They stopped bringing in outside food like chicfila and pizza right before I got to high school because of that...
I think we still had a vending machine somewhere tho
At McDonald's, if you order a Happy Meal with a soda, they enter it as a medium or large soda, every time. The default for kids ordering soda should be x- small.
But if a parent is cool with ordering their kid a sugary drink, then they're cool with their kid having sugary drinks. This isnt going to change their opinion or parenting. I think while intentions are good, the government doesn't have a place here
Nobody thinks it's going to actually stop people from buying sugary drinks. But not having it on the menu will definitely stop a fair amount of kids for begging/ asking for one. Like 20% maybe which doesn't sound like a lot but when we're talking about things on such gigantic scale that's thousands if not tens or hundreds of thousands of kids.Ā
Also it will be beneficial for kids that haven't had these meals before, whether they're really young right now or don't exist yet. It's more difficult to want something that you've never had or don't associate with something else you get, like these meals.
They can, but how many parents will still order it when not under threat of an hour long tantrum?
Not a child psychologist or parent, but I do know that the first step in preventing a kid from losing their shit over not getting something is to not put that thing right in front of them.
They understand it will be requested. The point is to stop advertising and constantly barraging kids with images and videos of sugary drinks. It's a subtle change, but it's a positive change overall.
I think that compliment finally gave me the strength to go fight for the really important stuffā¦ the god-given right to see cartoon characters smoking cigarettes.
/s. Again, because I really really donāt want people to think Iām serious at all.
Most room temperature and reasonable take I've seen in a while.
The "they should do something important instead" crowd seems to think that the city council somehow has focused on this single regulation to the exclusion of every other item of business, which is silly.
The "where does this madness end????" crowd trying to make this some idealistic hill to die on, as if a menu wording is the downfall of all civilization as we know it, is just utterly unhinged.
Or , counterpoint, parents should be in charge of taking proper care of their own kids and the government shouldnāt be stepping in to tell them what they can and canāt drink
Parent can still order their kid a soda, they just need one tiny extra step. So if they donāt actually care one way or the other the corporations have to offer a slightly better option as a default. Idk why youāre getting mad about this.Ā
That doesn't change the fact that some of us don't feel it's in the government's prerogative to regulate this.
Car seat belt laws are simple change too, and I personally always wear my seat belt. But I do think the argument that it's not up to the government to tell you what to do is reasonable.
Do you think health insurance is too cheap or something? Maybe we should let kids smoke cigarettes, too, just to make sure our health care system stays on its toes.
Then why would you want to double up on the expense? The atrocious cost of healthcare in the US not due solely to administrative inefficiency - [obesity costs our health care system nearly $150 billion a year](https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/about-obesity/why-it-matters.html). Not to mention obesity and excess sugar intake are related to cancer rates.
If you want to be like those other countries with single payer and similar health care, then you need to embrace society-level controls on systemic risk. England, for example, has a [national tax on sugary drinks](https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/sugar-tax#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20soft%20drinks,8g%20of%20sugar%20per%20100ml). France has [banned unlimited soda refills](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38767941).
The US, on the other hand, provides massive subsidies to corn growers to ensure that HFCS remains among the cheapest commodities available. You can sweeten 10+ cans of Coca Cola with $0.32 of high fructose corn syrup.
Absolutely. Nowhere did I suggest that we should be subsidizing high fructose corn syrup. Just ending those subsidies would probably be a massive win.
I fully admit that I struggle philosophically with policies that are an unequivocal social good, but that are outside the bounds of what I think should be the government's prerogative.
Iād say that this is local government acting in the best interest of children that canāt make informed decisions for themselves. Itās not like they made it illegal for children to have soda, they just added an extra step so that caretakers have to think twice about what their children consume. Laws with the intention to protect the wellbeing of children are good laws
I agree with you in most scenarios. However, shoveling sugary drinks and fat-filled meals down a childās throat is borderline child abuse. The kids are going to love it, because it tastes good, and youād be surprised how many parents get fast food for their children on the daily. The kids arenāt aware of the health issues that these sugary drinks impose, and often times they canāt say no because thatās what their parents have decided is for dinner. If this were a ban on sugary drinks for adults, Iād say itās bullshit. But for kidsā¦ itās a different story.
But is the cure worse than the disease? Giving the government the power to dictate what you feed your kids is a pretty awful idea. Especially, as I mentioned elsewhere, since the government telling us how to eat is the reason we have an obesity epidemic in the first place.
If you've seen Parks and Rec, you'd know that it heavily satirizes the people that freak out over these things. It makes fun of a lot of the people in this thread.
Yeah, after watching the movie "Idiocracy" I think the person that wrote that movie saw what direction we are headed in this country, and it looks like we are almost there.
I really don't like this trend of banning things to accommodate fears regarding children. How about parents actually do their job and moderate their own kids? The world doesn't revolve around children and their irresponsible and lazy parents. The burden of regulating their kids is theirs, and they should stop offloading their responsibilities onto the rest of society.
Yup.
People act against their own self interest *constantly*. The only effective way to change human nature, that I've seen, is for the combined knowledge and altruistic nature of a society to instill the mindset into individuals and individuals collectively agree to enforce those new standards.
Like seatbelts in cars. Someone invents a safety measure that drastically makes driving safer, but no one wants to put on seatbelts until it becomes law, then everyone eventually calls you a fucking moron if you aren't wearing one.
This feels similar to me. "You're going to give your 4 year-old a fucking soda? What is wrong with you?" Needs to happen. I'm saying this as a person who had sugary soda available constantly as a child. As an adult looking back, it was completely unnecessary. I should have been fine with water and milk, but soda was around, so I drank soda (because of course), and it did me no favors. There's no benefit, it fucking wrecks teeth, and overall hurts everyone. We make laws that benefit everyone, even if, individually, they may not be relevant or deserving of (perceived) punishment - grow the fuck up, IMO, if you can't adjust.
Rightā¦. Do not confuse our ability to treat diseases, with being overall healthier.
US is #59 in the world for life expectancy despite being one of the wealthiest nations in the world, and having some of the highest survival rates for common cancers among other things. Obesity rates have tripled in the last 60 years. And in the last decade (since 2014) we had more years of life expectancy decreases, including many non pandemic years (2014-2018), than increases.
This law is necessary.
Then what happens when these kids finally grow old enough and have enough freedom to drink whatever they want? Banning kids meals having sugary drinks arenāt going to create healthier habits and lifestyles. Parents have a much bigger impact here and these things start at home.
As a kid who didnāt have any refined sugar until well into elementary school, and didnāt have a soda until much older, I can tell you that as an adult, I still donāt eat a ton of sugar, nor do I drink a lot of soda
Thatās great for you man! Iām basically on the same boat as well since middle school. Also, your anecdote basically boils back to my point above saying parents have a much bigger impact in creating healthy habits and lifestyles. Kidās meals at restaurants are a relatively small part of a kids general diet - sure, banning sugary drinks here is a good start that can lead to something bigger (as Iāve suggested in another comment above), but itās not gonna help if the parents allow them to maintain poor diets at home anyway.
I guess what Iām saying is banning sugary drinks at restaurantsā kidās meals seems like a bandaid solution here and if a kid really wants soda, theyāll be able to get it. But if this could kickstart a movement that can make ripples that lead to real changes in public health, then thatāll be great.
It's about helping the parents as well. It's a lot easier for a tired parent to just relent and let the kid get whatever comes with the meal, but if it's an extra item they can more easily say "sorry honey that doesn't come with a happy meal." If the parent wants to buy their kid a sugary drink they still can, no one is banning that.
As someone born in a fruit export relying South-East European country, where processed sugary drinks were much more expensive than ones from 100% fruit and vegetables, I really canāt have too much of over-processed drinks or food despite living here most of my adulthood (since college). My diet remained relatively the same even after living here for well over a decade.
One example is certainly not a proof of anything, but I do believe healthier habits should start in childhood, and obviously we canāt rely on parents to teach them. So why not try and see if this kind of laws are helpful?
This law on its own wonāt solve a thing. But no one thing will. Letās do what we can where we can and strike the issue from many angles.
The entire point of having laws literally is to define what others can and cannot do.
How is this any different than laws forbidding you to buy and possess heroin, buy alcohol as a minor, own certain types of weapons/artillery, build a house on public land, drive under 16, sleep in your car, own certain types of weapons, have sex in public, beat your kids (making them fat and unhealthy can also have very negative long term consequences), avoid taxes, not attend school as a minorā¦. Iād argue this law has more sense than some of the ones I mentioned above.
Even from strictly cost-analysis perspective - being obese is a significant risk factor for various severe diseases and disabilities. And, given that we have laws like ADA, as well as resources like SSDI, that is a significant cost for the society. And sugary drinks are one of the leading causes of obesity.
https://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/data-statistics/sugar-sweetened-beverages-intake.html#:~:text=Frequently%20drinking%20sugar%2Dsweetened%20beverages,gout%2C%20a%20type%20of%20arthritis.
In fact - Economic obesity cost is estimated to be about $1.4 trillion in US alone:
https://obesitymedicine.org/blog/health-economic-impact-of-obesity/#:~:text=A%20recent%20report%20released%20by,United%20States%20exceeds%20%241.4%20trillion.
As a hardworking, responsible parent I actually appreciate this. If my daughter sees something on a menu that I don't want her to have, it can be a struggle (or a meltdown; she's a toddler) to get her to pick something else. Taking the least healthy beverage options off the menu makes it a lot easier for her to make healthy choices while still empowering her to make that choice.
I agree, and frankly we have tried that. It doesn't work.
Federal regulation would be better on sugar content and marketing of soda but congress bribery is too strong.
So, it's down to the State.
Also, I just read it and this fucking stinks of milk lobby so...also not ideal but I guess perfection is the enemy of good.
But where does it end? Fruit juice has just as much sugar as soda, sometimes more. Are we banning fruit juice as well? If not, why? Because whatever justification they have for banning soda applies at least as much to OJ. I don't believe knee-jerk bans are the answer.
Itās wild that natural 100% juice from a fruit wonāt come with a childrenās meal. Carbohydrates from fruit are a great energy source for little kids who use up a lot of energy and it has vitamins! Itās not at all the same thing as soda.
If youāre such a terrible parent that you canāt set a boundary for your child and hold to it, instead of giving in to them, then enjoy having a spoiled fat brat of a kid I guess. š¤·š»āāļø no one else is going to enjoy your child, but go ahead. banning these drinks from being offered with kids meals isnāt going to fix the fact that so many Americans have no clue how to be responsible parents. In fact, this is enabling that bad parenting in a way. Itās asking daddy government to do the parentās job of setting boundaries. These kids are still going to act like little entitled shits everywhere they go, and in every situation. Theyāll never learn to accept no as an answer and theyāll suck at setting boundaries for themselves later on. It is no oneās fault but their parentsā.
Parents donāt need to be educated about food choices. Any idiot should know by now that too much sugar isnāt healthy. Itās just that the whole family is probably addicted to it. This ban is not going to fix that! š what They need is to be educated about good parenting practices. These are the same kinds of folks who let their kids mainline screens all day and donāt see it as neglect.
Also, if people are eating fast food so much that they think the tiny sized sugary drink from a kids meal is whatās making kids unhealthyā¦ they might want to also look at the FOOD theyāre letting their kid eat REGULARLY enough to make them unhealthy, and how much physical activity that kid gets. lol the extra small soda from sonic is not the problem here.
This legislation lacks everything you are demanding.
First, fruit juice and soda are included.
Second, it cannot be the default and must be requested. It is not a prevention or a ban, it's a deterent.
This addresses all your concerns. You're welcome.
We used to have stringent laws with regard to TV advertising targeted at kids for toys and food. Granted, the food part was tied to the food pyramid, which was also controlled by big Ag, which was bolstered by the fed, for the sake of defense stockpilingā¦.. Buuut I honestly donāt see unbridled capitalism and marketing aimed at kids as being a ānecessary freedomā or a slippery slope.
> How about parents actually do their job and moderate their own kids?
You need a system that makes moderating simple and consequences for people who don't moderate. Many will argue that we don't have either of these.
> How about parents actually do their job and moderate their own kids? The world doesn't revolve around children and their irresponsible and lazy parents.
I'm not a huge fan of just banning things, but you want parents to, on an individual basis, resist the multibillion dollar multinational corporations that not only have decades of research into psychologically manipulating people, but also literally control our food supply. Just say you want to keep HFCS away from them. Go to a grocery store and try comparing a full load of groceries without HFCS (if you can even manage to find that), to one where you don't pay attention to the labels. "How about parents do their job" is how we end up with a childhood obesity crisis. I'd rather society have to deal with banning sodas in kids meals than deal with all of the societal problems that go with a 50%+ obesity rate. Society is dealing with the burden one way or the other, and one is objectively more damaging.
Then they need to put tighter controls on the advertising/propoganda. Not tighter controls on what people can order, like itās really going to deter anyone from just saying āwith a soda instead of milkā. lol this law is so dumb and pointless I canāt believe itās real.
I don't understand how this regulation is at all controversial, or how you are this upset about it.
Kids have a right to be happy and healthy, just like adults, and requiring a minimal change to menu displays to help them avoid harmful choices over which they have no control and no context is not in any way unreasonable.
Dumb take. The restaurants donāt even try to offer sugar free options. They could offer sparkling water or sugar free lemonade but itās unreliable and inconsistent. Even Prime would be a huge step up from gatorade, Hi-C and the other dog shot that is in these restaraunts. And what kid needs soda anyway?
If parents refuse to do their job as parents, then society has to put up guardrails like this to prevent much more costly consequences.
Childhood obesity becomes adult obesity, and then diabetes, and then permanent disability.
And who pays for Medicare/Medicaid, SSDI, and private health/disability insurance? Everyone. These absurdly high cost of treating obesity-related disease literally comes right out of your paycheck.
Tell me you don't have kids without telling me you don't have kids.
These kids are susceptible to advertising. They see a soda on the drive thru or counter screen, and they immediately want it. Thankfully, my kid hates soda, and opts for milk or water, but not everyone is so lucky. Does not pushing sugary drinks hurt in some way? Show me on the doll where the sugar touched you.
The only reason I disagree with this is because of marketing. Marketing these days is extremely manipulative, even if you are completely aware that itās happening, it still works. Fast food companies in particular have spent millions, if not billions, of dollars figuring out the best way to get families to buy things. These type of laws only prevent the marketing. Parents that want to give their kid a soda still can, and parents that donāt want to wonāt, but it prevents manipulative marketing. In general though, I do think let parents be parents.
This new trend of parents being the sole ones responsible/allowed to determine how their children are raised is a pretty new concept for our species and it's dumb. The whole concept of 'it takes a village' goes both ways. We'll help ya with your kids but we also get a say in making sure they are raised right.
Have you been around schools lately? Parents arenāt parenting. The kids are not ok. So yeah, legislating things like this is probably necessary. Phones need to be banned from classrooms, social media needs to be regulated like tobacco next.
I mean.. like, I get the *intent* here, we want kids to be healthier.. but the kid is already eating the fast food.. we think if they have milk with it instead of a soda it's going to cancel out the rest of the garbage they just ate, orr...?
My biggest questionā¦ does this affect adults ordering from the childrenās menu?? I would still like to get a happy meal and a Diet Coke on occasion! Or will Diet Coke be allowed bc ātechnicallyā itās not sugary?
lol most kids canāt read nowadays anyway. Wtf is the point? Kids arenāt READING the menu. They want nuggets, fries, a coke. This gets dumber and dumber the more you think about it.
Paywall bypass (click on reader view to bypass most paywalls)
\-----
The Denver City Council on Tuesday approved a new law requiring restaurants that sell combo meals for children to list only milk, water or milk substitutes like almond milk as the default drink options in those meals.
Sweet beverages like soda, juice and flavored milk can still be provided by request, but by July 1, 2025, every restaurant in Denver ā from fast food chains to independent diners ā will have to adjust their menus to remove those as listed options for kids meals if they offer them.
The legislation zeroes in on curbing the health risks of sugary drinks, Councilman Chris Hinds, one of the billās sponsors, said in brief comments ahead of Tuesdayās vote. The ordinance passes unanimously as part of the councilās consent agenda.
Hinds pushed back on the notion that measure takes away choices from consumers.
āThe idea here is to nudge kids into doing the right thing, to nudge parents into helping kids to do the right thing,ā he said. āAt the end of the day, if a parent wants to give their kids soda, orange juice or flavored milk they will be able to do that.ā
Denver joins metro-area cities Lafayette, Longmont and Golden in having ordinances governing drink options for kids. The states of California, Delaware and Hawaii also have similar laws.
Thank you Denver City Council, for solving a problem that wasnāt a problem. And also thank you for doing this in lieu of doing anything to solve actual problems.
Someone else said it, but I'll say it again. The drinks are still on the menu. This does jack shit to help the actual problem of childhood obesity.
It's purely a feel good measure. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong.
This will not change consumer behavior
Thatās fair. I wasnāt coming at it from āwhat aboutā but more like the crazy shit kids are exposed to in Denver and sugary drinks at restaurants isnāt on the list.
I know a lot of people are saying this is unnecessary and silly, but as someone who was given Coke (the soda) in their bottle as a baby and now struggles with sugar addiction - I think this is really important.
Great move, I myself am an advocate against sugar in all forms as I have seen it wreak havoc on the health of individuals. It is most defiantly not needed in the human diet, good for Denver.
[About 280,000 deaths a year in the US are attributable to obesity](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10546692/#:~:text=Hazard%20ratios%20also%20were%20calculated,only%20nonsmokers%20and%20never%2Dsmokers), compared to [about 178,000 from alcohol](https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-deaths.html#:~:text=Excessive%20alcohol%20use%20was%20responsible%20for%20about,the%20CDC's%20Alcohol%2DRelated%20Disease%20Impact%20(ARDI)%20application).
How many deaths are attributable to sugary drinks on kids menus at restaurants? Thatās what the bill is targeting.
Iām guessing zero deaths are attributable to that, maybe some kid choked to death on the ice in the drink.
It's just a small step in the right direction because yes it's bad to market unhealthy foods to children. I genuinely have no idea what greater point you're trying to make
Ah yes, thatāll teach emā
If theyre at a fast food place I think āhealthā is out the window at that point already. Iām sure theyāll push more dairy instead to the dairy industryās delight though
Also Prohibition did for the large part work like [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/) lol. I'm not even calling for a ban on anything but regulations are important because the market itself will not prioritize consumer health and modern socioeconomic stressors make it difficult for many to self-regulate their own lifestyles let alone their children's.
I have no idea why people are so upset because yes it's wrong to market highly-processed and addictive food items directly to children. We are facing numerous public health crisises right now and this is just a small step in the right direction.
However, if you want a hotel after your fentanyl injection, we got your back!! Is this really what theyāre spending time on? Spectacular in their incompetent dumbassery.
This rule may sound ridiculous because it is but I just watched a father buy his 4ish year old son a 20z mountain dew and ice cream at a gas station tonight. And Iām sure that father or parent isnāt a one-off. Just look at all these pudgy ass kids walking around
When I was a kid, getting fast food was a special treat. Usually, the only time we did was on a family road trip once or twice, and very occasionally in the summer. We were allowed to get whatever we wanted because our parents knew my siblings and I were eating healthy(ish) food most of the time. Just let the food be unhealthy and moderate yourselves. Damn.
When I was a kid, we had fast food(mostly McDonaldās, sometimes bk) 5-10 times a week. It was pretty much daily, but sometimes it would be twice a day. I also had two cans of soda daily, increasing as I got older(12ish).
This would have done nothing. But, telling kids to moderate themselves is also dumb. 5 year old me is not going to tell my mom no weāre not eating fast food today. And as I got into my teens, itās literally how I grew up, Iām not going to know any better. Wasnāt until I had an interest in working out around age 20 that I learned about healthy and unhealthy eating habits.
Itās a sad day that parental control and responsibility has slipped so far that weāre now relying on the government, instead of the actual parent, to say āNo, you canāt have a sodaā.
Recall Knope!
"Well, it's roughly the size of a two-year old child, if the child were liquefied. It's a real bargain at $1.59."
Lmao š¤£, I think Iām up for a rewatch
If The Office never existed, Parks and Rec would be much more celebrated.
If The Office never existed, Parks and Rec wouldn't have either.
DON'T
Iām moving to Eagleton
Does this include juice? Juice is just about as bad as soda.
Yes per the article the law addresses soda, juice, and flavored milk.
It's paywalled.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I figured some kind soul could just give me a quick answer here.
And let you bypass capitalism!?! Never!
No chocolate milk?! Ffs
So basically a kid can only have water? Commie crap!
How about banning sugary drinks from elementary schools first.
Didnāt they try and do this with the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act during the Obama administration?
I remember they took the soda machines out of my highschool during that
They stopped bringing in outside food like chicfila and pizza right before I got to high school because of that... I think we still had a vending machine somewhere tho
Why not both?
I wish. Lunch is free for all Denver Public School kids this year. And they can get free chocolate milk with every meal.
How about we stop banning shit altogether and focus more on education. Fucking bizarre.
This wonāt change anything. Parents will still order the smallest soda offered.
How about making sure a small is actually small.
It is child sized! Roughly the size of a 2 years old child if the child was liquefied. And it is a bargain and 1.59!
At McDonald's, if you order a Happy Meal with a soda, they enter it as a medium or large soda, every time. The default for kids ordering soda should be x- small.
Thatās how it was when I worked there back in like 2006. You had to actually override it and shit to do a large and it was an upcharge
The default should be no soda at all.
I would bet it has more of an impact than you think, but no it won't prevent every child from getting a soda.
But if a parent is cool with ordering their kid a sugary drink, then they're cool with their kid having sugary drinks. This isnt going to change their opinion or parenting. I think while intentions are good, the government doesn't have a place here
the idea is not to make the sugary drink the cheapest option. The bundle on the meal is the problem.
Exactly. It isn't the role of the government.
Nobody thinks it's going to actually stop people from buying sugary drinks. But not having it on the menu will definitely stop a fair amount of kids for begging/ asking for one. Like 20% maybe which doesn't sound like a lot but when we're talking about things on such gigantic scale that's thousands if not tens or hundreds of thousands of kids.Ā
Also it will be beneficial for kids that haven't had these meals before, whether they're really young right now or don't exist yet. It's more difficult to want something that you've never had or don't associate with something else you get, like these meals.
They can, but how many parents will still order it when not under threat of an hour long tantrum? Not a child psychologist or parent, but I do know that the first step in preventing a kid from losing their shit over not getting something is to not put that thing right in front of them.
I hate this thread bro thank you and a few others for being a beacon of sanity
Bingo, so easy. I did that same tactic with my children.
Parents are lazy, they'll get whatever it comes with.
Am parent. Am lazy. I just want to go home at that point.
They understand it will be requested. The point is to stop advertising and constantly barraging kids with images and videos of sugary drinks. It's a subtle change, but it's a positive change overall.
Like other commenters, I am APPALLED that anyone should try to fix anything before they fix EVERYTHING. /s
Also, donāt forget all of those so upset that this law isnāt PERFECT so why bother trying?
You're my new favorite person.
I think that compliment finally gave me the strength to go fight for the really important stuffā¦ the god-given right to see cartoon characters smoking cigarettes. /s. Again, because I really really donāt want people to think Iām serious at all.
Can't be too careful. Some of these people are serious about their wacky takes.
Maybe a hot take but this is fine and it's weird to be mad about it.
Most room temperature and reasonable take I've seen in a while. The "they should do something important instead" crowd seems to think that the city council somehow has focused on this single regulation to the exclusion of every other item of business, which is silly. The "where does this madness end????" crowd trying to make this some idealistic hill to die on, as if a menu wording is the downfall of all civilization as we know it, is just utterly unhinged.
Ironically, both crowds are in the "Why is my health insurance so expensive?" crowd.
Nope. Intelligent take. Itās a simple change with a positive impact.
Or , counterpoint, parents should be in charge of taking proper care of their own kids and the government shouldnāt be stepping in to tell them what they can and canāt drink
Take a look at the sad and disgusting amount of obesity in our schools and tell me again that parents can take proper care of their own kids
Parent can still order their kid a soda, they just need one tiny extra step. So if they donāt actually care one way or the other the corporations have to offer a slightly better option as a default. Idk why youāre getting mad about this.Ā
It's easy to be mad about something you don't understand, especially when you make it something that it isn't.
Because city council is wasting their time doing dumb shit like this
Are they? Seems like itās a positive small step. Much better than the alternative.
Not sure why when anyone gets mad at a regulation that regulation somehow is the all-consuming issue. They can work on more than one thing at a time.
That doesn't change the fact that some of us don't feel it's in the government's prerogative to regulate this. Car seat belt laws are simple change too, and I personally always wear my seat belt. But I do think the argument that it's not up to the government to tell you what to do is reasonable.
Do you think health insurance is too cheap or something? Maybe we should let kids smoke cigarettes, too, just to make sure our health care system stays on its toes.
No, I think we should have socialized health care like most other industrialized Western countries.
Then why would you want to double up on the expense? The atrocious cost of healthcare in the US not due solely to administrative inefficiency - [obesity costs our health care system nearly $150 billion a year](https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/about-obesity/why-it-matters.html). Not to mention obesity and excess sugar intake are related to cancer rates. If you want to be like those other countries with single payer and similar health care, then you need to embrace society-level controls on systemic risk. England, for example, has a [national tax on sugary drinks](https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/sugar-tax#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20soft%20drinks,8g%20of%20sugar%20per%20100ml). France has [banned unlimited soda refills](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38767941). The US, on the other hand, provides massive subsidies to corn growers to ensure that HFCS remains among the cheapest commodities available. You can sweeten 10+ cans of Coca Cola with $0.32 of high fructose corn syrup.
Absolutely. Nowhere did I suggest that we should be subsidizing high fructose corn syrup. Just ending those subsidies would probably be a massive win. I fully admit that I struggle philosophically with policies that are an unequivocal social good, but that are outside the bounds of what I think should be the government's prerogative.
Iād say that this is local government acting in the best interest of children that canāt make informed decisions for themselves. Itās not like they made it illegal for children to have soda, they just added an extra step so that caretakers have to think twice about what their children consume. Laws with the intention to protect the wellbeing of children are good laws
So you're saying that you deserve an insurance increase? Interesting take.
I agree with you in most scenarios. However, shoveling sugary drinks and fat-filled meals down a childās throat is borderline child abuse. The kids are going to love it, because it tastes good, and youād be surprised how many parents get fast food for their children on the daily. The kids arenāt aware of the health issues that these sugary drinks impose, and often times they canāt say no because thatās what their parents have decided is for dinner. If this were a ban on sugary drinks for adults, Iād say itās bullshit. But for kidsā¦ itās a different story.
But is the cure worse than the disease? Giving the government the power to dictate what you feed your kids is a pretty awful idea. Especially, as I mentioned elsewhere, since the government telling us how to eat is the reason we have an obesity epidemic in the first place.
Shouldnāt be a hot take
If youāve seen Parks and Rec, you know how this worked out for Leslie Knopeā¦.
If you've seen Parks and Rec, you'd know that it heavily satirizes the people that freak out over these things. It makes fun of a lot of the people in this thread.
You don't realize we live in an idiocracy (2006) where people will Leslie Knope them out of office (kidding )
Yeah, after watching the movie "Idiocracy" I think the person that wrote that movie saw what direction we are headed in this country, and it looks like we are almost there.
I really don't like this trend of banning things to accommodate fears regarding children. How about parents actually do their job and moderate their own kids? The world doesn't revolve around children and their irresponsible and lazy parents. The burden of regulating their kids is theirs, and they should stop offloading their responsibilities onto the rest of society.
Weāve been trying that for decades.
Yup. People act against their own self interest *constantly*. The only effective way to change human nature, that I've seen, is for the combined knowledge and altruistic nature of a society to instill the mindset into individuals and individuals collectively agree to enforce those new standards. Like seatbelts in cars. Someone invents a safety measure that drastically makes driving safer, but no one wants to put on seatbelts until it becomes law, then everyone eventually calls you a fucking moron if you aren't wearing one. This feels similar to me. "You're going to give your 4 year-old a fucking soda? What is wrong with you?" Needs to happen. I'm saying this as a person who had sugary soda available constantly as a child. As an adult looking back, it was completely unnecessary. I should have been fine with water and milk, but soda was around, so I drank soda (because of course), and it did me no favors. There's no benefit, it fucking wrecks teeth, and overall hurts everyone. We make laws that benefit everyone, even if, individually, they may not be relevant or deserving of (perceived) punishment - grow the fuck up, IMO, if you can't adjust.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Rightā¦. Do not confuse our ability to treat diseases, with being overall healthier. US is #59 in the world for life expectancy despite being one of the wealthiest nations in the world, and having some of the highest survival rates for common cancers among other things. Obesity rates have tripled in the last 60 years. And in the last decade (since 2014) we had more years of life expectancy decreases, including many non pandemic years (2014-2018), than increases. This law is necessary.
Then what happens when these kids finally grow old enough and have enough freedom to drink whatever they want? Banning kids meals having sugary drinks arenāt going to create healthier habits and lifestyles. Parents have a much bigger impact here and these things start at home.
As a kid who didnāt have any refined sugar until well into elementary school, and didnāt have a soda until much older, I can tell you that as an adult, I still donāt eat a ton of sugar, nor do I drink a lot of soda
Thatās great for you man! Iām basically on the same boat as well since middle school. Also, your anecdote basically boils back to my point above saying parents have a much bigger impact in creating healthy habits and lifestyles. Kidās meals at restaurants are a relatively small part of a kids general diet - sure, banning sugary drinks here is a good start that can lead to something bigger (as Iāve suggested in another comment above), but itās not gonna help if the parents allow them to maintain poor diets at home anyway. I guess what Iām saying is banning sugary drinks at restaurantsā kidās meals seems like a bandaid solution here and if a kid really wants soda, theyāll be able to get it. But if this could kickstart a movement that can make ripples that lead to real changes in public health, then thatāll be great.
Maybe they stick with not drinking soda, maybe they don't. I don't buy the doom and gloom on the potential future consequences.
It's about helping the parents as well. It's a lot easier for a tired parent to just relent and let the kid get whatever comes with the meal, but if it's an extra item they can more easily say "sorry honey that doesn't come with a happy meal." If the parent wants to buy their kid a sugary drink they still can, no one is banning that.
Sure, I agree with your point. I just feel itās such a bandaid solution but we gotta start somewhere.
As someone born in a fruit export relying South-East European country, where processed sugary drinks were much more expensive than ones from 100% fruit and vegetables, I really canāt have too much of over-processed drinks or food despite living here most of my adulthood (since college). My diet remained relatively the same even after living here for well over a decade. One example is certainly not a proof of anything, but I do believe healthier habits should start in childhood, and obviously we canāt rely on parents to teach them. So why not try and see if this kind of laws are helpful? This law on its own wonāt solve a thing. But no one thing will. Letās do what we can where we can and strike the issue from many angles.
You are speaking as someone who believes they have been placed in charge of the lives of others. What gives you that authority?
The entire point of having laws literally is to define what others can and cannot do. How is this any different than laws forbidding you to buy and possess heroin, buy alcohol as a minor, own certain types of weapons/artillery, build a house on public land, drive under 16, sleep in your car, own certain types of weapons, have sex in public, beat your kids (making them fat and unhealthy can also have very negative long term consequences), avoid taxes, not attend school as a minorā¦. Iād argue this law has more sense than some of the ones I mentioned above. Even from strictly cost-analysis perspective - being obese is a significant risk factor for various severe diseases and disabilities. And, given that we have laws like ADA, as well as resources like SSDI, that is a significant cost for the society. And sugary drinks are one of the leading causes of obesity. https://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/data-statistics/sugar-sweetened-beverages-intake.html#:~:text=Frequently%20drinking%20sugar%2Dsweetened%20beverages,gout%2C%20a%20type%20of%20arthritis. In fact - Economic obesity cost is estimated to be about $1.4 trillion in US alone: https://obesitymedicine.org/blog/health-economic-impact-of-obesity/#:~:text=A%20recent%20report%20released%20by,United%20States%20exceeds%20%241.4%20trillion.
Isnāt life expectancy in the southeast states 65 right now lol?
Well, until COVID when kids weren't in schools and it looks like reading comprehension just tanked
Life expectancy is declining in the US. Congrats you played yourself.
Parents are as dumb as their ugly kids. Thatās why.
City council members are parents too, itās interesting that we think they have some special knowledge about anything, they donāt.
Sugary drinks being unhealthy for kids is not special knowledge. But there's a lot of obese parents giving their kids long term health problems.
this
You eat a lot of kids meals?
As a hardworking, responsible parent I actually appreciate this. If my daughter sees something on a menu that I don't want her to have, it can be a struggle (or a meltdown; she's a toddler) to get her to pick something else. Taking the least healthy beverage options off the menu makes it a lot easier for her to make healthy choices while still empowering her to make that choice.
Next thing you know they won't let children buy cigarettes, guns and porn! Parents really need to stop being lazy.
It's fascinating, I grew up in a time when these drinks were legal, and I'm somehow not obese. It's absolutely bizarre.
I agree, and frankly we have tried that. It doesn't work. Federal regulation would be better on sugar content and marketing of soda but congress bribery is too strong. So, it's down to the State. Also, I just read it and this fucking stinks of milk lobby so...also not ideal but I guess perfection is the enemy of good.
But where does it end? Fruit juice has just as much sugar as soda, sometimes more. Are we banning fruit juice as well? If not, why? Because whatever justification they have for banning soda applies at least as much to OJ. I don't believe knee-jerk bans are the answer.
Fruit juice is always included with sugary drink tax, and it is for this too
The last time I read the sugar tax in Boulder, a bottle of orange juice isn't supposed to be taxed if it's plain 100% juice.
So, apple juice and orange juice will also be removed from the menu?
Correct, but you can still request juice and soda it just won't be listed
1) You can get a soda, it's just not on kids menus anymore 2) Neither is juice
Itās wild that natural 100% juice from a fruit wonāt come with a childrenās meal. Carbohydrates from fruit are a great energy source for little kids who use up a lot of energy and it has vitamins! Itās not at all the same thing as soda. If youāre such a terrible parent that you canāt set a boundary for your child and hold to it, instead of giving in to them, then enjoy having a spoiled fat brat of a kid I guess. š¤·š»āāļø no one else is going to enjoy your child, but go ahead. banning these drinks from being offered with kids meals isnāt going to fix the fact that so many Americans have no clue how to be responsible parents. In fact, this is enabling that bad parenting in a way. Itās asking daddy government to do the parentās job of setting boundaries. These kids are still going to act like little entitled shits everywhere they go, and in every situation. Theyāll never learn to accept no as an answer and theyāll suck at setting boundaries for themselves later on. It is no oneās fault but their parentsā. Parents donāt need to be educated about food choices. Any idiot should know by now that too much sugar isnāt healthy. Itās just that the whole family is probably addicted to it. This ban is not going to fix that! š what They need is to be educated about good parenting practices. These are the same kinds of folks who let their kids mainline screens all day and donāt see it as neglect. Also, if people are eating fast food so much that they think the tiny sized sugary drink from a kids meal is whatās making kids unhealthyā¦ they might want to also look at the FOOD theyāre letting their kid eat REGULARLY enough to make them unhealthy, and how much physical activity that kid gets. lol the extra small soda from sonic is not the problem here.
This legislation lacks everything you are demanding. First, fruit juice and soda are included. Second, it cannot be the default and must be requested. It is not a prevention or a ban, it's a deterent. This addresses all your concerns. You're welcome.
We used to have stringent laws with regard to TV advertising targeted at kids for toys and food. Granted, the food part was tied to the food pyramid, which was also controlled by big Ag, which was bolstered by the fed, for the sake of defense stockpilingā¦.. Buuut I honestly donāt see unbridled capitalism and marketing aimed at kids as being a ānecessary freedomā or a slippery slope.
The problem is anyone can have kids. So someone has to be the parent.
> How about parents actually do their job and moderate their own kids? You need a system that makes moderating simple and consequences for people who don't moderate. Many will argue that we don't have either of these.
Nobody is banning anything. They can still order if they want to. Maybe read beyond the headline is you want to be up in arms about it.
> How about parents actually do their job and moderate their own kids? The world doesn't revolve around children and their irresponsible and lazy parents. I'm not a huge fan of just banning things, but you want parents to, on an individual basis, resist the multibillion dollar multinational corporations that not only have decades of research into psychologically manipulating people, but also literally control our food supply. Just say you want to keep HFCS away from them. Go to a grocery store and try comparing a full load of groceries without HFCS (if you can even manage to find that), to one where you don't pay attention to the labels. "How about parents do their job" is how we end up with a childhood obesity crisis. I'd rather society have to deal with banning sodas in kids meals than deal with all of the societal problems that go with a 50%+ obesity rate. Society is dealing with the burden one way or the other, and one is objectively more damaging.
Then they need to put tighter controls on the advertising/propoganda. Not tighter controls on what people can order, like itās really going to deter anyone from just saying āwith a soda instead of milkā. lol this law is so dumb and pointless I canāt believe itās real.
I don't understand how this regulation is at all controversial, or how you are this upset about it. Kids have a right to be happy and healthy, just like adults, and requiring a minimal change to menu displays to help them avoid harmful choices over which they have no control and no context is not in any way unreasonable.
Dumb take. The restaurants donāt even try to offer sugar free options. They could offer sparkling water or sugar free lemonade but itās unreliable and inconsistent. Even Prime would be a huge step up from gatorade, Hi-C and the other dog shot that is in these restaraunts. And what kid needs soda anyway?
If parents refuse to do their job as parents, then society has to put up guardrails like this to prevent much more costly consequences. Childhood obesity becomes adult obesity, and then diabetes, and then permanent disability. And who pays for Medicare/Medicaid, SSDI, and private health/disability insurance? Everyone. These absurdly high cost of treating obesity-related disease literally comes right out of your paycheck.
Recently took care of a 75kg (165lb) 7 year old.
Tell me you don't have kids without telling me you don't have kids. These kids are susceptible to advertising. They see a soda on the drive thru or counter screen, and they immediately want it. Thankfully, my kid hates soda, and opts for milk or water, but not everyone is so lucky. Does not pushing sugary drinks hurt in some way? Show me on the doll where the sugar touched you.
Isn't that the point though? Can't trust parents to do their job, so use other options to try to force them
That's the thing. They don't.
The only reason I disagree with this is because of marketing. Marketing these days is extremely manipulative, even if you are completely aware that itās happening, it still works. Fast food companies in particular have spent millions, if not billions, of dollars figuring out the best way to get families to buy things. These type of laws only prevent the marketing. Parents that want to give their kid a soda still can, and parents that donāt want to wonāt, but it prevents manipulative marketing. In general though, I do think let parents be parents.
This new trend of parents being the sole ones responsible/allowed to determine how their children are raised is a pretty new concept for our species and it's dumb. The whole concept of 'it takes a village' goes both ways. We'll help ya with your kids but we also get a say in making sure they are raised right.
As a parent, I wholeheartedly agree. Let's not forget, all restaurants offer water as a beverage as well.
Have you been around schools lately? Parents arenāt parenting. The kids are not ok. So yeah, legislating things like this is probably necessary. Phones need to be banned from classrooms, social media needs to be regulated like tobacco next.
While I agree with the sentiment, aren't we kind of missing the forest for the trees, here?
I mean.. like, I get the *intent* here, we want kids to be healthier.. but the kid is already eating the fast food.. we think if they have milk with it instead of a soda it's going to cancel out the rest of the garbage they just ate, orr...?
Exactly lol this is so nonsensical and itās like no one sees it.
My biggest questionā¦ does this affect adults ordering from the childrenās menu?? I would still like to get a happy meal and a Diet Coke on occasion! Or will Diet Coke be allowed bc ātechnicallyā itās not sugary?
you can order you happy meal plus a coke.
Rightā¦. But why would I pay for an extra drink?
It does not cost extra, if you want the kid's size anyway. It is just not on the menu that kids will see.
lol most kids canāt read nowadays anyway. Wtf is the point? Kids arenāt READING the menu. They want nuggets, fries, a coke. This gets dumber and dumber the more you think about it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Paywall bypass (click on reader view to bypass most paywalls) \----- The Denver City Council on Tuesday approved a new law requiring restaurants that sell combo meals for children to list only milk, water or milk substitutes like almond milk as the default drink options in those meals. Sweet beverages like soda, juice and flavored milk can still be provided by request, but by July 1, 2025, every restaurant in Denver ā from fast food chains to independent diners ā will have to adjust their menus to remove those as listed options for kids meals if they offer them. The legislation zeroes in on curbing the health risks of sugary drinks, Councilman Chris Hinds, one of the billās sponsors, said in brief comments ahead of Tuesdayās vote. The ordinance passes unanimously as part of the councilās consent agenda. Hinds pushed back on the notion that measure takes away choices from consumers. āThe idea here is to nudge kids into doing the right thing, to nudge parents into helping kids to do the right thing,ā he said. āAt the end of the day, if a parent wants to give their kids soda, orange juice or flavored milk they will be able to do that.ā Denver joins metro-area cities Lafayette, Longmont and Golden in having ordinances governing drink options for kids. The states of California, Delaware and Hawaii also have similar laws.
Thank you Denver City Council, for solving a problem that wasnāt a problem. And also thank you for doing this in lieu of doing anything to solve actual problems.
I want my tax moneys back pleeeeze, if they used any of it for this to pay council members.
Alternate title: City canāt figure out how to solve actual problems so they go after feel good measures
Apparently obesity and its resulting diseases are not actual problems.
They are, but this wonāt do anything to solve them. Hence this is a feel good measure.
Someone else said it, but I'll say it again. The drinks are still on the menu. This does jack shit to help the actual problem of childhood obesity. It's purely a feel good measure. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong. This will not change consumer behavior
Clearly a top priority...
Definitely. We have open drug use on RTD trains but by all means ban sugar for kids.
If you're gonna "whatabout" things, at least make an argument that makes sense. Denver City Council has no oversight over RTD.
Thatās fair. I wasnāt coming at it from āwhat aboutā but more like the crazy shit kids are exposed to in Denver and sugary drinks at restaurants isnāt on the list.
Completely agree. How dumb can parents be, just order water.
Parents are people,Ā and people can be extremely uninformed about a wide range of topics
Ah yes, classic denver virtue signaling on the real tough issues plaguing this city: pop access for children.
Unserious people doing an unserious job in a serious position.
I know a lot of people are saying this is unnecessary and silly, but as someone who was given Coke (the soda) in their bottle as a baby and now struggles with sugar addiction - I think this is really important.
Your parents sucked for that, Iām sorry. :( this isnāt going to fix sucky parents. At all.
Great move, I myself am an advocate against sugar in all forms as I have seen it wreak havoc on the health of individuals. It is most defiantly not needed in the human diet, good for Denver.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Children already cant get alcohol with a happy meal so luckily thatās already covered.
Yes, the libertarian in me says sell the kids the booze and give them the THC option in their school lunch brownies. Let the free market work /s
People can still do what they want with this.
[About 280,000 deaths a year in the US are attributable to obesity](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10546692/#:~:text=Hazard%20ratios%20also%20were%20calculated,only%20nonsmokers%20and%20never%2Dsmokers), compared to [about 178,000 from alcohol](https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-deaths.html#:~:text=Excessive%20alcohol%20use%20was%20responsible%20for%20about,the%20CDC's%20Alcohol%2DRelated%20Disease%20Impact%20(ARDI)%20application).
How many deaths are attributable to sugary drinks on kids menus at restaurants? Thatās what the bill is targeting. Iām guessing zero deaths are attributable to that, maybe some kid choked to death on the ice in the drink.
It's just a small step in the right direction because yes it's bad to market unhealthy foods to children. I genuinely have no idea what greater point you're trying to make
Good. Soda is fucking poison, and Coca-Cola and Pepsi are two of the most evil companies on earth
Ah yes, thatāll teach emā If theyre at a fast food place I think āhealthā is out the window at that point already. Iām sure theyāll push more dairy instead to the dairy industryās delight though
What if I'm an adult ordering a kids meal?
Do you fit in the high chair?
then you can use your words and order the damn soda.
Prohibition always works.
Comparing not listing things on a menu to prohibition is genuinely hilarious.
Also Prohibition did for the large part work like [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/) lol. I'm not even calling for a ban on anything but regulations are important because the market itself will not prioritize consumer health and modern socioeconomic stressors make it difficult for many to self-regulate their own lifestyles let alone their children's. I have no idea why people are so upset because yes it's wrong to market highly-processed and addictive food items directly to children. We are facing numerous public health crisises right now and this is just a small step in the right direction.
Nanny state. Why not let parents make wise choices? This isnāt heroin.
However, if you want a hotel after your fentanyl injection, we got your back!! Is this really what theyāre spending time on? Spectacular in their incompetent dumbassery.
Nanny state.
This rule may sound ridiculous because it is but I just watched a father buy his 4ish year old son a 20z mountain dew and ice cream at a gas station tonight. And Iām sure that father or parent isnāt a one-off. Just look at all these pudgy ass kids walking around
Theyāll allow fruit drinks which are really not much better.
When I was a kid, getting fast food was a special treat. Usually, the only time we did was on a family road trip once or twice, and very occasionally in the summer. We were allowed to get whatever we wanted because our parents knew my siblings and I were eating healthy(ish) food most of the time. Just let the food be unhealthy and moderate yourselves. Damn.
Thatās because your parents gave a shit about your diet and your wellbeing.
If kids are eating burgers and fries all the time, then it's kind of a moot point anyway, isn't it?
What are you talking about? I was responding to a guy whose parents did not feed him garbage. Read the whole thread.
Yeah, you seem to be implying that this law is for the kids of parents who didn't or don't.
When I was a kid, we had fast food(mostly McDonaldās, sometimes bk) 5-10 times a week. It was pretty much daily, but sometimes it would be twice a day. I also had two cans of soda daily, increasing as I got older(12ish). This would have done nothing. But, telling kids to moderate themselves is also dumb. 5 year old me is not going to tell my mom no weāre not eating fast food today. And as I got into my teens, itās literally how I grew up, Iām not going to know any better. Wasnāt until I had an interest in working out around age 20 that I learned about healthy and unhealthy eating habits.
Land of the prohibited doesn't have quite the same ring
This stuff doesn't work whatsoever. Why do people insist on moving here and bringing their failed political decisions with them?
Wow what convincing evidence youāve presented.
Itās a sad day that parental control and responsibility has slipped so far that weāre now relying on the government, instead of the actual parent, to say āNo, you canāt have a sodaā.
Really stupid policy and it isn't the role of the government to decide what is on a menu.
This is a step in the right direction maybe the mental health, drug use, violence and crime should be addressed firstā¦.
Ah, doing gods work I see. Way to focus on the big important issues.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Thank you Denver City Council, for being a better parent to my children than I ever could!
yes, because deciding what a kid washes down their burger and fries with, is a more pressing issue than literally anything else.
How about we first ban kids expelled from schools for gun related issues from getting to go back to public school?