Anonymous wrote:And it passed.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/government/county-council-approves-bill-requiring-healthy-meal-options-for-children/

In the 8-1 vote in favor of the bill, County Council Member Andrew Friedson was the only one opposed. He unsuccessfully tried to amend the bill to exempt smaller restaurants.

This is insane. How does a ramen shop comply? Or a pupuseria? And why should they have to?

And it passed.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/government/county-council-approves-bill-requiring-healthy-meal-options-for-children/

In the 8-1 vote in favor of the bill, County Council Member Andrew Friedson was the only one opposed. He unsuccessfully tried to amend the bill to exempt smaller restaurants.

This bill seems kind of unnecessary to me. Are parents really taking their kids out to restaurants and just getting them a plate of chicken nuggets and fries? Sad. We eat healthfully at home (mostly Mediterranean diet with lots of vegetables) and when we eat out, it's usually East Asian or Indian food. Before my child could read, I wouldn't even tell her there was a kids menu. I just described a few dishes I thought she'd like and let her choose.

If parents are really just taking their kids out and getting them a cheeseburger because they can't be bothered to expand their children's palates, I doubt they're going to pick the healthy option anyway.

Anonymous wrote:In general restaurants kids meals include, chicken nuggets, hamburger/cheeseburger, hot dog, grilled cheese, Mac m cheese, and sometimes a cheese quesadilla….. all served with fries. No fruit and no veg. Off the top of my head the only place I can think of that offers a fruit or veg is Olive Garden. It’s not hard to offer one healthier option and offer fruit or veg instead of fries.

Maybe just get your kid food from the regular menu then? My child is 6 and I've never ordered her something from the kids' menu. I think she's had chicken nuggets maybe 4 times in her life. Same with hotdogs. When we get Thai food, for example, she gets curry or a noodle dish like everyone else.

This idea simply shows that certain Council members have too much time on their hands. Get a real job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read it, I don't think it's that vague, and any restauranteur worth their salt should be able to easily understand it and meet its requirements. If they can't figure it out then they probably shouldn't be in the restaurant business.

This is a solution searching for a problem that does not exist. I suspect that 90% of the restaurants already have a healthy option, particularly in MC. The Council is simply doing something to do something. Maybe, the Council members need to get real jobs.

The fact that any restaurant should have to take time away from trying to stay in business should have to read this and figure out if they comply is a waste of their time. It’s an additional burden that they do not need.

Anonymous wrote:I read it, I don't think it's that vague, and any restauranteur worth their salt should be able to easily understand it and meet its requirements. If they can't figure it out then they probably shouldn't be in the restaurant business.

This is a solution searching for a problem that does not exist. I suspect that 90% of the restaurants already have a healthy option, particularly in MC. The Council is simply doing something to do something. Maybe, the Council members need to get real jobs.

If they want to make a difference, they should start by putting their time and efforts into a consistent and cohesive program teaching why kids should choose healthier food choices most of the time and the importance of exercising at least a little every day. That will have a much more important and lasting impact than the gov telling a restaurant what to serve on their menu for the possibly couple of meals a week that a kid might eat out.

Parent of young kids who is irritated our leadership is wasting time on this.

I control food and diet at home and school lunches (packed) which is 98% of the meals my kids eat. I am perfectly capable of supervising them to make choices aligned with my values the other 2%.

These are kids meal options they are regulating - usually only open to kids under 12. These kids are not eating out by themselves everyday FFS, they are with an adult.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It REQUIRES dairy? Clearly not about health.

It does not require dairy. There's a dairy option for both the protein and beverage requirements but they're not required.

And with that you have proven that claims this is not a major regulatory burden are false.

How so?

Because there is clearly and obviously a burden on businesses to understand something that’s vague and implement it when it requires further interpretation.

If the county wants to spend its own time and money to evaluate and rate the “healthiness” of each restaurants menu based on their own criteria to help parents pick restaurants that the county thinks is healthy then let them do that. But this puts the burden on businesses, which is wrong.

Except it's not vague in the least. Have you read the bill? It's very clear. The PP saying it requires dairy is just off base. The fact that you can find a person who misunderstands something (or is willing to say they do) isn't evidence that it's vague. The requirements are very specifically laid out and any competent home cook could create a meal that meets the standards without difficulty.

I'm on the fence about whether or not this is a useful law, but the idea that it's "vague" is just silly.

Is a pupusa “healthy” under the law?

It depends on what you put in it, how much salt you used, what fat you fried it in, and what your served it with. That's like asking if a "sandwich" is healthy. You could definitely make a papusa that met the requirements, with a reduced fat cheese filling and a side of curtido.

And again, proving the point that this is a significant and unnecessary burden out struggling small businesses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It REQUIRES dairy? Clearly not about health.

It does not require dairy. There's a dairy option for both the protein and beverage requirements but they're not required.

And with that you have proven that claims this is not a major regulatory burden are false.

How so?

Because there is clearly and obviously a burden on businesses to understand something that’s vague and implement it when it requires further interpretation.

If the county wants to spend its own time and money to evaluate and rate the “healthiness” of each restaurants menu based on their own criteria to help parents pick restaurants that the county thinks is healthy then let them do that. But this puts the burden on businesses, which is wrong.

Except it's not vague in the least. Have you read the bill? It's very clear. The PP saying it requires dairy is just off base. The fact that you can find a person who misunderstands something (or is willing to say they do) isn't evidence that it's vague. The requirements are very specifically laid out and any competent home cook could create a meal that meets the standards without difficulty.

I'm on the fence about whether or not this is a useful law, but the idea that it's "vague" is just silly.

Is a pupusa “healthy” under the law?

It depends on what you put in it, how much salt you used, what fat you fried it in, and what your served it with. That's like asking if a "sandwich" is healthy. You could definitely make a papusa that met the requirements, with a reduced fat cheese filling and a side of curtido.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It REQUIRES dairy? Clearly not about health.

It does not require dairy. There's a dairy option for both the protein and beverage requirements but they're not required.

And with that you have proven that claims this is not a major regulatory burden are false.

How so?

Because there is clearly and obviously a burden on businesses to understand something that’s vague and implement it when it requires further interpretation.

If the county wants to spend its own time and money to evaluate and rate the “healthiness” of each restaurants menu based on their own criteria to help parents pick restaurants that the county thinks is healthy then let them do that. But this puts the burden on businesses, which is wrong.

Except it's not vague in the least. Have you read the bill? It's very clear. The PP saying it requires dairy is just off base. The fact that you can find a person who misunderstands something (or is willing to say they do) isn't evidence that it's vague. The requirements are very specifically laid out and any competent home cook could create a meal that meets the standards without difficulty.

I'm on the fence about whether or not this is a useful law, but the idea that it's "vague" is just silly.

Is a pupusa “healthy” under the law?

I read it, I don't think it's that vague, and any restauranteur worth their salt should be able to easily understand it and meet its requirements. If they can't figure it out then they probably shouldn't be in the restaurant business.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It REQUIRES dairy? Clearly not about health.

It does not require dairy. There's a dairy option for both the protein and beverage requirements but they're not required.

And with that you have proven that claims this is not a major regulatory burden are false.

How so?

Because there is clearly and obviously a burden on businesses to understand something that’s vague and implement it when it requires further interpretation.

If the county wants to spend its own time and money to evaluate and rate the “healthiness” of each restaurants menu based on their own criteria to help parents pick restaurants that the county thinks is healthy then let them do that. But this puts the burden on businesses, which is wrong.

Except it's not vague in the least. Have you read the bill? It's very clear. The PP saying it requires dairy is just off base. The fact that you can find a person who misunderstands something (or is willing to say they do) isn't evidence that it's vague. The requirements are very specifically laid out and any competent home cook could create a meal that meets the standards without difficulty.

I'm on the fence about whether or not this is a useful law, but the idea that it's "vague" is just silly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It REQUIRES dairy? Clearly not about health.

It does not require dairy. There's a dairy option for both the protein and beverage requirements but they're not required.

And with that you have proven that claims this is not a major regulatory burden are false.

How so?

Because there is clearly and obviously a burden on businesses to understand something that’s vague and implement it when it requires further interpretation.

If the county wants to spend its own time and money to evaluate and rate the “healthiness” of each restaurants menu based on their own criteria to help parents pick restaurants that the county thinks is healthy then let them do that. But this puts the burden on businesses, which is wrong.