Taco Bell to stop serving kids meals

Nekochan wrote:They absolutely shouldn't be restricted by law from offering kids' meals.   I don't think a kid's meal once in a while is going to hurt a kid.  

That said, when I was growing up (before Happy Meals!)--a trip to McDonald's was a special occasion.  Back then, getting fast food wasn't something most families did often.  

Joanimaroni wrote:Occasional meals from fast food franchises will not harm kids. A steady diet of fast food is another thing.

Childhood obesity has more than doubled in children and tripled in adolescents in the past 30 years.1, 2

The percentage of children aged 6–11 years in the United States who were obese increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 18% in 2010. Similarly, the percentage of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese increased from 5% to 18% over the same period.1, 2

In 2010, more than one third of children and adolescents were overweight or obese.1

Overweight is defined as having excess body weight for a particular height from fat, muscle, bone, water, or a combination of these factors.3 Obesity is defined as having excess body fat.4

Overweight and obesity are the result of “caloric imbalance”—too few calories expended for the amount of calories consumed—and are affected by various genetic, behavioral, and environmental factors.5,6

Childhood obesity has both immediate and long-term effects on health and well-being.

Immediate health effects:

Obese youth are more likely to have risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as high cholesterol or high blood pressure. In a population-based sample of 5- to 17-year-olds, 70% of obese youth had at least one risk factor for cardiovascular disease.7

Obese adolescents are more likely to have prediabetes, a condition in which blood glucose levels indicate a high risk for development of diabetes.8,9

Children and adolescents who are obese are at greater risk for bone and joint problems, sleep apnea, and social and psychological problems such as stigmatization and poor self-esteem.5,6,10

Long-term health effects:

Children and adolescents who are obese are likely to be obese as adults11-14 and are therefore more at risk for adult health problems such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, several types of cancer, and osteoarthritis.6  

One study showed that children who became obese as early as age 2 were more likely to be obese as adults.12

Overweight and obesity are associated with increased risk for many types of cancer, including cancer of the breast, colon, endometrium, esophagus, kidney, pancreas, gall bladder, thyroid, ovary, cervix, and prostate, as well as multiple myeloma and Hodgkin’s lymphoma.15

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:Occasional meals from fast food franchises will not harm kids. A steady diet of fast food is another thing.

Nor will the occasional cigarette.

Joanimaroni wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:Occasional meals from fast food franchises will not harm kids. A steady diet of fast food is another thing.

Nor will the occasional cigarette.

Did you ever have a Happy Meal while growing up?

Nekochan wrote:They absolutely shouldn't be restricted by law from offering kids' meals.   I don't think a kid's meal once in a while is going to hurt a kid.  

That said, when I was growing up (before Happy Meals!)--a trip to McDonald's was a special occasion.  Back then, getting fast food wasn't something most families did often.  

VectorMan wrote:The liberal nanny state would love nothing more than to regulate fast food out of existence. They'd regulate exactly how much fat, salt and protein  could be in a burger. They've already started with sugar (Bloomberg). Remember they say it's toxic. More and bigger government and more control over our very lives. Soft tyranny to begin with.

boards of FL wrote:

VectorMan wrote:The liberal nanny state would love nothing more than to regulate fast food out of existence. They'd regulate exactly how much fat, salt and protein  could be in a burger. They've already started with sugar (Bloomberg). Remember they say it's toxic. More and bigger government and more control over our very lives. Soft tyranny to begin with.

You have missed the point.  We're talking about marketing fast food to kids.  Children.  People who do not possess the mental capacity to make sound, informed decisions for themselves.  People who are in fact in need of some "nanny state" or guidance.  

If we are going to allow large, international corporations to market pink slime that has been sprayed with ammonia and artificially colored to look like beef to children via a toy and a cool lunch box, why not allow cigarette manufacturers to market their products to kids?  Who is the government to stand in the way of a parent and their morbidly obese 5 year old that chain smokes and is an alcoholic?

This is common sense stuff here.

VectorMan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

VectorMan wrote:The liberal nanny state would love nothing more than to regulate fast food out of existence. They'd regulate exactly how much fat, salt and protein  could be in a burger. They've already started with sugar (Bloomberg). Remember they say it's toxic. More and bigger government and more control over our very lives. Soft tyranny to begin with.

You have missed the point.  We're talking about marketing fast food to kids.  Children.  People who do not possess the mental capacity to make sound, informed decisions for themselves.  People who are in fact in need of some "nanny state" or guidance.  

If we are going to allow large, international corporations to market pink slime that has been sprayed with ammonia and artificially colored to look like beef to children via a toy and a cool lunch box, why not allow cigarette manufacturers to market their products to kids?  Who is the government to stand in the way of a parent and their morbidly obese 5 year old that chain smokes and is an alcoholic?

This is common sense stuff here.

I say it's the child's parents that need to use their common sense. Of course some parents don't have common sense. But, that doesn't mean we need the govt regulating common sense. That's not the function of govt.

Why would liberals be worried about a morbidly obese 5 year old that they would have rather killed in the womb?

VectorMan wrote:I say it's the child's parents that need to use their common sense. Of course some parents don't have common sense. But, that doesn't mean we need the govt regulating common sense.

boards of FL wrote:

VectorMan wrote:The liberal nanny state would love nothing more than to regulate fast food out of existence. They'd regulate exactly how much fat, salt and protein  could be in a burger. They've already started with sugar (Bloomberg). Remember they say it's toxic. More and bigger government and more control over our very lives. Soft tyranny to begin with.

You have missed the point.  We're talking about marketing fast food to kids.  Children.  People who do not possess the mental capacity to make sound, informed decisions for themselves.  People who are in fact in need of some "nanny state" or guidance.  

If we are going to allow large, international corporations to market pink slime that has been sprayed with ammonia and artificially colored to look like beef to children via a toy and a cool lunch box, why not allow cigarette manufacturers to market their products to kids?  Who is the government to stand in the way of a parent and their morbidly obese 5 year old that chain smokes and is an alcoholic?

This is common sense stuff here.

Floridatexan wrote:

VectorMan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

VectorMan wrote:The liberal nanny state would love nothing more than to regulate fast food out of existence. They'd regulate exactly how much fat, salt and protein  could be in a burger. They've already started with sugar (Bloomberg). Remember they say it's toxic. More and bigger government and more control over our very lives. Soft tyranny to begin with.

You have missed the point.  We're talking about marketing fast food to kids.  Children.  People who do not possess the mental capacity to make sound, informed decisions for themselves.  People who are in fact in need of some "nanny state" or guidance.  

If we are going to allow large, international corporations to market pink slime that has been sprayed with ammonia and artificially colored to look like beef to children via a toy and a cool lunch box, why not allow cigarette manufacturers to market their products to kids?  Who is the government to stand in the way of a parent and their morbidly obese 5 year old that chain smokes and is an alcoholic?

This is common sense stuff here.

I say it's the child's parents that need to use their common sense. Of course some parents don't have common sense. But, that doesn't mean we need the govt regulating common sense. That's not the function of govt.

Why would liberals be worried about a morbidly obese 5 year old that they would have rather killed in the womb?

You're a very stupid man.

boards of FL wrote:

VectorMan wrote:I say it's the child's parents that need to use their common sense. Of course some parents don't have common sense. But, that doesn't mean we need the govt regulating common sense.

So then if there were some public vote on whether or not cigarettes can be marketed to kids by the big manufacturers and served to kids by their parents, you would support big tobacco and parental-approved smoking by minors?