lot more power than you are giving them credit for. They invest millions in lobbyists to lobby before congress for their own ends. They grease the palms of politicians. They have the best attorneys money can buy to insure the consumer has absolutely no legal recourse.
0 -
auntstephie321 wrote: »
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?
Yep they did attempt that you could only buy I think it was like up to a 20 oz drink and they banned the 32 oz one or something stupid like that (I'm from NY and can't remember the idiocy of that clearly lol) and people would just buy 2 drinks instead which in turn you were drinking 40 oz instead of 32oz.
0 -
Jaxxie1181 wrote: »
So, it's the corporations fault a person can't moderate their intake? You're giving the corporation too much power, and setting up the classic copout "it's the man's fault, not mine".
Corporations know how to market. Do they directly control the consumer's actions? Of course not, but they have a heavy influence on consumers and know how to get to them - through the kids. Corporations have a lot more power than you are giving them credit for. They invest millions in lobbyists to lobby before congress for their own ends. They grease the palms of politicians. They have the best attorneys money can buy to insure the consumer has absolutely no legal recourse.
And what does this have to do with anyone making an informed decision for themselves? There's a Big Soda lobby at congress now?
I must be in the minority....I can actually say no to my kids once in a while and actually stick to it.0 -
Honestly, I can see both sides of the argument as valid.
The ever increasing number of overweight and obese children is proof that parents just don't care enough to solve the problem. And that problem becomes everyone's problem with rising health care costs. And then there is the fact that feeding a child become until they become overweight or obese permenantly increases their risk of disease in adulthood, and therefore could be viewed as abuse of a helpless victim.
On the other hand, most children aren't overweight or obese and it is ultimately a parent's right to raise their children as they see fit.
But honestly, I couldn't care less about this. If the worst thing government ever did was take away our soda we'd probably be much better off than we are now.0 -
Thank you!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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions