[Vision2020] Should Legislation Protect the Obese?

[Ron Force]

New York city banned trans fats in restaurant meals. They also required posting of calories in fast food meals:
 

Fed court upholds New York City's calorie-posting rule
City officials and physicians promoted the regulation 
as an important step in fighting obesity. Other states and localities 
have since followed suit. (2009)

In a victory for public health, a federal appeals court 
upheld a New York City ordinance requiring certain fast-food restaurant 
chains to post calorie counts on their menus and menu boards.
A panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Feb. 17 
unanimously rejected protests from the restaurant industry that the city rule -- believed to be the first of its kind -- was pre-empted by 
federal regulations set by the Food and Drug Administration. Although 
restaurant food is exempt from federal nutritional labeling 
requirements, New York City, with its calorie-posting rule, "merely 
stepped into a sphere ... left open to state and local governments" to 
regulate public health and safety, Judge Rosemary S. Pooler wrote.
Judges also disagreed with the argument that the ordinance violated 
restaurants' free-speech rights, saying "the law in question mandates a 
simple factual disclosure of caloric information and is reasonably 
related to New York City's goals of combating obesity."

San Francisco didn't ban Happy Meals, they just said that restaurants couldn't include a toy with a meal that didn't meet minimum nutritional standards. The clever people have already found a way around the law:


On Thursday, San Francisco's controversial Healthy Food Incentive 
Ordinance takes affect, banning toy giveaways with children's meals at 
fast-food restaurants unless the meal meets San Francisco's strict 
nutritional standards. And McDonald's has already figured out a way to 
sidestep the ban almost entirely. 
The ban targets Happy Meal-style toys, claiming that the inclusion of an incentive item unfairly targets marketing at children who are unable to make healthy decisions for themselves. Though it was slammed by critics who claimed the ban enforced "nanny state" politics, the ordinance was easily passed by the Board of Supervisors in an 8-3 
vote. Supervisor Eric Mar, who has a young daughter, introduced the ban, arguing that the "pester power" of a young child seduced by the toys 
can be enough to persuade parents to buy the unhealthy meals. 
But instead of changing the content of Happy Meals or eliminating the toys, McDonald's is complying by charging a meager ten cents for the 
addition of a toy -- with the proceeds benefiting the Ronald McDonald 
House Charity. Well played. 
And if Mar's "pester power" is enough to drag parents to McDonald's 
in the first place, there is little doubt it will be enough to make them cough up an extra dime. 
"Instead of doing the right thing, McDonald's is avoiding limiting 
its marketing to kids or improving the nutritional quality of their 
unhealthy food by selling toys "separately" for an additional ten cents 
-- while still requiring purchase of a Happy Meal to get the toy," said 
Sara Deon, the Value [the] Meal Campaign Director at Corporate Accountability International, to The Huffington Post. "Though McDonald's has taken this cynical 
approach to sidestep the new policy, the law has already had a 
tremendous impact." 
The impact of the ordinance -- and legislation like it -- has indeed been palpable: McDonald's started offering options like milk and apple slices with its Happy Meals in July, and Jack in the Box dropped toys from children's meals all together. But with a toy still available with the French fry-soda-fried 
chicken-laden calorie bomb Happy Meal for a measly ten cents, we have a 
feeling it will be business as usual at the world's largest fast food 
chain. 
While advocates of the ordinance are disheartened by the 
announcement, supporters insist that San Francisco is still taking a 
large step in the right direction.
"This law is an important achievement not only for the health of San Francisco's children, but for children nationwide," said Mar. "We are 
ensuring that parents and children have real choices when they eat out -- especially in communities saturated with McDonald's-style junk food." 

________________________________
 From: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
To: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> 
Cc: "Vision2020 at moscow.com" <Vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Should Legislation Protect the Obese?
 
Read the news. San Francisco has banned Happy Meals and New York City has also placed restrictions on what restaurants can serve. I do not recall of hand what they were.
Roger
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20111130/3d290333/attachment.html>