The short version is this: An effort to force fast-food restaurants to make the meals they market to children healthier passed a San Francisco Board of Supervisors committee yesterday. The ordinance would require that, in order to be sold with toys or other items targeted at youth, meals such as the McDonald's Happy Meal include fruits or vegetables and not have excessive calories, sodium, fat and sugar.
Even in liberal looneyland, there's some trepidation. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is concerned about "dictating how a private restaurant wants to market its food." No shit!
Do I even have to go into the whole "Camel's nose under the tent" allegory? While it may be laudable that these leaders are so very concerned about children's health, is there any logical way to argue that this will have a positive impact on children's health? And even if there is, is it worth the cost of establishing the precedent allowing the government these types of powers.
I'm sure some will point to the Government's regulation of tobacco and alcohol advertising that allegedly targets minors. Guess what, Jethro? Those are products that are ILLEGAL for children. For now, at least, Happy Meals are perfectly legal for our little snowflakes.
Ain't it great to have such a caring, benevolent government to do our thinking for us? Pretty soon, we won't have to worry about mundane things like choosing our Health Care provider, where we eat, what we do.
Thanks, Big Brother! Can't wait to be a Ward of The State!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment