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

[Anonymous]

Reminds me of when the right wing lost their marbles over Michelle Obama's healthy school lunch initiative.

"HOW DARE YOU HAVE MY KID EAT HEALTHY FOOD!
HOW DARE YOU HAVE MY KID EAT SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE SHITTY, UNHEALTHY JUNK FOOD THEY'VE BEEN MARKETED AND CONDITIONED TO EAT!"

Sheesh. No intelligent signs of life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reminds me of when the right wing lost their marbles over Michelle Obama's healthy school lunch initiative.

"HOW DARE YOU HAVE MY KID EAT HEALTHY FOOD!
HOW DARE YOU HAVE MY KID EAT SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE SHITTY, UNHEALTHY JUNK FOOD THEY'VE BEEN MARKETED AND CONDITIONED TO EAT!"

Sheesh. No intelligent signs of life.

yea I recall this, too. The ES food is gross, though. Kids/parents have a choice in restaurants; the only other choice with school food is no food or bring it from home. But for FARMs kids, this would be harder.

Again, this is a stupid thing to complain about.

I do find it ironic that conservatives are all about individual rights and personal responsibility but then don't want to legalize drugs, other than maybe pot, and even that is a reach for some uber conservatives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

I agree that this legislation is an overreach and not necessary (I have kids and never have issues finding healthy-is food for them when we go out). But I am really sick of the bolded expression that now seems to be applied to any legislation that people don't like. What an overreaction. If you don't like it then lobby against it; if it passes then it is because the majority of the council supports it, not because it is being jammed down anyone's throat.

[Anonymous]

I would like all health food restaurants to also offer one greasy option. Maybe a steak and cheese sub. Or a deep dish pizza.

It would make life a lot easier going out to eat with my healthy friends

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I agree that this legislation is an overreach and not necessary (I have kids and never have issues finding healthy-is food for them when we go out). But I am really sick of the bolded expression that now seems to be applied to any legislation that people don't like. What an overreaction. If you don't like it then lobby against it; if it passes then it is because the majority of the council supports it, not because it is being jammed down anyone's throat.

Here's the thing. If you're bringing your kid to Taco Bell....you're not worried about them picking something healthy off the menu.

For the parents that want their kids to eat a healthy meal, you...choose a restaurant that offers healthy meals on the menu. They may be able to force the restaurant to offer the meal, but they can't force patrons to order it. So what type of change will this actually effect?

This is the perfect example of 'Let the market decide.'

If there is a market for healthy kids meals, then restaurants will offer healthy kids meals

[Anonymous]

It’s government overreach.

But here’s a thing, I don’t know of a single restaurant where you can’t order a healthy side, fruit or salad if the kids meal isn’t appealing. Who are they targeting?

+1 to the Ensure option.

[Anonymous]

Whatever it takes to stop y'all from making your kids obese.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whatever it takes to stop y'all from making your kids obese.

Eh, they will still make their kids obese. Freedumm.

I would like to have one healthy option so my kids don't have to be obese, but we've pretty much given up on most local restaurants anyhow and just cook at home, so I'm not really committed to supporting this one way or the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whatever it takes to stop y'all from making your kids obese.

How about not eating every meal at McDonalds, Popeyes or Manny & Olga’s.

Everyone has a “healthy option” in that they can choose a healthy place to eat or an unhealthy place to eat.

This regulation will do nothing to change families behavior. What it will do though is put a substantial burden on small businesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s going to be the most difficult for small ethnic establishments to comply. Think of how hard it will be for a struggling neighborhood pupuseria or a banh-mi shop to have to determine the total calories and calories from fat of every item on the menu. And for what purpose?

All fast food chains already have all of this data and even if they didn’t the compliance burden would be minimal. For these small businesses, it would be a substantial burden.

This is at its core an anti-competitive regulation.

[Anonymous]

The milk thing annoys me. Skim milk is not a better choice than whole milk for little kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The milk thing annoys me. Skim milk is not a better choice than whole milk for little kids.

Children shouldn’t be drinking milk at all - skim or otherwise. There are much healthier vegan options for them.

[Anonymous]

Glad to see this!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It’s going to be the most difficult for small ethnic establishments to comply. Think of how hard it will be for a struggling neighborhood pupuseria or a banh-mi shop to have to determine the total calories and calories from fat of every item on the menu. And for what purpose?

All fast food chains already have all of this data and even if they didn’t the compliance burden would be minimal. For these small businesses, it would be a substantial burden.

This is at its core an anti-competitive regulation.

Indeed. This is why when Congress pass rules requiring restaurants to list calorie counts on menus, it specifcially only applied to restaurants with more than X locations as the idea is they were big enough to be able to afford diong the work to determine calorie counts for each item. Small restaurants were exempt, which is why you usualy dont' see calorie counts on their menus.

[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?

You certainly don't sound at all crazy and unhinged.