11-3-10 - Read and discuss

PrairieMom wrote: We seem to have a thing going here. LOL. Its kind of nice. So, what do you think?

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-happ...0,5438230.story

PrairieMom replied: I am really on the fence on this one. On one hand, I can totally see that it isn't the governments job to decide what we should and should not eat. They need to stay away from my dinner table.
On the other hand, something needs to change, and I don't know how to go about it.
There are to many people profiting off of making the general public fat and sick. People aren't being educated about what is in our foods, the consequences of eating those foods, and who is profiting from the food system.
So, i guess the bottom line is that IMO, if we aren't going to educate people so they can make educated choices about what we eat, and start making healthy food affordable, then I guess we are going to have to have some government help on the subject.

MommyToAshley replied: I don't disagree with the good intentions and the reason behind the ban, but I do disagree with the ban itself. First of all, it is unfair to target just one company. The article said that even though other companies sell kids meals, McDonald's was targeted because it is such a prominent company. How's that for fair competition?

Secondly, I think the only obligation should be for the company to offer healthy choices at a reasonable cost. But then again, it should not be gov't mandated, but determined by consumer buying power. In the end, it is the parents choice and companies will produce what we buy.

The article mentions obesity being high in lower income areas. I think part of it is because it is cheaper to buy a happy meal than fresh fruit and vegetables at the store, but part of it is also being educated about what these kinds of foods do to you. This is where the gov't(along with the parents) should come into play -- the responsibility of education

coasterqueen replied:
I was thinking of this in the other read/discuss because on one hand we want the government to give us tax breaks, etc for feeding our kids health by BF, but then we don't want them to be around in our faces/at our tables when it comes to how we feed them later or how we feed ourselves? It's a double standard, the way I see it, and I know I'm bad about it too.

If we want our government to be there every second, to hold our hand when we need help, then we have to accept that help even when we don't want it. This is why I am so against the government holding my hand every step of the way. Let me keep my money and I'll hold my own hand. I will never understand it (and I'm not saying this to you, but to everyone in general, including myself at times) how we can say we want the government there to help us do this, reward us for this, etc, etc, but we want them out of other areas in our lives. They are either in your life or their not. They can't be there when you want them and not when you don't. So if we want them there to reward us for BF, scold us for not making the healthier choice against FF, then they MUST be there when we go down the road and don't feed ourselves better later. KWIM? I, personally, don't want them there at all.

You know, it's our government standards, FDA standards, that allow the crap that is in our foods now, too. Why would I want the government involved at all?

coasterqueen replied: I wanted to add I know I got off topic with my post, but when I was reading the other discussion and then came to this one, those were my thoughts.

lesliesmom replied: I don't like the ban.. thankfully I'm not in California. We get our kids happy meals, but it is not often. I know there are some families who eat this stuff constantly but that is there conscience decision. My decision to get a happy meal is just that, my decision. I'm the one paying for it, not the government or any one else. If I chose to go all out and get the kids nuggets, fries and pop then I should be allowed to do that. In my opinion, it's just another step towards another group/government trying to raise our children for us because it feels somewhere along the line they decided that we are incapable of doing it on our own.

jcc64 replied:

This is true, but no one ever accused us of being consistent. For instance, many of the same people who claim to be for smaller government are the very same people who insist on legislating what goes on in people's private lives.
As for the McDonald's thing, I'm with Dee Dee all the way on this one.

Celestrina replied:
It's not only that its cheaper, but much easier to find. If you go into the lower income areas in major cities it is difficult to find any stores that carry fresh fruits and vegetables, yet there is a fast food restaurant on every other corner.

coasterqueen replied:
Agreed, I wasn't saying what I did as a party-line issue. I stated even I am not consistent. Also, those who legislate private lives - I assume you mean whether to be gay, etc, abortion, all those types of issues - those are religious issues for the majority part - and they feel they are upholding the constitution/definition stated for marriage - but that's a whole other issue I really don't care to discuss. You'd be surprised, Jeanne - I may be Republican and there are a LOT of them like me that pick that party line, but the social issues we aren't strict on and aren't interested in legislating people's private lives as much as others are.

luvbug00 replied: funny thing is mya hasnt had a happy meal in a while..neither have i ..kinda miss them since i get them more then she does..lol

anyhoo again, really I cant wait for the day the government limits how many trash bags i can use per month..it's getting out of control..im moving.

jcc64 replied:

I already know this about you, you goofball!

MommyToAshley replied:
I also thought that is what you were referring to, and you probably meant me. But, I don't want to control or legislate what people do in their private lives. As I said before, I may not agree with the gay lifestyle, but I also don't think it is for me to judge. I have many friends and family that are gay, and I love them just as much as my straight friends. I also said that I think gay couples should be entitle to certain legal rights. I don't want to try to change how anyone lives or judge anyone, but I just don't think that the defiinition of marriage should be changed as I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

redchief replied: We can't legislate good eating habits. Hmm... I wonder if a little public money towards establishing a ready and accessible supply of fresh fruits and vegetables in low income areas would be a better use of legislative power.

coasterqueen replied:
Nice to *see* you Ed.

jcc64 replied: ED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ZandersMama replied: I agree with the low income areas thing. I am low income and unable to work because of Zaviers therapy and medical issues. It would be cheaper for me to feed the boys happy meals everyday then the healthy foods that i cook. much cheaper. They get happy meals about once a week, on the really busy therapy day, other then that i cook and scrimp elsewhere. It's pathetic how expensive it is to eat healthy.