Happy Meal Just A Fatty Meal, Says San Francisco

TheCommodore · Thu Nov 04, 2010 10:06 pm

More action on the obesity front against the fatty food chain, McDonald's, this time by the San Francisco city council.

QUOTE.

'It's not what our customers want,'' responded a spokeswoman for McDonald's, Danya Proud. ''Nor is it something they asked for.''

Maybe McDonald's is right when they say this, but I hardly think they are in a non biased position to make such a call, of course McDonald's customers don't want it, they like things as they are, salty, fatty and generally just rubbish food. But are they really the best judge ?

I think we are going to see more and more action taken like this, all around the world, as we humans try to fight off the scourge of obesity.

ARTICLE below.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/happy-me...-san-francisco-20101104-17fwv.html

[Edited 2010-11-04 15:18:01]

Mir · Thu Nov 04, 2010 11:53 pm

The intent is good, but you're wading into some very tricky waters any time you start legislating what people can eat, although in this case it's really just legislating whether you can include a toy with the meal. I'm okay with this one because of that, as well as the fact that it's targeted toward children, who the government has some responsibility to protect. But I'm also convinced that the obesity problem is just as much a result of lifestyle as it is a result of diet - kids don't get out enough anymore for various reasons. And if you don't fix that, then things like this aren't going to be of much use.

-Mir

lowrider · Thu Nov 04, 2010 11:56 pm

Quoting TheCommodore (Thread starter):
, but I hardly think they are in a non biased position to make such a call, of course McDonald's customers don't want it

They would have the sales figures to back this statement up. McDonald's does not exist to keep children healthy or lean. That is still a parental responsibility. Not even the San Francisco city council can change this.

Aaron747 · Fri Nov 05, 2010 12:03 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 2):
I'm okay with this one because of that, as well as the fact that it's targeted toward children

I'm OK with it on this basis as well, and without that narrowing language then I'd tell the Board of Supes where to go as usual. Santa Clara, the county seat 45 miles south of SF, already passed a law like this two years back, and it is very popular with parents as McDonald's franchises there cannot market their meals on the basis toys will be included.

Airstud · Fri Nov 05, 2010 12:09 am

This is yet another boneheaded move by San Francisco (the same city that banned ATM surcharges for non-customers; banks spend tens of thousands of dollars buying and installing an ATM in the first place and several thousand yearly for maintenance and servicing; San Francisco decided it was illegal for a business to CHARGE FOR THE SERVICES IT OFFERS).

People take their kids to McD's for a treat; not for a healthy meal. Kids' health is the responsibility of their parents.

Concerning the 30% of the city's school kids who are overweight; how much of this overweightitude has been empirically and specifically traced to happy meals?

If you ask me, a better piece of legislation would be for parents of schoolkids to take a 2- or 3-night class in nutrition and meal-planning. Tie it in with parent-teacher night or something. Parents and families participating in their wellness in an involved and ongoing manner is how the obesity scourge can be fought, not by banning periodic toys & treats.

Airstud · Fri Nov 05, 2010 12:14 am

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 4):
Santa Clara, the county seat 45 miles south of SF

Slight clarification: San Jose is the county seat of Santa Clara County, two counties south of San Francisco. San Francisco proper is a joint city/county.

GuitrThree · Fri Nov 05, 2010 12:29 am

So this comes from the state that just tried to get voters to approve parents smoke pot legally in front of children, while not allowing them a cheap toy while eating a happy meal. Ok. Anyone see the problem with this picture???

Aaron747 · Fri Nov 05, 2010 12:41 am

Quoting Airstud (Reply 5):
San Francisco proper is a joint city/county

Well aware having lived 22 years in the Bay Area, and 3 in the great city and county

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 6):
So this comes from the state that just tried to get voters to approve parents smoke pot legally in front of children

Um that specific scenario wasn't in the ballot measure at all.

DeltaMD90 · Fri Nov 05, 2010 12:49 am

If only solving the American obesity problem was as easy as taking away toys from happy meals... what is this world coming to?

TheCommodore · Fri Nov 05, 2010 1:15 am

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 2):
McDonald's does not exist to keep children healthy or lean. That is still a parental responsibility. Not even the San Francisco city council can change this.

Your right, Maccas dose not exist to keep children healthy. But I do think they have some community responsibility towards society

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 3):
Santa Clara, the county seat 45 miles south of SF, already passed a law like this two years back, and it is very popular with parents as McDonald's franchises there cannot market their meals on the basis toys will be included.

Quoting Airstud (Reply 4):
People take their kids to McD's for a treat;

Now that's debatable, children can and are very persuasive, sometimes its just easier to say yes to them rather than have some tantrum over the word NO.

Quoting Airstud (Reply 4):
If you ask me, a better piece of legislation would be for parents of schoolkids to take a 2- or 3-night class in nutrition and meal

Good idea

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 6):
Anyone see the problem with this picture???

Pot dose not make the waist line expand like a happy meal dose, although it can give you the "munchies"

Zentraedi · Fri Nov 05, 2010 1:24 am

This is pathetic and meaningless act. Why are they just going after the low end? You'll find that more upscale restaurants are just as bad or even worse when it comes to ridiculous portions or nutritional value. How do you think that upscale restaurant makes that dish so heavenly? They put in a metric ton of butter.

I guess McDonalds is just a big easy target. People like it that way...easier to understand. Ugh.

PSA53 · Fri Nov 05, 2010 1:37 am

What an abuse of power.McDonalds sold pull up stakes and move out of SFO.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 6):
So this comes from the state that just tried to get voters to approve parents smoke pot legally in front of children, while not allowing them a cheap toy while eating a happy meal. Ok. Anyone see the problem with this picture???

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 2):
They would have the sales figures to back this statement up. McDonald's does not exist to keep children healthy or lean. That is still a parental responsibility. Not even the San Francisco city council can change this.

A bunch a loney tunes in power.

ltbewr · Fri Nov 05, 2010 1:37 am

Personally, I agree with the ban of giving toys, packaging, advertising and marketing directed to children for prepared foods and 'fast food' of poor nutritional value. Governments can and do regulate commercial speech and advertising in the USA. McDonald's, cereal makers, candy companies have been marketing with toys, packaging and design of product to entice kids for generations. Two of the key intentions of the McDonald's 'Happy Meals" is to get the customers young so they continue as customers later in life as well as bring in the parents to buy their own Big Mac meal to make money on that.

Aaron747 · Fri Nov 05, 2010 1:38 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 9):
Now that's debatable, children can and are very persuasive, sometimes its just easier to say yes to them rather than have some tantrum over the word NO

I wouldn't exactly call that effective parenting.

Quoting Zentraedi (Reply 10):
You'll find that more upscale restaurants are just as bad or even worse when it comes to ridiculous portions or nutritional value.

Very good point - some of the dishes at Cheesecake Factory easily top 2500 calories on their own merit.

PSA53 · Fri Nov 05, 2010 1:43 am

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 13):
Quoting Zentraedi (Reply 10):
You'll find that more upscale restaurants are just as bad or even worse when it comes to ridiculous portions or nutritional value.

Very good point - some of the dishes at Cheesecake Factory easily top 2500 calories on their own merit.

Applebees,Chili's,Speghitti Factory.The list is endless.

.

PPVRA · Fri Nov 05, 2010 1:53 am

If you serve lots of steaks, hamburgers, cheese, eggs, milk, ice cream, cakes, chocolate and other sweets including liquid calories at home, you can forget banning toys having any impact whatsoever.

And here's an offender I hope children in the future will be able to grow up with and the Grinch won't ruin it:

lowrider · Fri Nov 05, 2010 2:30 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 9):
But I do think they have some community responsibility towards society

You may think so, but I know of no actual legal requirement. If they want to do this voluntarily as an initiative to encourage the longevity of future customers, more power to them. The longer people are alive to be faithful customers, the better it is in the long run. However, this idea of forced community responsibility just smacks of imposing your set of values on someone else to me.

TheCommodore · Fri Nov 05, 2010 2:49 am

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 16):
but I know of no actual legal requirement.

Hi Lowrider

Your absoluty right, there is no "legal" requirement for them to do so, I was more talking about just "doing the right thing" by society/community really.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 16):
If they want to do this voluntarily as an initiative to encourage the longevity of future customers, more power to them.

Yes, that's more what I meant. And I think they would go up in people's expectations of doing and trying to do the right thing by there customers.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 16):
this idea of forced community responsibility just smacks of imposing your set of values on someone else to me.

Yeah well, sometimes people need direction, to make the right decisions.

[Edited 2010-11-04 19:54:01]

lowrider · Fri Nov 05, 2010 3:11 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 17):
Yeah well, sometimes people need direction, to make the right decisions.

And sometimes they need to make wrong ones and suffer the consequences, so they can learn to make right ones on their own. This seems to be something we need to periodically relearn as a nation.

KevinL1011 · Fri Nov 05, 2010 3:28 am

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 6):
So this comes from the state that just tried to get voters to approve parents smoke pot legally in front of children, while not allowing them a cheap toy while eating a happy meal. Ok. Anyone see the problem with this picture???

Where did you see anything about parents smoking in front of their children in Prop.19?
No, actually California is the state that legislated farm animal rights protecting the chickens that will be slaughtered for the Happy Meal Mc Nuggets.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 13):
Quoting Zentraedi (Reply 10):
You'll find that more upscale restaurants are just as bad or even worse when it comes to ridiculous portions or nutritional value.

Very good point - some of the dishes at Cheesecake Factory easily top 2500 calories on their own merit.

Wouldn't it be better to legislate the fat or caloric content in food?

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 17):
Yeah well, sometimes people need direction, to make the right decisions.

Coming soon to a Happy Meal near you...
WARNING: The City of San Francisco has determined that consumption of Mc Donalds food items may be hazardous to your heath and may result in obesity. Sale of Mc Donalds food items is prohibited to persons under age 18 unless accompanied by an adult or guardian.

Superfly · Fri Nov 05, 2010 3:33 am

More nonsense from the San Francisco Board of Stupervisors.
This is the sort of foolishness I don't miss about living in San Francisco.

airportugal310 · Fri Nov 05, 2010 3:56 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 17):
Your absoluty right, there is no "legal" requirement for them to do so, I was more talking about just "doing the right thing" by society/community really.

Good luck...you will be waiting a damn long time for that to happen on it's own

Yellowstone · Fri Nov 05, 2010 4:06 am

Quoting KevinL1011 (Reply 19):
Wouldn't it be better to legislate the fat or caloric content in food?

No, because you have the right to decide what you want to eat, even if that choice is unhealthy. Businesses don't have the right to target their unhealthy products at minors, though, since minors are not considered to be capable of rational choices.

I see this as similar to the ban on Joe Camel and similar child-friendly tobacco mascots - you have the right to smoke if you want, but tobacco companies can't prey on impressionable young kids when trying to get new customers (only impressionable adults, I guess).

KevinL1011 · Fri Nov 05, 2010 4:12 am

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 22):
I see this as similar to the ban on Joe Camel and similar child-friendly tobacco mascots - you have the right to smoke if you want, but tobacco companies can't prey on impressionable young kids when trying to get new customers (only impressionable adults, I guess).

I see your point. But what about the Happy Meal packaging which has cartoon characters and games printed on it?

mham001 · Fri Nov 05, 2010 4:15 am

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 3):
Santa Clara, the county seat 45 miles south of SF, already passed a law like this two years back, and it is very popular with parents as McDonald's franchises there cannot market their meals on the basis toys will be included.

Where did you get the idea this is popular?

I heard the Santa Clara County supervisor on the radio for an hour getting reamed over this a couple of months ago. People do not at all appreciate the government telling them how to raise their children. I have a child and have no problem managing her diet (she's been to McD's maybe twice). I highly resent the government telling me what I can or can't buy or eat. And we call ourselves "Land of the Free". What a bunch of drivel that is.

The last straw for me here is grocery bags.

TheCommodore · Fri Nov 05, 2010 4:27 am

Quoting KevinL1011 (Reply 24):
But what about the Happy Meal packaging which has cartoon characters and games printed on it?

And the crappy toys inside too don't forget.

There has been a big campaign in Australia to stop supermarkets from displaying sweets and lollies at the check-out counters. Some have done the right thing and moved them to other parts of the store or placed them on high shelves so the its not in the kids faces and it makes the lives of those with kids easier to control by not have to say NO all the time, sort of, "out of sight out of mind"

Quoting mham001 (Reply 25):
I highly resent the government telling me what I can or can't buy or eat. And we call ourselves "Land of the Free".

Mir · Fri Nov 05, 2010 4:31 am

Quoting mham001 (Reply 25):
I have a child and have no problem managing her diet (she's been to McD's maybe twice).

Then this law should not affect you in the least.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 25):
People do not at all appreciate the government telling them how to raise their children.

Which is understandable, but limits on how parents raise their children are not a new thing. If your child is malnourished through your own negligence, the government is right to step in and correct the problem. And while eating at McDonalds a lot is skirting the line of what's a reasonable definition of malnourishment, I don't think it's over said line.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 25):
I highly resent the government telling me what I can or can't buy or eat.

You can still buy a happy meal (or a happy meal by some other name) - you just won't get a toy with it.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 22):
I see this as similar to the ban on Joe Camel and similar child-friendly tobacco mascots - you have the right to smoke if you want, but tobacco companies can't prey on impressionable young kids when trying to get new customers

A good comparison.

-Mir

DocLightning · Fri Nov 05, 2010 4:43 am

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 22):

No, because you have the right to decide what you want to eat, even if that choice is unhealthy.

Bingo. I'm sorry, but I don't like the government telling me what I can and can't put into my own body and what risks I can and can't take with it when I'm not harming anyone else.

If you don't want to wear a seatbelt or a motorcycle helmet and you're 18 or over, then I don't think the government has any right to tell you to. You're a flaming idiot, but maybe, just maybe, we need to let Darwin work here.

4holer · Fri Nov 05, 2010 4:47 am

I don't often post in "political" threads, but c'mon... This is not what government should be involved with! Big picture, regardless of the relative healthiness of Happy Meals, governments should not exercise power just because they can.
I can't stand the tea partiers crowd, but this is the kind of item that might make me swing my pendulum back that way some.

KevinL1011 · Fri Nov 05, 2010 4:52 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 27):
There has been a big campaign in Australia to stop supermarkets from displaying sweets and lollies at the check-out counters. Some have done the right thing and moved them to other parts of the store or placed them on high shelves so the its not in the kids faces and it makes the lives of those with kids easier to control by not have to say NO all the time, sort of, "out of sight out of mind"

I think it's a good idea and it keeps the little buggers from taking items and then leaving them elsewhere in the store. It would be difficult to control product placement here in the States. Distributors actually pay the stores to shelve their items in more visible and high traffic locations. It's a big profit center for the store owners.

TheCommodore · Fri Nov 05, 2010 5:00 am

Quoting KevinL1011 (Reply 31):
It would be difficult to control product placement here in the States. Distributors actually pay the stores to shelve their items in more visible and high traffic locations.

Actually your right and its the same here to with product placement, I forgot about that. But I think its only in the main part of the supermarket and not at the checkout section, but I maybe wrong.

Quoting KevinL1011 (Reply 31):
It's a big profit center for the store owners.

Your right there, and money usually wins out over sensibility, every time

mham001 · Fri Nov 05, 2010 5:06 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 28):
Which is understandable, but limits on how parents raise their children are not a new thing. If your child is malnourished through your own negligence, the government is right to step in and correct the problem. And while eating at McDonalds a lot is skirting the line of what's a reasonable definition of malnourishment, I don't think it's over said line.

Where should government draw the line on intrusion in peoples lives? Too much television has harmful effects on young children and their early brain development. Should government have authority to police television viewing? Kids spend a lot of time in front of video games instead of exercising, would you have them coming in and limiting their use? I'd bet that has far more effect on obesity than McDonalds.

The only parents who approve of this are those who are unable to say NO. They aren't good parents to start with, limiting McDs will do nothing, to make a real impact we will have to expand government authority in the home. How far will you go?

KevinL1011 · Fri Nov 05, 2010 5:08 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 28):
You can still buy a happy meal (or a happy meal by some other name) - you just won't get a toy with it.

What about the packaging? It is also designed to attract children.

Quoting Mir (Reply 28):
Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 22):
I see this as similar to the ban on Joe Camel and similar child-friendly tobacco mascots - you have the right to smoke if you want, but tobacco companies can't prey on impressionable young kids when trying to get new customers

A good comparison.

So, all they need to do is print a warning like on cigarette packs from the Surgeon General.

Mir · Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:16 am

Quoting mham001 (Reply 33):
Too much television has harmful effects on young children and their early brain development. Should government have authority to police television viewing? Kids spend a lot of time in front of video games instead of exercising, would you have them coming in and limiting their use?

No, and no. Of course, television and video games have value in moderation - it's hard to argue the same for fast food.

Quoting KevinL1011 (Reply 34):
What about the packaging? It is also designed to attract children.

The packaging gets thrown away pretty quickly, so it has less of an effect. But it might have to change as well - the article wasn't specific on that.

-Mir

Aaron747 · Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:46 am

Quoting mham001 (Reply 25):
I highly resent the government telling me what I can or can't buy or eat.

They aren't. The law merely states that toys cannot be bundled with the meal as a means of increasing its sales.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 25):
I have a child and have no problem managing her diet (she's been to McD's maybe twice)

The law is not intended to have any effect on people like you because it has no need to do so. I also don't allow my kids to eat McDonald's save for the rare soft serve.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 33):
Where should government draw the line on intrusion in peoples lives?

This law is not intruding on anything other than McDonald's marketing practices toward small kids - which are frankly deplorable. Would you suggest that businesses have no culpability where the effects of their products use are concerned? If that were not the case, we'd never hear medication side effects in ads, never see safe use warnings on electronics and there would not be age requirements for violent video games and movies intended for mature audiences. Those things are not unreasonable intrusions.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 33):
Should government have authority to police television viewing?

No - TV does not have a deleterious effect on all people who use it, unlike McDonald's happy meals.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 33):
I'd bet that has far more effect on obesity than McDonalds.

Perhaps so, but behavior and predatory marketing are not one and the same.

[Edited 2010-11-04 23:48:25]

[Edited 2010-11-04 23:49:53]

KevinL1011 · Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:19 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
The packaging gets thrown away pretty quickly, so it has less of an effect. But it might have to change as well

I haven't been to a Mc Donalds in over 25 years but I remember the Happy Meals had puzzles and games printed on the box they came in.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 22):
Businesses don't have the right to target their unhealthy products at minors, though, since minors are not considered to be capable of rational choices.

Another twist could be that Mc Donalds can easily package their Happy Meals with toys or games considered as "educational". There's ways to get around the "toy ban" and I think it's BS because it doesn't address the root of this evil being the food is crap!

aerorobnz · Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:24 am

Quoting TheCommodore (Thread starter):
I think we are going to see more and more action taken like this, all around the world, as we humans try to fight off the scourge of obesity.

How about we just let them eat themselves to the grave and leave those of us who can survive the urge to eat fast food to propagate the earth...

Goldenshield · Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:05 am

As an aspiring home chef, I was reading an interesting article yesterday. When we go out to eat, we are paying to have great tasting meals; however, great tasting will NEVER equal healthy. Great chefs know this. The chef interviewed in the article basically said, "I have people come to me saying that they couldn't get their renditions of my recipes to taste as well as mine. The main culprit? Not enough fat, and not enough salt." That's right: Fat and Salt. Take away that, and you have bland dish that no one will want to eat.

aloges · Fri Nov 05, 2010 11:11 am

Good move, the excessive marketing of heart attack-inducing "food" to children needs to stop.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 37):
great tasting will NEVER equal healthy

That's complete and utter rubbish. I just ate a pear, which I don't think anyone will argue is unhealthy, and it tasted great. If a chef says that he can't cook healthy food that tastes great, he's saying that he should be doing a different job in the kitchen. Dishwasher perhaps...

Goldenshield · Fri Nov 05, 2010 11:19 am

Quoting aloges (Reply 38):
I just ate a pear, which I don't think anyone will argue is unhealthy, and it tasted great.

While I don't disagree with you, you're missing the point of the topic. We're not talking about raw fruit here. We're talking about cooked dishes. No chef in the world is going to get away serving raw fruit and calling it anything else but raw fruit.

aloges · Fri Nov 05, 2010 11:47 am

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 39):
We're talking about cooked dishes.

Use vegetable oils (like olive oil) instead of lard, lean meat and more spices than salt and pepper. There are more spices than anyone can count, so it's abusrd to say that no food can taste great without unhealthy amounts/kinds of fat and salt.

Superfly · Fri Nov 05, 2010 12:05 pm

Quoting aloges (Reply 40):
Use vegetable oils (like olive oil) instead of lard, lean meat and more spices than salt and pepper. There are more spices than anyone can count, so it's abusrd to say that no food can taste great without unhealthy amounts/kinds of fat and salt.

McDonald's Special Sauce uses more than salt and pepper. Since it's a secret, you can't criticize it because you don't know what's in it.

By the way, there is nothing stopping a business to do exactly what you're advocating. I'd like to see such a restaurant chain that can be as equally as successful as McDonald's. Offer as many locations worldwide, operating hours as long as McDonald's and employ as many people as McDonald's.
Why isn't there such a business model out there Algoes?

aloges · Fri Nov 05, 2010 12:19 pm

Quoting Superfly (Reply 41):
I'd like to see such a restaurant chain that can be as equally as successful as McDonald's.

Why does it have to be a chain? Do small businesses count less?

Superfly · Fri Nov 05, 2010 12:41 pm

Quoting aloges (Reply 42):
Why does it have to be a chain? Do small businesses count less?

I guess you missed my point.
What's next?
Preaching that people should only eat during certain hours and be in bed at a certain time?
Seems like those angry at McDonald's are angrier at their success and not their menu.
Shutting down McDonald's would mean millions of more people out of work worldwide. Not to mention, McDonald's comes in handy on long road trips, at times when one is hungry late at night and often times, the only place that is open during late hours.

CXB77L · Fri Nov 05, 2010 12:51 pm

Quoting Zentraedi (Reply 10):
This is pathetic and meaningless act. Why are they just going after the low end? You'll find that more upscale restaurants are just as bad or even worse when it comes to ridiculous portions or nutritional value. How do you think that upscale restaurant makes that dish so heavenly? They put in a metric ton of butter.

I guess McDonalds is just a big easy target.

Why is it that companies that provide the goods which, admittedly not the healthiest choice, cops the blame while the people making the decisions to allow their children to go to such places escape the heat? People make choices - those that affect themselves and people who are not as informed. Adults need to make the decision themselves about what they eat, and they need to have control over what their children eat, as well as having a balanced lifestyle with daily exercise.

The obesity epidemic is not the fault of the restaurant industry, it is the fault of those people who make poor dietary choices.

aloges · Fri Nov 05, 2010 2:31 pm

Quoting Superfly (Reply 43):
Seems like those angry at McDonald's are angrier at their success and not their menu.

I'm not angry at them, I just think the (fast) food industry is far too influential in shaping the way people eat. One of the strategies to achieve that is to advertise extensively to children, which is the whole point of the toys in the "Happy Meal".

Kiwirob · Fri Nov 05, 2010 2:54 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
But I'm also convinced that the obesity problem is just as much a result of lifestyle as it is a result of diet - kids don't get out enough anymore for various reasons.

Maybe kids in the US but children here in Norway are on average pretty thin, especailly those who live in smaller towns.

Quoting Airstud (Reply 4):
This is yet another boneheaded move by San Francisco (the same city that banned ATM surcharges for non-customers; banks spend tens of thousands of dollars buying and installing an ATM in the first place and several thousand yearly for maintenance and servicing; San Francisco decided it was illegal for a business to CHARGE FOR THE SERVICES IT OFFERS).

You do reaslise that ATM's cost a bank next to nothing compared to a real person, when banks started rolling out ATM's they started closing branches, all said and done the banks are well ahead with less branches and more ATM's even if they can't charge a fee to users from another bank.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 25):
And the crappy toys inside too don't forget.

Not all the toys are crappy, some are pretty good, the ones they have for movie propotions are normally pretty decent.

Quoting aloges (Reply 45):
I'm not angry at them, I just think the (fast) food industry is far too influential in shaping the way people eat. One of the strategies to achieve that is to advertise extensively to children, which is the whole point of the toys in the "Happy Meal".

The fast food industry is only able to influence a certain type of person, you just have to work in a fast food resturant to see that most customers are lower income/class people who are too lazy to cook for themselves oir believe that they can't afford healthy food. You can't blame an industry because they have stupid customers.

aloges · Fri Nov 05, 2010 3:27 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 46):
You can't blame an industry because they have stupid customers.

I can blame an industry for the advertising it does. Which is my whole point here.

Yellowstone · Fri Nov 05, 2010 3:51 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 46):
you just have to work in a fast food resturant to see that most customers are lower income/class people who are too lazy to cook for themselves

Or maybe they've been working 2 or 3 low-wage jobs and have no time to cook healthy meals for themselves.

Aaron747 · Fri Nov 05, 2010 4:32 pm

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 48):
Or maybe they've been working 2 or 3 low-wage jobs and have no time to cook healthy meals for themselves

I don't buy that - there are plenty of healthy meals that can be prepared in 20 minutes or less. The fact people don't is either utter laziness or other priorities.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net