McDonalds disses Bay Area Commies

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://news.yahoo.com/mcdonalds-toy-sale-skirts-happy-meal-restrictions-012637382.html

McDonald's toy sale skirts Happy Meal restrictions

By Lisa Baertlein | Reuters – 5 hrs ago

(Reuters) - McDonald's Corp is skirting a new San Francisco law that aims to curb toy giveaways in sugar- and fat-laden restaurant meals for children by selling its popular Happy Meal toys for 10 cents each.

The law, which goes into effect on December 1, requires that restaurant kids' meals meet certain nutritional standards before they could be sold with free toys.

McDonald's and other major restaurant chains would have had to reduce sugar, fat and salt in their kids' meals, while adding fruits and vegetables, to comply with the law.

"Rather than fight city hall, I am complying with the letter of the law," said McDonald's franchisee Scott Rodrick, who owns just over half of the 19 McDonald's franchises in San Francisco.

Rodrick and other San Francisco franchisees -- with the company's blessing -- plan to charge 10 cents to add a toy to the company's popular Happy Meals for children. The toys are not offered for sale without the purchase of a Happy Meal, the company said.

Proceeds from the San Francisco toy sales will be used to help build a new Ronald McDonald House in the city. Those facilities, which are operated by a McDonald's charity, give free or low-cost housing to families seeking treatment for a sick child.

McDonald's was a pioneer in using free toys to promote kids' meals and its success spawned me-too offerings from other chains.

FROM 'MCDOODLER' TO SHREK

It debuted the Happy Meal in the United States in 1979 with toys like the "McDoodler" stencil and the "McWrist" wallet. Modern offerings have included themed items from popular films like "Shrek" or sought-after toys like Lego or Ty Beanie Babies.

San Francisco late last year became the first major U.S. city to take on the toy giveaways, following a similar move by nearby Santa Clara County.

Under pressure from San Francisco and other cities, McDonald's and other restaurant chains have taken small steps to improve the nutritional profile of their meals for children.

McDonald's is giving its Happy Meals a makeover -- reducing the french fry portion by more than half and adding apple slices. Those new Happy Meals already are sold in California and will be available in all the 14,000 U.S. McDonald's restaurants early next year.

But the new Happy Meal still doesn't meet San Francisco's nutritional guidelines, which were based on recommendations from the National Academies' Institute of Medicine.

San Francisco Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the San Francisco ordinance, said he still sees the law as a victory -- despite the maneuver from McDonald's.

"Our little local law had a major impact on the whole fast-food industry," said Mar. "It's going to be slow, but at least we feel that we're moving them in the right direction."

Representatives from the Center for Science and the Public Interest and Corporate Accountability International were less charitable, calling the move by the world's largest fast-food chain "cynical."

Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy at CSPI, said McDonald's response "clearly skirts the whole spirit of the law."

Wootan added that McDonald's has the creative muscle to come up with healthy alternatives that appeal to children.

"McDonald's knows how to make food fun," she said. "They just need to try to maker healthier food fun for kids -- use that marketing brilliance that they have to promote health instead of undermine it."

While cities and communities around the country have expressed interest in passing similar laws, McDonald's said it has no plans to challenge San Francisco's law.

"Certainly this is a smarter public relations move than a lawsuit," said Sara Deon, director of Corporate Accountability International's "Value the Meal" campaign.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I wish they would have made the price 1 cent. What a bunch of morons, can't we sell Kalifornia? For 1 cent?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I wish they would have made the price 1 cent. What a bunch of morons, can't we sell Kalifornia? For 1 cent?

We could. But that would make the federal teat that states such as Vermont are sucking on quite a bit smaller.

[slim 1,530]

Pretty soon they'll ban selling toys too.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

It's a dumb law, let's be honest.

It tries to ignore the fact that parents don't know how to tell their children "NO."

On top of that, they blame the advertising. Please. The advertising was 10x worse when I was a kid, and guess what - Parents told us NO when we wanted it all the time. Hell the toys were higher quality back then too. It's nothing new, it's just parents who don't want to take responsibility for little Jimmy being a fat ####### #######.

[^_^ 5,021]

It's a dumb law, let's be honest.

It tries to ignore the fact that parents don't know how to tell their children "NO."

On top of that, they blame the advertising. Please. The advertising was 10x worse when I was a kid, and guess what - Parents told us NO when we wanted it all the time. Hell the toys were higher quality back then too. It's nothing new, it's just parents who don't want to take responsibility for little Jimmy being a fat ####### #######.

I have no idea what you mean by it being worse, but the sheer ubiquity of advertising today is nothing like it was when I was a kid.

[The_Dude 1,142]

It's a dumb law, let's be honest.

It tries to ignore the fact that parents don't know how to tell their children "NO."

On top of that, they blame the advertising. Please. The advertising was 10x worse when I was a kid, and guess what - Parents told us NO when we wanted it all the time. Hell the toys were higher quality back then too. It's nothing new, it's just parents who don't want to take responsibility for little Jimmy being a fat ####### #######.

Paul, you are a complete hypocrit. You preach local government and community standards, smaller government. Yet, in this circumstances, where you have a local government adjusting laws to the desires of the local community, you say it's a bad law. How convenient that you only agree when it is in line with your political delusions. I will agree that it is a dumb law, but not for the same reasons as you.

Edited December 1, 2011 by The_Dude

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Paul, you are a complete hypocrit. You preach local government and community standards, smaller government. Yet, in this circumstances, where you have a local government adjusting laws to the desires of the local community, you say it's a bad law. How convenient that you only agree when it is in line with your political delusions. I will agree that it is a dumb law, but not for the same reasons as you.

How am I a hypocrit? This isn't smaller government, it's still a local government being ridiculous and there are plenty who want to push this on a state and even national scale as well.

I say it's a bad law because it is. I say it's absurd because it is. It's a way to fix a problem without pointing fingers in the right direction.

[The_Dude 1,142]

How am I a hypocrit? This isn't smaller government, it's still a local government being ridiculous and there are plenty who want to push this on a state and even national scale as well.

I say it's a bad law because it is. I say it's absurd because it is. It's a way to fix a problem without pointing fingers in the right direction.

Well, it is a local government who does not have the jurisdiction to actually affect real change, so they do what they can, for their people in their community. Sorry Paul, no matter how you frame it, making our food supply healthier is not a bad thing. You still have the choice to go home and add as much salt and bacon as you want. You are free to have as many heart attacks as your body can handle, but that doesn't mean everyone else wants that fate.

If you had your way, this law would be overturned. Who has the authority to overturn a local governments decisions? So I guess, in this scenario, you are a fan big brother coming in and setting aside this local law.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Well, it is a local government who does not have the jurisdiction to actually affect real change, so they do what they can, for their people in their community. Sorry Paul, no matter how you frame it, making our food supply healthier is not a bad thing. You still have the choice to go home and add as much salt and bacon as you want. You are free to have as many heart attacks as your body can handle, but that doesn't mean everyone else wants that fate.

If you had your way, this law would be overturned. Who has the authority to overturn a local governments decisions? So I guess, in this scenario, you are a fan big brother coming in and setting aside this local law.

Remember, people have CHOICE to patron McDonalds or any other fast food establishment they wish to.

This is the biggest key that everyone seems to forget. It's all about choice. You have a choice when/where to eat/not eat. No one if forcing you to eat salty fries and no one is forcing you to feed that ####### to your kids. You choose to. In case you didn't know as well, you can ask for no salt on your burgers/fries. Actually a lot of people do this at McDonalds especially to make sure their food is fresh. Those people make the CHOICE to ask for this.

I'm all for smaller government, but this law is the opposite. It's not about "big brother" coming in to take back the law as well. Never said I wanted that. I merely stated how ridiculous the law was. So you can stop trying to put words into my mouth.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Remember, people have CHOICE to patron McDonalds or any other fast food establishment they wish to.

This is the biggest key that everyone seems to forget. It's all about choice. You have a choice when/where to eat/not eat. No one if forcing you to eat salty fries and no one is forcing you to feed that ####### to your kids. You choose to. In case you didn't know as well, you can ask for no salt on your burgers/fries. Actually a lot of people do this at McDonalds especially to make sure their food is fresh. Those people make the CHOICE to ask for this.

I'm all for smaller government, but this law is the opposite. It's not about "big brother" coming in to take back the law as well. Never said I wanted that. I merely stated how ridiculous the law was. So you can stop trying to put words into my mouth.

That is disingenuous at best...

[slim 1,530]

Local government can pass whatever laws they want but those laws can't overstep state and federal constitutions. Is it the local government's place to regulate what's sold in it's locality? Maybe.

But this example of "small government" isn't actually small government. Who ensures compliance with the regulation? Who documents infractions? Who enforces sentencing on said infractions?

All of that takes government.

Do we really need government interfering in the sales policies of restaurants? If that's something you're all for, then great. But, just be prepared to reap the whirlwind of consequences that come with it.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Kids in California public schools have to go to homosexual history classes, working people have to pay for illegals in state tuition, but parents in Frisco aren't allowed to buy their kids a Happy Meal w/toy?

[^_^ 5,021]

...parents in Frisco aren't allowed to buy their kids a Happy Meal w/toy?

Actually, they are.. for 10 cents.