This is so Stupid... but what can you expect from California.. that state is a mess and the people who still choose to live their don't get it....

Fat kids are fat because their parents let them eat too much fatty foods and don't make them get enough exercise.... Period end of story.

I've seen parents at restaurants buy their 6-7 year old kids adult portion dinners and let them eat the entire thing... it's disgusting and sad... of course usually the parents are fat too so they see nothing wrong with it.

Anyhow, California can't help but set the example of the nanny state... a very broke nanny that is.

The real way to stop this problem of kids getting fatter and fatter is to get back to the good old days of one parent working while the other stays at home and takes care of the family. If somebody is home and able to cook healthy meals daily, and doesn't allow the kids to constantly sit in front of the TV, they won't have overweight kids. Sure, there would be the exception to the rule, but you would have a huge drop in child and adult obesity if we just had somebody staying home and making healthy meals.

Instead, we have 2 parents who are too busy just getting by, and they don't have the time to cook. So some families spend every night eating out, or ordering pizza. One friend of mine hasn't had a meal at home in years unless it was delivery. He eats out for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. The only reason he isn't fat is because he works out daily, and chooses carefully what he eats when he goes out. Another couple I know only eats at home once in a while. He on the other hand has a bit of a weight issue. He isn't morbid, but he could stand to loose 50 lbs.

If we slow down in life and get back to a traditional family living structure, we will have a healthier population. Doesn't matter who it is staying home taking care of the family needs, somebody should be doing it. Unfortunately most people can't afford to do it.

Richard, thank you for pushing your morals on others. Both my husband and I work full-time jobs, and I do, in fact, make a homecooked meal almost every night (Friday nights we go out for pizza, and about one other night per week I make frozen chicken tenders. With a vegetable and rice.) In fact, I think my son gets more exercise at his daycare, running around with all of his little friends on the playground, than I could ever provide him if he stayed home with me.

Richard, Happyville is two miles to the west. Women have been in the workforce since the industrial revolution. And even generations prior to that. In fact, when our country was being founded, men left their families to come to America. Later, women came and left their children behind. My point is that there has never been some happy time in America where all women stayed home and all men went off to work and all children were happy and well fed. That's a myth.

Thank God for San Fransisco. Here, we have a city that has volunteered to be the Guinea pig to remind the rest of the country just what happens when you let a bunch of insane children run a town as if it were an elementary school production of Nicolas Nickelby. A totalitarian regime like this no more belongs in this country than does a sharia law court, but then again, it is built on landfill. Maybe it's the escaping gasses...

CA- they know whats best for you, wether you want it or not.

Both my husband and I work full-time jobs, and I do, in fact, make a homecooked meal almost every night

I applaud this, but when I grew up I had 3 homecooked meals a day and grew up quite thin and healthy. He's just pointing out an alternative. I don't see how you felt it was "pushed" on you any more than someone on the left saying oil is bad is "forcing" me to walk to work.

But back to the story, was this really unexpected news? 1 chain changes one meal and they expected miracles? Hell there are thousands of existing places to buy healthier foods. It all comes down to bad choices.

Just to play Devil's Advocate on this topic: Who will ultimately pay for the health issues that these children have 10-20 years in the future? Likely all of us tax payers. Why isn't it acceptable to attack the issue in this manner to at least start the conversation of parental responsibility and health living. Unfortunately, parents now a days choose to take the easy and mor econvenient road and their children's future health will suffer for it. I don't want to pay for someone elses 22 yr old who is having organ failures, severe diabetes and morbid obesity issues just because they or their parents couldn't exercise good judgement for them when they were younger.

Before we all begin to decry CA's poor approach, maybe we should look at how the effects of obesity affect us all, to include economically. I was practically raised myself on fast food but fortunately have a metabolism that helped me to avoid any weight effects. Unfortunately, my diet still isn't exactly ideal and I would caution others to not put themselves or their children at risk for the expediency of fast food and it's "Conveniences".

I agree with you completely Andii. Parents aren't responsible anymore. When my son was school age, I was working full time days, went to school nights, and still managed to make sure he had a home cooked meal in between. And GASP!!!..I even paid for his health care. People today expect the government to take care of everything. If they do something stupid, like buy a house they know for sure they can't afford, it's the banks fault, and the government needs to bail them out. Learn to think for yourself, and if you can't manage to raise your kids without the government guiding you every step of the way, don't have them.

Just sell the toy with the Happy Meal for $.01.

Then it is no longer a "free" toy.

If they ban that, sell the toy and give the meal away free with it.

Government may have the power, but the people have the brains. Best thing we can do to fight the ever growing and all consuming Gov't is to think of ways to circumvent them.

oh mr rogers!! i've seen plenty of obese people outside of california. california is a great big state that has a lot more than los angeles in it! i'm sure your little world has fatties and drug users and bad politicians too. it is the ignorant kind that points the finger to hide their own faults and short comings. make an opinion that has some meaning and stop demeaning others.

how about you give them credit for trying to keep parents from ordering poorly. this world is so filled with negative responses instead of trying to see the good in someone's good intentions. i rather surround myself with fat happy people then uptight mean people.

“I have learned silence from the talkative, tolerance from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strangely, I am ungrateful to these teachers”

This will have zero affect...SF is truly the land of nuts

Of course it is ridiculous and perhaps unconstitutional. But, there is a simple way around it. McD's just has to charge one cent less for the meal with an offer of buying a toy for one penny with the purchase of every happy meal. They can call it the "Happy Meal Plus".

One thing though, don't be fooled into thinking this is just loony SF, Obamacare is right behind. Everyone is required to carry health insurance. But, as costs exceed funds available, they will start limiting coverage for people who eat at fast food places, or don't eat just the "approved" foods. Just wait, it will happen unless it can be reversed, which it can be if those elected have the guts to do it.

Parents are responsible and if they had too pay a fat tax not only for themselves but also for their kids I bet things would change. Smokers have been treated like infectous outcasts and pay very high taxes for their habit, do the same too fat people and their kids so the monies can be used to pay for the health care, say $100 per percent of body fat over what's considered healthy by health standards.

This is clearly a case whereby, the government, regardless of the entity is taking away our basic freedoms and are out of control. The people of San Fransisco should recall these stupid supervisors or someone with the money should take their actions to court to overrule their idiotic laws.

We need to take action or we will all loose our freedoms. Government is getting too big and needs to be knocked down by at least 50%. Our forefathers are no doubt turning in their graves.

Hey, I have a colossal idea....

How bout we just DON'T eat at McDonalds and places like McDonalds!

WOW! Now there's an idea!!!!!! The fact that a woman placed an uneaten Happy Meal on her office shelf for one whole year..unwrapped it and all of it looked EXACTLY the same. What does that mean when it is consumed? Uh..yeah..it's a no brainer! Don't eat foods that are full of nitrates and preservatives!

Another thing...why would a parent want to give their child a Happy Meal toy anyway? Aren't they made in China? We all know what that means!

We are so dumbed down in this country it is frightening. Common sense has gone by the way side. UGH!

That little girl in the picture looks so happy to get her little toy! Poor cute little thing, not getting her toy anymore.

I dont think this is a matter of rights, I do agree with the poster about there being a capitalistic solution. Instead of a tax--because who knows where the revenue will go--I favor this being done through insurance companies by their premiums setting policy. Just like if you're a smoker you have higher life insurance rates, i think if you have high cholesterol, hypertension, type 2 diabetes and other 'life-style disease indicators of self abuse, your health unsurance premiums should be surcharged. The surcharge would depend on the disease and the severity and reductions in premiums should accompany improvements. several countries already so this in a way. for instance, in canada both tobacco and alcohol are very expensive, because of increased taxes. that's because alcohol users and smokes cost more.

nikita - I would doubt that you could find any restaurant that could produce food that is germ free enough to dessicate out in the open without getting mold or bacteria. It just proves that McDonald's employees are using excellent food handling proceedures. Don't forget that almost all food related problems occur on uncooked food, such as fruits and vegetables. That's why you should only eat cooked food whe travelling abroad in less developed nations.
If you have a compromised immune system, you could probably not even cook you own food safer than McDonalds does.

Hey what do you expect from a city that votes for Pelosi to stay in Congress. What a bunch of idiots that make up the majority in that city. Since when does a restaurant need to be responsible for what a person buys themselves or their children. Do they hold the stores as responsible?

Before the regulate the Happy Meal they should be regulating what welfare receipients can buy with their benefits. Until recently they could gamble at casinos with their EBT cards and Im sure they can use their benefits to go buy nothing but junk food if they want.

If there was ever a city that does need to fall off in the ocean its San Fran. but only after all the sane people have a chance to leave. No check that if you still live there after all the idiotic policies and laws the City Council has imposed then you really dont need a chance to leave because you have already had plenty.

My kids ate Happy meals and none of them was fat, infact they were thin! They also had snack foods like chips and snack cakes. However, I cooked the majority of their food and I paid attention to what they ate! Until we all take responsibility for our actions, this will continue. If they are so concerned with childrens health, why not have 15 mins of aerobics every morning, (it could be done in the classrooms with no special equipment) or have the children walk laps for 15 minutes, that would help each child more than this law.

how about getting them out of the front of the tv and off the video games and get them outside to play and sweat a little, or is that child abuse now?

For a typical, sedentary 4-5 year-old that's about half of the average 1,200 daily calories

There's the problem. 4-5 year olds shouldn't be sedentary. With my kids, when they were just sitting around, I'd tell them to go outside and ride their bikes or run around. I do try to cook healthy meals as much as possible, but we do indulge in the occasional pizza or mcdonalds. So what? Neither one of my kids are obese.

Get them off the nintendo or playstation and out from in front of the TV.

Gov't in our homes one more time... next if you have child you will not be allowed to buy chips at the super market alarms will go off!!!!

Rock on, Nikita!!!!!

definition: "hippy"; adjective, slang. Any activity that makes you feel good but doesnt actually do any good.

;)

"Before they regulate the Happy Meal they should be regulating what welfare receipients can buy with their benefits."

I really like this, Michael!

This will do absolutely nothing to combat the epidemic of fat, lazy children, who are, unfortunately, an extension of their fat, lazy parents! It is just a "feel-good" measure by San Francisco, so that they can pat themselves on the back and say "See, we did something."

I have 5 kids, none of them fat. We have video game systems, a computer, a TV, and all are used sparingly. Instead, we go outside-we walk our dogs, the kids ride bikes, skateboards, play on ball teams, on the play structure in the backyard. We save the electronics for when the weather is truly too nasty to be out in it comfortably. Like it used to be! And fast food is a once every month or two TREAT for us. It's not a staple in our diet, nor was it ever meant to be.

The problem is lazy, self-indulgent parents that don't actually want to take care of the family they have. It's much easier to stop at that drive-thru than it is to go home and prepare a meal. They don't give any thought to what the food is doing to themselves, let alone to their kids.

"The problem is lazy, self-indulgent parents that don't actually want to take care of the family they have......................"

What Paula said!

I'm impressed with all the smart people posting here today!

take responsibility for yourself and your family!!!!!! Are you INSANE!!!!! why on earth would someone want to be responsible for themselves when that is what massive government is for…haven’t you been listening to the progressives at all!!!!!! they will be more than happy to tell us what we are allowed to smoke and eat and how much money we are allowed to make before we become greedy evil demons who must be forced to share our "wealth" with others....i am sure they will be glad to tell us what to wear and how to wear our hair as well and they most definitely want to tell us what we are allowed to say to make sure we never offend anyone

yes chris we should outlaw fast food for "the good of society" and while we are at it we must outlaw soft drinks, chips, sweets and any other food that "they" deem are not healthy for us...we must never be allowed to eat, smoke or drink anything that might endanger our health and cause us to be a tax budren on society. we must become as one for "the good of society" and become a facist society with our "singular collective identity"

"Smokers have been treated like infectous outcasts and pay very high taxes for their habit, do the same too fat people and their kids so the monies can be used to pay for the health care, say $100 per percent of body fat over what's considered healthy by health standards.

lol yeah right tax the evil demon fatties according to the health standards set by our angelic benevolent government that just wants whats "good for society"…the loss of our individual liberties is a small price to pay for an utopian society don’t you think…group think is the only way to live

I don't necessarily agree with the rationales posted here, but there is precious little data inplicating "happy meals" in childhood obesity, so the raison d'etre for the regulation is specious. this regulation is also unconstitutional as it violates your right to free speech.

Considering the number of politicians who are overweight (not to mention the CEOs and other "special interest" backers), such a tax would never see the light of day, Patriot.

McDonalds should close every restaurant they have in San Francisco and tell that city of nut cases to piss off. It's like they are on another planet.

Richard - I hope you see this all the way down here! A MAN AFTER MY OWN HEART. I'm sure I will take a beating for this, but it's my opinion, and if people think about it, it makes perfect sense, and you can try to dispute it all you want, but it is very clear that over the last 50 years or so, children have become more and more self indulged, more disrepectful, crime is higher, etc. EVER SINCE MOM STARTED WORKING OUTSIDE THE HOME! Now I'm not saying it has to be the woman who stays home and takes care of the home and family, but SOMEONE needs to do it! Taking care of a home and family IS a full time job, harder and more important than any other job there is! WITHOUT EXCEPTION!! Here is what is done most of the time, we give birth, six weeks later we dump the baby in daycare where someone who is not family and that baby is raised by that person - not their parents. Kids spend more time with daycare providers and at school than with their own parents. What does that say to a child about how important they are? Statistics show that having both parents work is barely a financial gain, and can even be a financial loss in some situations! Fact is, we have two generations of spoiled "me me me" people who think it is more important to have a nice house and a late model car than it is to raise their own children. What children learn from this is that "things" are more important than they are, and they in turn grow up to treat their children the same way. There are some people who do need two incomes to live and are blessed enough to have family members or friends who help out with child care. But the bottom line is, if you are paying for child care, it isn't worth it to work!

That being said, it is my opinion that the childhood obesity problem is a combination of several things, the first and foremost is the lack of activity in kids these days. The other problem is some kids are being labeled obese when they aren't, and this is due to the ridiculous notion that BMI is a true indicator of obesity. I have a grandson who is labeled obese. He just turned 3, weighs 53 pounds and is 44 inches tall. He is a solid brick wall, just like his great grandfather is, just like his aunt (my daughter - who in high school was labeled obese and had 9% body fat) is, and just like I am. He could lift a full gallon of juice off the kitchen counter when he was 2 (he is very strong). And when he takes off his shirt, his ribs stick out. And he is labeled obese. As for SF not allowing places to give out toys with their food unless it is nutritional, it is laughable.

This reminds me of the commercial that was airing regarding politics...where a lady, who's not obese but I also wouldnt call her "fit/thin" was grocery shopping, putting sugary stuff in her cart and complaining about the "sin tax" on junk food and demanding "government stay out of our lives, we can make our own decisions".

But I hate to break it to America...we clearly cant, and its apparent lots of super fat people dont see anything "wrong" with their excess weight...or heck, even have a clue that what the consume has an affect on people beyond them.

Personal Example: I recently had a tumor removed from my breast. I noticed pain, went in to the see the dr, they sent me for a mammogram/ultrasound and they found the tumor. It was small, comparitively, but without doing a biopsy, they couldnt know if it was benign or cancer. I had 2 options: a core biopsy or an incisional biopsy. The difference being, in one they would take a machine while im still awake and "chomp" bits out of my tumor and test it...leaving what remained in me. Option to, put me under and remove the whole thing THEN test it.

I opted for #2 - I didnt want to have to go through another proceedure to remove it if it was cancer, since it was so small I thought - lets just get it all the first time. If it wasnt cancer, I didnt want it growing in size.

Turned out to be benign, thankfully, and they swear to me "it wouldnt have been a problem to leave it in" but we all know science is short on real, honest answers. I didnt want to risk it.

It turns out, my diet is to blame - excess caffeine (hey all you coffee drinkers wagging a finger at the fatties) and to a lesser extent, cheese, spices, ect.

I've since cut out it all out - but meanwhile, im paying a $1400 bill after what my insurance decided not to pay. I feel awful that my diet even played a role like this...yet, I wonder if other people ever feel the same way. Do people who ate themselves fat and into diabetes CARE about the burden they are?

The only solution I really see to fixing our health problems, is if we pay for things out of our pocket. And ya know, it would have been nice to know ahead of time what the costs would have been regarding my proceedure and what the insurance company was going to pay...I dont think I would have decided differently, but simply being informed is half the battle.

I can tell you, $1400 later...im not taking the risk that my diet really was the sole reason that I had this issue...and rolling the dice and thinking "what do they know, I love my coca cola!"

When I was in my 30's and pregnant I ate like a pig - of course I weighed all of 98 lbs when I got pregnant. But it totally used to make me sick going to McD's and watching parents of babies who couldn't sit up by themselves shoving fries and soda's down their throats.

All of the times I've ever taken my daughter to fast food restaurants, she's always ordered either milk or water. Now, at the age of almost 13, she literally hates soda and won't drink any of it, and she's tried many kinds. Granted, just like most kids she does love her sweets, but she's also not sedentary, in taekwondo 5 days a week and skinny. It wasn't until she turned 10 that she decided she liked the chicken mcnuggets, which she orders with water. As a younger kid, we never went to fast food places because she wouldn't eat anything. That's because I didn't let her eat that crap at such a young age.

Most of these problems are the parents thinking it's okay for an 11 month old to drink coke and eat fries. Sad.

Jessica - I'm glad everything turned out ok, but I don't believe them when they say "this causes tumors, cancer, etc." because they have no idea. If they knew how to prevent/cure this stuff THEN I'd believe they know what causes it. Pretty much all of America has a caffeine problem so I think a lot more would be affected by these tumors (I know a lot of us are, but I think the numbers would be much higher). If you're ok with your new diet, then go for it! But I don't think it would hurt to have a Coke once in a while, ya know? I'm just saying this because I don't believe Science 100% of the time, it usually gets counter-proven or retracted or something when it comes to diet and cancer these days. They freak out, warn everyone, then change their minds.

Hopefully no more tumors though! Yay!

Imasure - Yeah, way too many small children are being allowed to drink loads of pop - it's messed up!

But I hate to break it to America...we clearly cant, and its apparent lots of super fat people dont see anything "wrong" with their excess weight...or heck, even have a clue that what the consume has an affect on people beyond them.

Jessica, it is nobody's business whether a person wants to stay fat or not. And most certainly not the government's business. I'm not even sure where you get off thinking it is! No one pays for someone being overweight other than the overweight person. I guess the government better start banning a$$holes too because it certainly affects other people when someone acts like one! Until you have had a weight problem and dealt with the issues surrounding it, it would be best to keep your mouth shut about it! Let me guess, you think it is ok to be gay and not ok to be overweight...the difference? One of those "conditions" is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain in most cases - and it isn't the homosexuality. The one drug they came up with that actually helped this condition (phen/fen) was removed from the market because it caused heart problems in some people. Here is the brilliance of that move - doesn't being overweight generally cause heart problems too? Let's see - overweight and have heart problems or healthy weight and have heart problems. That would be a no-brainer, wouldn't it? But I digress. For adults, being overweight is their own issue and absolutely not the business of anyone else!!

To Richard, we have PLENTY of stay at home parents. They're all on welfare being solely supported by our taxdollars. And their children are the naughiest, most disrespectful, unruly brats. Even though mom or dad is "at home", doesn't mean they are parenting. Infact, I would surmise that welfare recipients' children have the highest rate of childhood obesity. I, too, think what they can buy on their food share card should not include junkfood, soda, porterhouse steaks, lobster, etc. Purchase healthy affordable foods like the rest of us working stiffs who are on a budget. I can't afford steak and lobster, for christ's sake, but a lifetime system drainer gets to buy it with our tax money?! Insane.

" Before they regulate the Happy Meal they should be regulating what welfare receipients can buy with their benefits."

They do regulate what you can or can not buy,

You can't buy-

toliet paper,

toothpaste,

soap,

or any other non-food items.

But, you can buy-

soda,

chips,

steak,

pastery,

Does anyone see the problem here?

The Frisco Fruits need to straighten out the major causes of fat a$$ kid syndrome, otherwise known as "WELFARE!" before they start mandating tax paying corporations to walk their line. If I were Micky D's, I would close every store within Fruitville's domaine and open new ones across the county line!

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nutrition/Fast-food-consumption-increases-obesity-risk

It is simple. Unhealthy food should be bought at it's true cost. Since, it costs us a lot of money to treat obese patients vs non-obese patients, the food needs to taxed as a sin, just like alcohol and tobacco.

werinasadstate

I was agreeing with you until your unresearched, biased, misinformed statement:

Let me guess, you think it is ok to be gay and not ok to be overweight...the difference? One of those "conditions" is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain in most cases - and it isn't the homosexuality.

Overweight people (and yes I am overweight) are in most cases because of poor choices in diet. Some is hereditary, yes. I hope you aren't one of those people that insist homosexuality is a "choice" and not a "way you were born." I just bring this up because it was unnecessary to bring up homosexuality in the first place. These are two different things.

Also, Reason and Logic - how the hell is an obese person's healthcare costing YOU anything? People keep bitching about cost - unless you are paying for MY health insurance, it doesn't affect you. I am slightly overweight but am active so I stay healthy, but all of you people keep making accusations about cost for overweight people. It makes no sense. You know who's costing you? Unworking people on Welfare that REFUSE to work (but can) and contribute to society. Bitch about them.

werinasadstate women working is not the problem; lazy parents are. Too many children are neglected by their parents. The parents claim to be too tired from working to raise their children properly; they don't teach them how to eat healthy, how to go out and play and most do not teach manners anymore. The result is lazy, overindulged and rude children.

PGH - I am aware than in almost all cases (there are rare thyroid problems) weight problems are caused by overeating and poor choices. But what do you think makes one person be able to stop eating when their body has had enough, and another not able to? It has been found that the vast majority of significantly overweight people do not produce the neurotransmitter serotonin as they should. Here is a link to just one of THOUSANDS of things I found on the internet (so much for your allegation that my statement was "unresearched, biased, misinformed"):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8300977

And the reason I brought homosexuality up is because a lot of these people who are bashing overweight people, will turn around and support homosexuals saying they are "born that way". Well overweight people are born that way too, so how can they bash one and not the other - both are "lifestyle choices" - if you bash one, you have to bash the other, if you support one, you have to support the other - otherwise you are a big fat (no pun intended) HYPOCRITE.

Fat people are not "born fat". they are raised fat, because they live with fat people and follow the same bad eating and lifestyle habits of their fat parents.

Sure there are some people that have certain medical conditions that cause weight gain or make it very difficult to lose weight, but the great majority of fat people are fat because of individual life choices.

McDonalds is not to blame for fat people... Take responsibility for your own lives, people. If you don't want to be fat, don't drink 2 liters of soda every day, don't have two big macs, fries and a large drink for lunch. Get off your as$ and do something besides watching "Biggest Loser" and hoping that one day you'll be fat enough to get on the show so you can get some help...

don't - first paragraph, simply untrue. If you haven't lived it, you don't know.

Hey, if you don't like the truth, too bad. Even back during the industrial revolution when women went to work outside the home, at the end of the day, there was a home made meal. People didn't go out to eat every day at McDonalds or Burger King. A home cooked meal, and a parent who is home to help raise the child, is a great way to give the child the best chance at being healthy.

Also, notice I said a parent home, is how to get it done. I even said in my first post that it didn't matter which one. Like i said, it doesn't matter if it is the male or female figure staying home to help keep the structure of the family in tip top shape. The fact is, having the luxury of a person being home to keep the family in tip top shape is what is best. Unfortunately in the society we live in, that isn't always possible.

If society were back to single income family as a norm, that would help dramatically in reducing the waistline of Americans. Another way to do it is to make eating out cost so much, people can't afford to do it much anymore. Or we could regulate it like governments love to do, and make the food so bland, nobody will want to eat it. I bet we would all be skinny if we could only get Taco Bell like in the movie Demolition Man. "Salt has been deemed bad for you, and is therefore illegal."

We as a family group need to change to cut down on our weight. It isn't the government or businesses who are to blame. They are not the solution. If they were, we wouldn't have the problem in the first place. Last I recall, I force the food down my throat, and when I was young, my mom was who decided what I ate.

Again, AMEN Richard! It isn't about waistline either - it's about love and being there for your children and not letting strangers raise them!

Richard and werinasadstate: Explain how a single mother like myself is expected to get that done. How would I raise my child if I didn't have money to buy food to put on the table?

Explain the parent I was before my divorce: Not only did I give birth by C-section, but my ex-husband still expected em to do EVERYTHING, right down to "wifely bedroom duties". He even BEAT me when I didn't, wouldn't or couldn't lift a 20 pound laundry basket because my stitches had split open or bend over to move the couch to vacuum underneath it. No sleep, no money and no help. How could I take care of a child in that circumstance?

Explain how my single parent friend is supposed to work, go to school and put food in his son's belly if he is SUPPOSED to stay at home and raise his kid because the kid's mother is in jail for being a crack addict?

Don't bring up grandparents and other relatives because my parents are hardly in a position to take care of my active toddler-- they're both disabled and I have no relatives within 100 miles of where I live. My single parent friend's parents and relatives are either dead or in jail or in the service.

Don't bring up friends because that just defeats the purpose of your argument-- a friend is not a parent.

I work, I go to school, and I have an hour long commute. I'm gone for 12 hours of the day. And yet I still manage to have a healthy, good meal for him. I LOVE crockpots.

My parents were in school AND the Navy. When they both had to go TAD or TDY for two weeks, while we were in Japan, we were left in the care of a neighbor. We're still fine.

laura - a single mother can't do it unless they were fortunate enough to be married to a man who was rich and cares enough about his children to supply enough child support so the mom can stay home with the chlildren at least until they are in school. I was a single mother, so I know that. I did not work when I was married. I even believe there a few 2-parent families where both parents have to work to make ends meet. But the majority do not need to (in my opinion). Of course it is their choice and I can't tell anyone what to do, but it is my belief that the demise of this country started when both parents started working. And I also know that being a single parent is something most of us do not plan, but for people who are married, it is beyond my comprehension why anyone would have a child or children if they are going to ship them off to someone else to raise. I just don't get it. But that's just me.

As for your circumstance, I can only guess you are working so hard now so that you can provide a better furture for your child/children. My daughter was in a violent situation, her husband almost killed their 3 week old son and she had to fight hard and quit a good job so that she could stay home and take care of her now special needs baby who can't go to daycare. And I support all three of them (my daughter and grandsons). I don't know what she would have done if she didn't have me, so I know there are harsh circumstances out there and there are people who have children and have to put them into daycare so they can work. Kudos to you for moving forward in life and working hard to make good future for you and your family!

Exactly.

Therefore, your arguments that one parent should stay home are automatically invalid.

I'm not seeking to get married anytime soon-- I am NOT going to go back into the market until I can prove to potential partners that I am NOT a gold digger and I can take care of myself. I don't need a man to take care of my and a man does not need a woman to take care of him. It would be cruelly irresponsible of me if I entered into a relationship and could not take care of myself if, gods forbid, something happened to my partner.

(for the record, my ex-husband had a child he fathered on a woman that I did not find out about til after we were married. The woman was stupid enough to let him take the child away from her [she didn't know the legal system] and sent the kid off to another country. He had NO intentions of raising either child he fathered, so even if he HAD decided against the divorce, I'd still be a single parent in all but actuality)

No laura, they are not automatically invalid, they are as valid as they come.

They are because you just rendered them invalid.

There are more single mothers today than there were in your time or even 110, 15 years ago. We don't have a choice. We CAN'T stay home and watch our kids or we'll either a) watch them starve and possibly be taken from us or b) end up as welfare leeches (of which I know FAR too many).

I can still cook a healthy meal and I'm proud to be able to do so-- not because I rely on government handouts, but because I earn my bread. I work, I buy food and I contribute to my child's upbringing. Go ahead and tell me I'm a bad parent because I refuse to enter in a relationship where I'm not a breadwinning equal. Go right ahead.

Did you know that when the Taliban and Al Qaeda took over Afghanistan, they removed womens' roles outside of the home? All the doctors, professors, teachers and business owners were relegated to "furniture" status. When the wives of the Mujahideen* lost their husbands and brothers and the Taliban took over, they had to GIVE UP their children because they were not permitted to work outside the home. They couldn't even become prostitutes to feed their children.

[*for those that don't know, the Mujahideen fought off Soviet invasion in the late 70s and early 80s. After the Soviets admitted defeat and left, the Mujahideen broke down into numerous quarreling clans. They turned against each other and the Taliban eventually won. They started taking over Afghanistan in the mid 90s and instituted Shari'a- the law that requires a woman to be living, breathing furniture.]

They are not invalid Laura. My argument was that when there are two parents and they are both working for luxuries or to just have a career, that is wrong and one of them should be staying home with the children. How is that argument now invalid?

Because you were a single parent. Obviously you know how difficult it is to find a responsible man (or woman, since there are other cases) to help you fulfill your need to stay home and care for your children while he works.

Good on you that you decide to do that, but don't force your choice on me or the other single parents who don't have the choice/luxury of a mate. It was your choice to stay at home and womens' lib is all about choice, but I don't have that luxury. I either go to work or my child starves.

And don't blame the children eating McD's on the government-- that's ALL the parents fault for not watching their children. I've enforced on my son's caregivers to NOT take him to McD's to feed him and to feed him healthy meals.

Laura, what part of "when there are two parents" don't you get? Are you just skimming over the post or what? Your response tells me you didn't even read it.

It's ridiculous... the happy meals have less calories by far than the crap these parents are feeding the kids at home and even worse at restaurants where they often feed them adult sized portions.

Also, usually they are from obese parents where the family sits around all day watching tv or playing video games.

Of course I don't let me kids eat McDonalds not because of calories, but because any "food" that will not decay for 6 months is not really food IMO.

I don't really agree with the new law, but feel compelled to point out that no one is taking away their right to eat what they want. They just can't market unhealthy food directly to kids. So they can still get a fatty ol' Happy Meal, just without the toy.

mjb08: "Why should they be forbidden to eat what they want to eat? Who has the right to take away their mother's rights?"

Why? Because children are not capable of making healthy choices all the time. Who does not want their children to eat healthy food? We don't let mothers drive children without a carseat for safety reasons; why should we let stupid mothers feed their children unhealthy food? We all have the right to protect children; from themselves or from their families.

Exactly - nothing is stopping them from actually eating McDonalds. They are taking away a companies freedom to market something. They never claimed that "This meal with a toy is healthy for you" they just said "Here buy this meal (that actually has smaller portions than regular menu items) and get a toy."

I don't support children eating fast food (especially when it is constant) and I do enjoy a McDonalds meal occasionally, but I don't think McDonalds should be ruled by our government to do this crap. How about going after the Capri sun drinks that claim to be good for your child but has a sh!tload of sugar in it? Or mascara's that have models with 3 sets of fake eylashes on - how about the false advertisers? They do more damage than a restuarant providing a toy. Burger King does it, why aren't they being hassled? Not their fault that parents choose to feed their children happy meals routinely.

My kids school is starting up some new programs that I really like. Their classes are "racing across the country" and get "miles" for exercise and making healthy choices. I think we need to educate the children themselves and motivate them to be happy and active. My kids are VERY active, but I work out regularly and share time with them where we walk or bike ride. My husband spends at least 30 minutes a day playing ball with our kids. Being active is important, not just food choices. I think it's important to empower children. If we can teach them about sex ed in the 5th grade, why shouldn't we teach them how to be healthy????????????

Gee! When my husband & I were growing up, meals at home were all there was. We grew up normal (hubby was a bit skinny until adulthood & I was average) & joke about how we could not get enough sugar & LOVED Halloween, Easter, Christmas. The ONLY time one didn't go outside to play was when it was pouring rain or we were sick. We had recess 2X's/day. PE all the way through high school. We rode our bikes everywhere or walked.

Our kids for some reason didn't crave the sugar like we did. My personal belief is that by then, so many processed foods had high fructose corn syrup added to everything. Luckily, they were & still are normal in wt., but I remember a lot of "freebies" from the fast-food places we had to have. I made them "rewards" for good grades, cleaning their rooms, etc. And I remember throwing their candy away after Halloween & for Easter, I started putting Hot Wheels in their baskets as they liked them much more than candy. Go Figure!

But I DO remember a cousin feeding her one & only-son-literally- almost nothing but fast food. When they came to visit, he loved trying "new" things we ate. Things like Hamburger Helper, chicken breasts grilled, roasts with carots, onions & potatoes, etc. Today he's obese & it's a direct result of his mother's indifference; the back of her car was filled with junk food wrappers.

I DO have to confess that I'm a junkie for the new Wendy's chicken, blue cheese, walnuts, cranberries, lettuce, etc. with Pomagranite Dressing. It's the best "fast food" I've ever eaten.

You should read the ingredients in the Hambuger Helper. Check out the sodium content. You will be shocked and probably won't buy it ever again!

!!!

Yeah, the Hamburger Helper was not a good example. Perhaps she was making homemade stroganoff and just calling it "hamburger helper." Because it would be silly to brag that you make your kids boxed food with powdered cheese, instead of fast food!

So you can build a mosque at ground zero in NY, but you cannot give away a free toy to kids in SanFransicko.

Ain't Gov't grand?

If they could just control everything, what a paradise it would be!

Hey Mr Rogers

Are banana chips and raisins "food"? Just wondering since I found both of them buried in the bottom of a backpack I haven't used for SIX YEARS and neither showed any signs of rot/decay. You do realize salted beef jerky and hard tack (biscuits) were staple foods on sailing ships for hundreds of years and easily lasted without rotting the 3-6 months between provisioning on a voyage? Decay varies based on conditions, primarily temperature and moisture. After being cooked, most McDonald's food is well on its way toward mummification after being so dehydrated...just like raisins and banana chips. Since I make my own jerky, I can also assure you that I could take your rarest, finest cut of filet mignon and turn it into a product which could last on a bookshelf for 9-12 months without even trying hard. So decay (or lack thereof) does not determine what is or is not "food".

I agree. Even a plain piece of organic bread, left out on a countertop, will not mold. It'll just dry out. Seal your uneaten Happy Meal in a plastic container and I suspect you will see an obvious degree of degradation.

mcdonald's foods are are some of the safest and purest foods available on this planet. (the meat is 100% ground beef, from cattle raised to stricter standards than ANY OTHER BEEF IN THE WORLD. the buns are baked by local bakeries, usually the same as all the local school districts, restaurants, and nursing homes. I believe the ketchup is heinz, the pickles are Nalley, the mustard french's, and the onion is a dehydrated onion. NO OTHER FOOD ON THIS PLANET HAS BEEN SAFETY TESTED MORE OFTEN.) the most healthy food available? of course not, but as nutritional as any other hamburger you can buy or make. full of preservatives? well, there are probably some in the condiments, but as for the burger or bun, NONE. a small sprinkle of salt and pepper go on them as they cook, and that's IT. I've cooked them myself, and I've seen them made in the factory. I've been out of the company for a decade, and wish every day that I could get that high a quality product from ANY source.

I am so sick of people talking about that damn year old happy meal. exactly what does it's rate of decay have to do with anything? so some twit left a happy meal somewhere where it wasn't moist enough to mold. big deal.

No one is forbidding them from eating what they want, they SF council is trying to make McDonalds offer healthier choices...let's face it, there are more bad options than good, and that includes school menus...parents have to push against advertising, peer pressure, and the fact that cheaper food is often less healthy...compare prices on a 2 liter bottle of soda to a half gallon of orange juice...the soda is about half the price... I have 2 kids ( 12 and 14) and we just limited the number of times we went eat at fast food places, and until they started offering milk and fruit as options, there literally no healthy choices for kids...besides those toys are more of a nuisance than they are worth...

Its not forbidden.. just no toy... So buy a meal they want and purchase the toy... McDonalds is going to make tons of money... and the gov't will send "Joe" consumer deeper into debt

It's important to note that the law effectively states that "it was the gun that shot the person, not the person shooting the gun." The Happy Meal toy is a marketing ploy to differentiate McDonald's from Wendy's, Burger King, and any other fast food chain that offers kid-sized meals. The child doesn't learn that a Happy Meal contains a toy until their parents makes the decision to feed it to them. In my experience, this is a fairly young age where the child ingests whole foods just fine or in small pieces - not at an age when they are cognizant of what is going on in the commercials. So, this is first a learned behavior. I don't know many parents (at least none have expressed this) that the reason they take their children to McDonald's is because the parent wanted to supply their children with cheap toys.

Instead, and this is one of the root causes of the situation, the parent is capitalizing on convenience and cost when choosing McDonald's or any other fast food chain. Over-scheduled and over-burdened parents are looking for the fastest and cheapest solution to grumbling bellies, and instead of taking responsibility for the health and well-being of their family, are letting local government pass "warm-fuzzies" into law that do nothing to solve the actual problem: kids are getting fat because their parents are not taking accountability for the decisions they make as parents for their children. If you are a parent and your kid is overweight (barring any medical disabilities), you enabled and failed to moderate the diet.

No one believes that parenting is easy or that there is one golden solution. However, if parents took a moment to be a little more introspective and examine their parenting methods, they'd probably see where they could make positive changes in the family lifestyle.

Negative reinforcement (taking the toy away) is not a productive way to change minds, hearts, or bodies.

Giving your grandkids junk food is unconscionable. I work for child protective services, and I would put those kids in foster care if you were under my jurisdiction! Where are the parents of these kids?! Probably turning tricks on the corner and mainlining heroin!

Ben you are out of line. Completely. I hope you are being sarcastic.

They're permitted to eat what they want. They're just not further rewarded with a toy for choosing unhealthy garbage.

@Lee-453088: McDonald's is NOT being singled out. The lay applies to any company that wants to distribute toys with meals that have excessive calories, excessive fat, excessive sugar in drinks, and/or do not include fruits or vegetables. "Happy Meal" is just shorthand.

@reavolution: You say: "The child doesn't learn that a Happy Meal contains a toy until their parents makes the decision to feed it to them." INCORRECT. The kids learn it contains a toy when they see the commercials.

They just can't market unhealthy food directly to kids

I don't know too many adults that eat Happy Meals with or without the toy.

So the local government is going to step in and stop McDonalds from ourselves. Maybe McD's can just say, 'No toy with the meal, but if you buy the meal you can ask for a toy and we'll supply it free.'

That's because Happy Meals are not adult-sized portions, why would an adult eat one?

Occasionally, I'll have one for a light meal or a snack, plus I get a toy to bring home to my daughter... But we don't eat at McDonald's all that often.

BTW, I'm 6'3" 200#, my wife is 5'6" 115#, and my little girl is 2 and weighs about 30#, so no, were not a big fat family, We both work 9-5, but we try to cook at home at least 3-4 nights/wk, but we eat fast food when we feel like it. (Really, how hard is it to take 30 minutes and cook up something good at home?)

Don't: Crock pots are my best friends. Healthy venison stew, pot roast, veggie stew, pork barbecue, oh man, I LOVE my crock pot.

Point to this: since I have a crock pot, I can make 5-6 healthy meals a week-- that 7th day is the day I decide to be lazy and serve leftovers :>

Ok then.

LOL!

Something about Red Baron pizza making me sleepy and unconscious after a busy day I think...

While elequent Armando, put more simply:

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

C S Lewis - Classic!

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

......and apparently little plastic Transformer toys.

Richard, you have to be out of your mind if you think that having a stay at home mother is the real way. I'm a full-time mother who works 40 hours a week at minimum with an hour long commute each way. Yet somehow I manage to make my kids home-cooked healthy meals almost every night. And on the rare occassion we do go out to eat, my husband and I choose a healthy alternative. People ask how I do it. I tell them I just do what needs to be done. It's hard, but certainly doable, and worth the effort.

Being a stay at home mother may make it easier to provide a home-cooked meal, but it doesn't guarantee it. I know plenty of stay at home mothers who don't cook and eat unhealthy fast food every day with their kids. I also know several families who may not eat home-cooked meals (for one reason or another) but compensate by making sure they eat out healthy. Others make home-cooked meals, but everything is deep fried.

The working mother is not the problem. Ignorance and/or laziness is the problem. In fact, most problems stem from these. So please don't judge me. You know nothing about me or my lifestyle.

I admire you, cookingMama. I'm a single mother who works AND goes to school and I still manage to get my two year old healthy meals. And we probably have the same commuting time. High five for women working <3

I find this double standard annoying. If the women work, surely the men can cook healthy meals for their children, can't they? My boyfriend cooks VERY healthy meals for my son when I have to be at school in the evening. My son eats it. All of it. And demands seconds. I am VERY grateful to my boyfriend for not feeding my son crap. When my mother had duty, my father would pull out the chicken and grill it and we'd boil some potatoes and we had a healthy, if not small meal. When my parents were at school, I, at 12 years old (under the neighbor's supervision) was cooking decently healthy meals for my younger siblings. Anyone can learn to cook proper meals, you just have to get off your lazy butt and learn.

sadly Barb, the parents are eating at Mcdonalds too. Most people have NO idea of the calories or fat grams in a fast food or restaurant provided meal - and if asked, they woefully underestimate the calorie count. I'm glad to see more restaurants (including McDonalds) posting calorie info online and instore -- but they didn't start providing that information to the consumers until some govt. agency (city or federal) forced them to. Otherwise, they want us in the dark (and that applies to all restaurants frankly). Either way - consumers owe it to their health, and that of their children, to research these things and then VOTE WITH THEIR DOLLARS by not patronizing these restaurants, or limiting their expenditures there. But judging by the number of overweight Americans (estimates are 2/3 of americans are overweight or obese), folks just either don't get it, or don't care. Supersize me!

"Most people have NO idea of the calories or fat grams in a fast food or restaurant provided meal"

Cite?

Barb, while I don't necessarily disagree with you, you are assuming that parents are making good decisions as well.

Tell me this: does the toy make the brat fatter? Now, the poor shlemazl sitting next to them has to endure Pugsly's whining as a chugs down his engineered lunch with no toy.

well, off the top of your head (no cheating like I did and looking these up online), tell us how many calories are in the following:

McDonalds Big Breakfast with hotcakes (pancakes)

Olive Garden Grilled chicken Caesar Salad

Olive Garden Chicken and Shrimp Carbonara

Zio's Italian Nachos appetizer

Zio's Strawberry Field Salad

Zio's Bowl of Tomato Florentine Soup

Applebees Riblets Platter

applebee's Chicken Parmesan

Give me your best guess, and i'll reply with the answers :)

Most people have NO idea of the calories or fat grams in a fast food or restaurant provided meal - and if asked, they woefully underestimate the calorie count.

Bah, this wreaks of activist groups doing stupid things like forcing cigarette companies to relabel because they have this weird assumption that smokers don't understand what "light" means. That's like a non drinker telling wine companies to relabel because the conoisseurs don't understand it's alcohol with pictures of grapes on the bottle.

Fact is (for you people who think there are actually people who think McDonalds is healthy), some people have a really high metabolism and can eat fatty foods without gaining weight. Everyone KNOWS it's bad for you and your metabolic numbers. Some people have the capability to maintain a balance and some people just don't care.

If we're going to start telling people they can't eat some foods or smoke because it MIGHT kill you in a few years, where does it stop? Hikers MIGHT fall off a hill or get bit by a snake. Mountain climbers, sky divers, etc have a MUCH higher likelihood of dying that someone who eats one burger a week and has a cigarette after each meal. Joggers might get run over by a carrot or water truck.

Moonlighting, I don't eat at any of those places so I can't even begin to guess. However, it doesn't matter how many calories are in a meal, what matters is how many you burn. You should look up how many calories people like Lance Armstrong intake per day. Calories are good for you. It's the bad carbs, etc people should be more aware of.

I resent the Government telling me what I or my family can eat. Most kids are over weight because their parents fail to make good choices when it come to nutrition. Those parents should be charged with child abuse or at the very least be forced to taken Parenting Training. Eating fast food sparingly is not going to make anyone obese. Exercise along with Nutrition will make for healthy kids which in turn makes healthy adults. Lazy stupid parents make obese kids.

My guess for the caloric values of all those items: a lot. Ergo, if I choose to visit any of those restaurants, it would be prudent to not make a habit of it.

Still, though, I was under the impression that pretty much everybody at this point knows that McDonald's doesn't serve anyone's definition of "health food". What I was asking for when I wrote "Cite?", was an actual study that outright said that that is not the case.

Some of you people are missing the point. I could care less about the happy meal issue, besides I don't eat at M'Ds.

The point is, your freedoms are being taken away from you by some idiotic self rightious nuts. If we don't control these government entities now, there is not telling what kind of stupid laws they will pass in the future that will limit your freedoms.

your freedom is not taken away because you don't get a toy silly boy! i don't walk into a store and say my freedom has been taken from me because they don't sell my favorite food, i go find it somewhere else because i have the FREEDOM to do so. you people are so passionate about such a small city banning a toy to lure children in. take that passion and use it to improve your own problems and faults. point the finger at yourself and ask what it is you can do to change your bad habits!

I very much doubt that the majority of parents load all the kids in the car and drive to McDonald's for dinner. When they're home, they probably make something at home. But when you're out with the family on a week-end and lunchtime approaches, it'd be pretty time consuming to drive home and cook a meal. That's why people eat fast food. I just don't believe that people would eat there daily... boring!

Besides, you can order a chicken salad for the adults, and apples and milk/juice with the kids' meals. Not the epitome of health, but it's an acceptable on-the-go meal, I think. Better than the Ramen noodles I had for lunch every school day for 13 years!!

However, it doesn't matter how many calories are in a meal, what matters is how many you burn. You should look up how many calories people like Lance Armstrong intake per day. Calories are good for you. It's the bad carbs, etc people should be more aware of.

Allen- i'd have to respectfully disagree with "it doesn't matter how many calories are in a meal, what matters is how many you burn". Lance Armstrong probably eats 3,000+ calories a day - he probably does cardio and weight training for 3-4 hours a day -- you know anyone besides world class athletes who trains like that? Like that biggest loser show - sure they lose 20 pounds in a week -- they spend ALL DAY exercising. And instead of eating the 3,000 calories of junk food/carbs/fats a day that made them obese, they're now eating whole foods and likely down to 1,500 calories a day. hence, big weight loss. Diet and exercise are both important for weight loss, but monitoring calorie intake (and Carbs/white flour/sugar) will have more impact (positive) on your weight for normal, non-athlete folks.

Armando - sorry, misunderstood your 'cite?' question - thought you were asking for some study showing that Americans grossly underestimate the calories in fast food and other restaurant meals. I don't think McDonalds (or any fast food is 'healthy' -- BUT it can be healthy if you choose their salads (skip the dressing), grilled chicken sandwich, or the apple slices -- and kudos to McDonalds for having some healthy options on their menu

I can't wait until California goes bankrupt. Imagine their faces when we tell them that we won't be bailing them out.

"ryan in texas" what a thoughtless comment. that had neither intelligence or merit in any discussion. perhaps you should look at your own shortcomings and fix those rather than wait for others to fail.

“Your living is determined not so much by what life brings to you as by the attitude you bring to life; not so much by what happens to you as by the way your mind looks at what happens.”

yeah Moonlighting people are fat, stupid and lazy and need the govenment to take control of their lives

Sickandtired, where did I say I was defending this SF law?? I'd say many people are fat, stupid, and lazy - but you can't legislate that away with government programs. Consumers demanding some healthy options at fast food places like McDonalds drove these restaurants to offer things like salads, apple slices, low-fat yogurt, etc... And when consumers VOTE with their money by purchasing healthier options, the restaurant offers more of them, simple business economics. Likewise, consumers demanding to know the calorie count of restaurant meals, and restaurant chains responding by providing that data online, empowers consumers by giving them the info to make smart choices when dining out.

This is from the same braintrust that has California on the brink of bankruptcy.

Perhaps they are just anti business in general.

But either way, they will soon find out that everpresent, all controlling Gov't is very expensive and inefficient.

It won't be long before they come asking for handouts to prop up their nanny state.

I'm sure plenty of good Texans will be willing to prop up their failed economy, but of course, we will require some hard assets- perhaps all the oil they are sitting on, but are unwilling to drill for.

Or better yet, make little Joey to walk to and from MickyD's for his fat and sugar!

You can provide a fairly well balanced meal for kids at home in about the same amount of time it takes to pick up a Happy Meal at a McDonalds.

Stores nowdays have all sorts of convenient cooking gadgets. With these gadgets, you can make scrambled eggs in less than 2 minutes, rice and vegetables in 11 minutes. Crock pots are amazing. Put the ingredients in the pot, turn it on, and your meal is done when you get home from work.

My kids' favorite fast meal is scrambled eggs. With the new Egg McMuffin kitchen gadget (about $4) I make scrambled eggs in the Microwave. I serve them with fruit (fresh or canned), vegetables (usually canned if I'm in a hurry), cheese, milk and toast. Takes about the same time to make as I would spend in the drive-through, but is nutritious.

My boyfriend and I see fun kitchen stuff when we get the Bed Bath and Beyond ads - I wish my kitchen wasn't so tiny so I could get them! I'd love cooking if I had room and fun stuff to play with!

PGH - You can hang pots/pans as well as many kitchen tools. My kitchen is small, but you can still have alot of fun cooking. I really don't use 90% of my cooking gadgets anyway.

Good cutting boards, good knives, and good pots/pans are way more important than gadgets.

Well, even to get nice pans and stuff there isn't much room. It's a tiny little kitchen in an apartment complex. I am hoping to move soon though to get closer to the city.

PGH - if you have a stove, a counter, and a sink - you can cook almost anything.

Bad news is that the closer you get to the center of cities, the smaller the Apartments get (for the same $$$).

Don't

Jennifer, that breakfast doesn't sound any healthier than an Egg McMuffin. You're basically making an Egg McMuffin at home (scrambled eggs, cheese, toast).

Cooking eggs in the microwave is unsafe; microwaves cook unevenly, and therefore there may be pockets of inadequately-cooked space harboring salmonella. I know it is tempting, because the microwave makes them so fluffy. But try pre-heating the pan, then mixing in some milk when you beat the eggs, then you can achieve that fluffy texture when you cook them in a pan.

Toast isn't really healthy unless it's whole grain bread with less than 2% sugar (or corn syrup, or whatever). And don't use butter or sweetened jelly. Butter is just as fattening as trans-fat free oil, and jelly is mostly sugar or corn syrup (or fruit syrup, which has an identical glycemic load, even though it "sounds" healthy). Just spread olive oil or unsweetened jelly on the whole wheat toast. Or else it might as well be an Egg McMuffin...

JLM - making a restaurant version of something at home is automatically 50% more healthy. Then if you make it with better things (low sugar, whole grain, etc. ) it makes it healthy.

Also, Salmonella is found in roughly 1 out of 20,000 eggs so it's not something that is on every single egg. To avoid uneven cooking, stir the eggs and turn them during the heating process if you don't have a turn-table style microwave.

You can learn a lot about eggs on their website. I recommend this instead of listening to media or to people that take everything reported to heart and over-believe it.

http://www.incredibleegg.org/egg-facts/egg-safety

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it was a study funded by stimulous $$. There were several of those weird research studies listed on the approved ones.

Kangaroo meat has a long shelf life.

Home prepared beef jerky can have a shelf life of up to 1 year (not that I personally would want to eat it much beyond say 3 months). Jerky and hard tack (biscuits) were the staple food on sailing vessels for a couple hundred years and didn't rot/decay for the typical 3-6 months between provisioning. No mystery chemicals to provide that shelf life, just salt and a dehydration process similar to the method which can create a 4000 yr old mummy. Decay (or lack there of) is not a necessarily indication of food quality.

Don't forget that if they had dirty hands or unclean facilities when they made the food, it would be more likely to spoil.

So the fact that it didn't mold is actually the sign of a very clean kitchen, proper cooking techniques, and good employee hygiene.

The term "typical sedentary child" in this article was used not to pass judgment on kids, but simply as a way of sharing how many calories a happy meal can contribute to overall recommended calorie intake suggested for a sedentary child--calorie recommendations here are based on the Estimated Average Requirements and activity levels from the Institute of Medicine Dietary Reference Intakes Macronutrients Report, 2002. More active kids can of course have more calories.

I didn't know it was possible for a 4-5 year-old to be sedentary. Unless you sedate them. Mine is like the Energizer Bunny.

actually getfit, it's more important to focus on what you eat vs. exercise to lose weight. some say nutrition (what you eat) is 80% of the weight loss equation, vs. exercise. not that exercise isn't important (especially strength/resistence training to build muscle, which boosts your metabolism and makes your body burn more calories) -- but you can walk or jog for 1/2 an hour at a good pace (4+ mph) and burn like 200 calories -- then go to Olive Garden with the family, and consume easily 1,500 calories in one meal. Nutrition education is the key, not silly laws like this - that frankly position multi-billion $$ McDonalds as 'the poor victim' and gives them a nice PR boost to boot.

Moon, You've got that on right. Proper eating and the consumption of certain super foods can, even in middle age peel of pound and improve health faster than you would ever imagine, the most important thing is to avoid additives and especially supplements. Also avoid sugar, minimize or eliminate red meat. Look up super foods. Garlic cleans the blood, as well as everything else. (possibly including the social schedule so balance) Cinnamon, in doses of at least 1/2 teaspoon /day can stabilize you blood sugar after about 10 days of use. After a run at the Chinese buffets, I'm back on a diet that last time I went on it, I lost 30 lbs in 30 days, and kept it there for quite some time. Plenty of calories, plenty of food, three meals + snacks and Way more energy!

I see parents out at the park , or walking in the neighborhood. Guess what , THEY ARE ALL ON THE PHONE. Maybe if parents put the phone down and interacted with their children they would be happier and healthier.

Ugh cell phone usage is disgusting. I see parents walking down the STREET with kids running everywhere and they are deep in conversation. Anywhere you go, people 6-60 are looking down at their damn cell phones, and so many people drive while talking! Parents and children are definitely being separated by technology. It's not the technology that does it either - it's the choice of the person to sit on separate computers instead of sitting down to a family meal at the table.

My kids ride bikes and so do all the kids in the neighborhood. They walk the 1/4 of the mile to and from the bus (with me) and play outside after school. Just because your neighborhood is lazy, don't assume everyone is.

No, not everyone is. But many are.

Just because your neighborhood is lazy, don't assume everyone is.

I read his comment twice and I can't see where you're getting that he thinks ALL are like that.

I have to say I see the same stuff. we live VERY rural, and when I'm behind the school bus, it stops every 100 to 200 Ft. to pick up someone. Why not let the kids walk to a common spot to catch the bus? It gives them exercize and eliminates the numerous "bus stops" to grab 1 kid! we used to collect in a common spot to catch the bus. There were about 15 to 20 of us... If the parents have a problem, grab one or 2 of them that sit and wait for the bus, to sit and wait at that one stop! Man oh man I wish people would use some common sense here!

My wife or I had to drop off our kids in the morning to school daycare on the way to work and pick them up after school. Due to our schedules we couldn't be sure of when we were going to be able to get them so they had to go to aftercare. Most days if I was home early enough, I would walk to the school to pick them up and we would walk back home.

Now they are old enough to walk home from school in the afternoon (we still have to drop them off in the morning because we have to go to work earlier than school starts) and be self sufficient for an hour or so.

And I still tell them to get outside and play (after homework and chores are done).

I'm wondering where all the Kevorkian supporters are on these issues.

What gives you the idea that they banned anything? All they did was say that if a meal is unhealthy, the business can't reward kids for eating crap by giving them a toy.

The degree to which we have allowed ourselves to shirk our personal responsibilities and foist them off on others, be it the government, schools, teachers etc. has gotten us into this position.

Yes, I have allowed my children an occassional indulgence in a Happy Meal--but I was always given the option as a parent of selecting fruit & low-fat milk rather than the fries & soda. They are both have normal or low BMIs.

Life is all about making correct choices. You cannot learn to make the correct choice if you are not given the opportunity to.

Good for you. And if you buy a meal with fruit and low-fat milk - resulting in a meal with under 600 calories and under 35% of its calories from fat - they'll also get toys.

I get what you're saying, shadowhawke, but here's the thing: The government doesn't have the right to infringe on my life; it's supposed to be by the people for the people, and the government doesn't have MY permission to interfere the way it does. These days government goes LOOKING for ways to invade our lives and whittle away our freedoms. It's unacceptable.

Society is perfectly capable of taking care of the obesity problem. But anymore if you look at your kids cross-eyed, government steps in, so the whining little monsters get what they want, not what they NEED.

I hear you on the higher medical costs though. There are obese people who are obese because of a legitimate medical issue. The rest are just gluttons. So raise the rates for those who have over-indulged and who consequently will cost more. Discriminatory? NO. It's a self-inflicted wound, and they should just suck it up and live with the consequences of their actions.

No sympathy.

shadowhawke is a typical liberal in its thinking. Yeah, let's get the government to control all aspects of our lives is what shadowhawke would like to see.

It's the parents responsibility for a childs wellbeing, NOT the government.

The government does have the right to step in when society appears to not be able to take care of a problem itself.

Cite source. Seriously.

And are you one of those who thinks the whole class should be beaten with a paddle when nobody admits which student disrupted class? McDonalds isn't a problem, the decision makers are. I mean, seriously, this whole article is about how a change in the McDonalds menu had zero effect and you want more of it?

shadowhawke,

By that same thought process, the majority of the State of CA, the majority of the State of Florida, and all communities built in/on the Mississippi River flood plain (especially New Orleans) should be declared off limits to habitation because these areas are prone to natural disasters (flood and earthquake) which cause severe jeopardy to life and property. Take New Orleans for example. Society understands it is stupid to build in a coastal area that is below sea level, that is why as a whole society does not do this. But some people insist on doing this. So since society has failed to solve the problem of allowing habitation in "unstable" areas, it is up to the government to step in, right? Move everyone out of those areas and declare them a no man's land. Think of the uncountable numbers of people and untold amount of money to be saved when there is no more threat to life and livelihood when CA eventually falls into the Pacific, when FL finishes sinking into the Atlantic, and when New Orleans and the rest of the Mississippi River flood plain is once again flooded. These will happen with much greater certainty than a child becoming obese from eating a Happy Meal that was only purchased for a free toy.

Look, the Gov't pays people who homes are damaged in those areas. So it is the activism of Gov't, not the lack of it, that makes more people living in those areas possible.

Note how people on Welfare/food stamps are more obese than those who the Gov't does not pay for the food that they eat.

Gov't is not the solution to our problems, it is the problem.

Maybe the toys are fattening!

What if you changed the "toy" to balls or jump ropes or other items that encourage physical activity to burn off the caloric difference between a "fatty" Happy Meal and a "healthy" alternative? Wouldn't that make it ok? Wait never mind, the City of San Francisco cut physical education from the school system so lack of exercise must not have any effect on obesity levels or else they are being hypocrites...

Good idea, no that won't work; someone could get hurt with the ball or get strangled with the jump rope.......let's think, think some more. What would Sherriff John do? Help, it's getting too hard, someone help! Red Rover is too dangerous, hop scotch-nope too dangerous. Let's just sit on the couch and not do anything too dangerous. Want fries with that, nope you might choke. Damnet!

Does anyone include a toy in that frozen pizza?

Exactly.

Jeff, you're a freeking idiot! "Just charge $.05 more? Why do people buy Happy Meals Jeff - for the free toy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So who gets the money? McDonalds? Why I thought you liberals are tired of the rich getting richer!!!!!!!!

Why should I or anyone else have to pay more? People, this is the typical Liberal mentality - just another way for Liberals to control you by telling you, "Oh, we want you to eat what we want you to eat." This is like the Michelle Obama mandate that's coming. What's next, selling Happy Meals during a 1-hour window?

Why don't they just put a toy on the tray or in the bag, no matter what they order, when they see a child there with an adult?

Well I am not liberal, it was a suggestion of how to skirt the law that is telling McDonald's how they can run their business, if it makes you happier they could charge a penny, the point was that it would not be a free toy anymore so the law would not apply. If there is some outrage about the penny charge for the toy then it could be considered a donation to the Ronald McDonald house, so if you donate a penny or five cents to Ronald McDonald house you get the toy with your Happy Meal, so it is not free, the rich do not get richer and it helps some people in need.

My kids actually like the food (and just about always get apple dippers instead of fries...btw, my kids are at the 25th and 50th percentile for both weight and height). They like the toys too of course, but that's not why they want it. I agree, charge $0.01 for the toy. Stupid law. Won't solve anything.

Roy far on the Right

There isn't anything free at MickyD's. The customer pays for everything. What, you thought the front door just showed up during construction. The free toy is paid for by every customer.

The toy isn't free it cost less for a hamburg, small, fry and small drink cause it is on the dollar menu so thats 3 plus tax I haven't bought a kids meal for less than 3.50 in awhile

You know how it is in California - the Gov't solved all the other problems there and they have so much money just piling up in Gov't accounts that they have to find ways to spend their huge surplus or regulate more things out of sheer boredom.

They are only anti business in California because they have so many profitable ones they need to get rid of some. (Don't you just hate it when unemployment goes to zero and you have to drive businesses away because there are just too many jobs available, and it confuses people since they don't know which job to take.)

Why don't you knock on those doors and invite the kids out to that field and have an 'unorganized' day of soccer with them? I mean, it's easy to blame everyone else, but if you're not part of the solution . . . .

Lee, the solution to the problem of children made obese through bad food choices and plain-old gluttony belongs to the parents of the kids; that's also where the responsibility lies.

Let's not try to put that burden on the shoulders of others, like a soccer coach who already helps some kids get exercise and who participates in organized sports. He's not the one feeding the kids, and he's not the one letting them sit on their backsides all the time.

It doesn't really take a village to raise a child. It takes a responsible, involved parent or two. To insinuate that it's my job to participate in the raising of someone else's child is silly.

I can see Marc now, trying to help kids by inviting them to play an impromptu soccer match and getting sued by parents when one of the kids gets hurt.

Invite kids out to play improptu soccer, and in many places there would be emergency calls placed to the Pervert Police.

Couldn't agree with you more Marc. These kids need to get away from all the technology that is slowly making them lazy and dumb. when i was a kid i went out to play with my friends and had to be DRAGGED back inside at dark by my parents. It seems now you have to DRAG a kid away from the TV long enough to have a conversation with them let alone exercise or play.

Can they keep score?

Why would they want to keep score, they can't tie their shoe's!

boy what a bunch of ol' farts you sound like.

I might be an "OLD FART", but I can tie my shoe's and keep score!

1-0.........

Mike9999, I strongly agree with you. Here's an idea: take the video controller from the kid, teach them outside activities that do not include 'vegging out' on a sofa, (lazy parents), teach them to eat responsibly, and make the parent responsible for their children. I've eaten happy meals before, my kids have eaten them for years and both are healthy young adults with children who also eat Happy Meals. Also healthy, active children.

Again, the ones who believe that a Happy Meal is the problem with our overweight children are no doubt the ones who take no responsibility for their children's health and well being. So let's blame society and McDonald's for their overweight kids. Be the parent not the one who gives in and takes commands from the child. When the child screams, stick a carrot in their mouths, not fast, unhealthy food. Who's next? Baskin Robbins, Wendy's, etc;.? Any food can be unhealthy if you eat it incorrectly.

Children learn and are a product of their environment.

And may I add DON'T GO THERE if it's a problem for you or your child.

Morons, lemmings, and mindless followers are definetly a problem today.

Sanctuary city. Isn't harboring an illegal alien a felony?

you do realize it's not President Obama making this decision, right? It's the California legislators. Per the 10th amendment, what isn't defined in the Bill of Rights is up to the states-- until the Supreme Court decides it's in the country's best interest to vote against the people, like slavery and womens rights.

STATE Law.

Nothing to do with the federal gov't.

But way to take a jab at Obama to try and push your personal political agenda.
(Any excuse will do, right?) I'm sure he just sits around the White House all day and thinks "How am I gonna F*#k with allriledup's life today?".

Maybe we should let Fox "News" decide what would be best for us... Oh wait, half the country already does... (but it's ok, because you think that you thought of it on your own...)