Typical MoCo big govt overreach/over regulation - bill to control restaurant menus for kids

[Anonymous]

This is really stupid:

https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/government/health-officials-civic-groups-support-healthy-meal-menu-mandate-for-kids/

Why is this so typical for MoCo? The solution is always more govt and more regulation. It's never a choice for the parents to or to not take kids out to eat. Let restaurants make their own menus please. Parents themselves can decide whether or not to go to the restaurant with their kids. Why do MoCo residents loooooove so much intervention from the county govt all of the time? Just leave people alone for once. People are capable of thinking for themselves. What's next after jamming mandates for menu offerings down peoples' throats?

[Anonymous]

Try to be a little less obvious when you are lobbying against public health measures for obesogenic industries, thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Try to be a little less obvious when you are lobbying against public health measures for obesogenic industries, thanks.

New poster with no affiliation to anything that agrees that this is over the top. Surprised Albornoz is co-sponsoring this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Try to be a little less obvious when you are lobbying against public health measures for obesogenic industries, thanks.

You can always choose not to stuff your fat face with unhealthy foods. Do we really need the govt to force this? How about you stop feeding your kids crap at home? As always, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. How much extra cost will this add to small businesses that need to get their menu items verified? How do we know there won't be overzealous regulators who will make any excuse to fine small businesses over this issue over differences in interpretation of menu items so that they can generate revenue for the county govt? So what, Popeye's Chicken and Burger King are now going to be required to alter their menus specifically for MoCo only?

Man, you really love the govt thinking for you, don't you?

[Anonymous]

OP, why are you getting your panties in a twist for restaurants having to provide "ONE health option". And I am no fan of Jawando.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, why are you getting your panties in a twist for restaurants having to provide "ONE health option". And I am no fan of Jawando.

Because it imposes unnecessary regulation that adds costs. People can think for themselves. Businesses should be able to run themselves as they see fit. If unhealthy food options for kids are a problem, parents can choose for themselves whether or not to visit the establishment. No one needs more regulators, more fines, and more govt control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try to be a little less obvious when you are lobbying against public health measures for obesogenic industries, thanks.

You can always choose not to stuff your fat face with unhealthy foods. Do we really need the govt to force this? How about you stop feeding your kids crap at home? As always, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. How much extra cost will this add to small businesses that need to get their menu items verified? How do we know there won't be overzealous regulators who will make any excuse to fine small businesses over this issue over differences in interpretation of menu items so that they can generate revenue for the county govt? So what, Popeye's Chicken and Burger King are now going to be required to alter their menus specifically for MoCo only?

Man, you really love the govt thinking for you, don't you?

This sounds like a loophole. Parents should be required to provide one healthy option for their children at home too.

[Anonymous]

If I was a MoCo restaurant, I would just offer bottles of Ensure on the menu as the “healthy option” and laugh in their face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I was a MoCo restaurant, I would just offer bottles of Ensure on the menu as the “healthy option” and laugh in their face.

That's actually an amazing idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Try to be a little less obvious when you are lobbying against public health measures for obesogenic industries, thanks.

Not the obesogenic industries poster again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, why are you getting your panties in a twist for restaurants having to provide "ONE health option". And I am no fan of Jawando.

Because it imposes unnecessary regulation that adds costs. People can think for themselves. Businesses should be able to run themselves as they see fit. If unhealthy food options for kids are a problem, parents can choose for themselves whether or not to visit the establishment. No one needs more regulators, more fines, and more govt control.

The hilarious part are the nutritional requires of the meal. Thirty-five percent calories from fat? That is the fat content of the standard American diet that is causing heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.

[Anonymous]

It's because the county cares so much about children. That's why they kept them home from school for 15 months and continue to quarantine young children from daycare needlessly.

[Anonymous]

Does this apply to schools? I’d back it if it applied to schools. Yes, I know I should be teaching my 5yo not to choose the chocolate milk he’s offered every morning at 9am, but really it would be so much easier on everyone if chocolate milk and sugar laden pastries were not served for breakfast every day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, why are you getting your panties in a twist for restaurants having to provide "ONE health option". And I am no fan of Jawando.

Because it imposes unnecessary regulation that adds costs. People can think for themselves. Businesses should be able to run themselves as they see fit. If unhealthy food options for kids are a problem, parents can choose for themselves whether or not to visit the establishment. No one needs more regulators, more fines, and more govt control.

How much cost do you think it would add? You don't even have to reprint the menu. Just get a piece of paper, print out the additional item, and put it in the menu as an insert. The cost is the amount of toner/paper you use.

As for the extra menu item, if they serve chicken nugget with fries, they can alter it to serve chicken nugget with carrots or something like that. Most of the restaurants already have these alternatives. TBH, I think it's a good idea to give parents alternatives. They aren't forced to choose it.

I hate MoCo, but this is not an "overreach" hill I would die on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does this apply to schools? I’d back it if it applied to schools. Yes, I know I should be teaching my 5yo not to choose the chocolate milk he’s offered every morning at 9am, but really it would be so much easier on everyone if chocolate milk and sugar laden pastries were not served for breakfast every day.

ES school food is gross. HS food is better, per my DC.