Law curbs McDonald's Happy Meal toys

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

This is what a 16 yearold kid should look like, IMO....(had to grab a chance to brag about my kid)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v400/onekick/Beach/redbull.jpg

Literally exactly what I looked like at 16. Except I did my tabletops to the other side. Strange, that he rides left foot forward and tables to the left.

He does many things a bit out of the norm.. Youngest rider at Redbull Rampage..

http://www.pinkbike.com/video/164970/

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
I agree! Too many parents are scared to death to tell their kids one little word... NO!
....

Was it something I said?


Yep

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

....
I agree! Too many parents are scared to death to tell their kids one little word... NO!
....

Was it something I said?

Yep



Chuck

[Zep 0]

Quote

Dumb law. Most states already have laws that require places like that to post the nutritional info of their meals. Post the information and let parents decide.

Good law, Now if they'd only intriduce a law that requires all that enter a fast food outlet to READ andsighn a waiver
explaining that continous eating of our product will lead to obestity and or death for 99% of consumers.
They made tobacco companys do, So why not them.

Gone fishing

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

No wonder childhood obesity is increasing year on year in the US.

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Quote

Here in Ireland, we are rapidly moving in the same direction. According to a major survey of Irish adults carried out by the Food Safety Promotion Board in 2000, over 20% of men were found to be obese. In 1990 this figure was just 8%. In women, the rate of obesity was found to be 16%, up from 13%.

However, the highest prevalence of obesity in any group was in women over the age of 50, at almost 30%. More recently, a small consumer survey into the diet and lifestyle of Irish people, found that 51% of men and 32% of women are overweight.

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=9499







________________________________
"1981 to 1988 is 7 years"-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years Kallend)

The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years.

[skyrider 0]

Yep, it worked soooo well for cigerrettes too , millions stopped smoking, thank Gawd for that warning label, it worked miracles... [/saracsim]

[loumeinhart 0]

Quote

Now if they'd only intriduce a law that requires all that enter a fast food outlet to READ andsighn a waiver
explaining that continous eating of our product will lead to obestity and or death for 99% of consumers.

I don't think that would change people's decisions. If eating a 900 calorie fastfood meal immediately expanded your waist line and gave you cancer, people would choose their meal differently.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Yep, it worked soooo well for cigerrettes too , millions stopped smoking, thank Gawd for that warning label, it worked miracles... [/saracsim]

That was my initial reaction, too - but thinking about it further.... Look at how much the rate of adult smoking in the US has dropped over the years: from 85.3% in 1955 to 20.8% in 2007.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762370.html

I remember when the warning labels were first added to cigarette packs in the mid-1960s. That coincided with the start of a big anti-smoking public education campaign. There are a number of reasons why smoking has reduced so much over the past 50 years, and at least part of it is because of societal attitudes toward smoking.

Societal attitudes are often molded by a process of constant reinforcements. The warning labels on cigarettes were not the only anti-smoking reinforcements, but they were one of them, and they were constantly there: on every pack of cigarettes, and on every ad for cigarettes. So did the warning labels, alone, reduce smoking? No, not alone. But did they contribute to the cocktail of reinforcements toward an overall societal attitude which, in turn, has greatly reduced smoking? Yes, they did.

[wmw999 2,603]

In 1965 in the US about 42% of people smoked (chart & data). That's about when the signs on packs started.
Now around 20% smoke.
Sounds like all that education is working to me. The signs on the packs are a part of it.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

In 1965 in the US about 42% of people smoked (chart & data). That's about when the signs on packs started.
Now around 20% smoke.
Sounds like all that education is working to me. The signs on the packs are a part of it.

Wendy P.

Sigh. Compare your post with mine. I get paid by the word, Lady; and you're cutting into my profits.

[wmw999 2,603]

You were more eloquent. For the children.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

Yep, it worked soooo well for cigerrettes too , millions stopped smoking, thank Gawd for that warning label, it worked miracles... [/saracsim]

That was my initial reaction, too - but thinking about it further.... Look at how much the rate of adult smoking in the US has dropped over the years: from 85.3% in 1955 to 20.8% in 2007.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762370.html

I remember when the warning labels were first added to cigarette packs in the mid-1960s. That coincided with the start of a big anti-smoking public education campaign. There are a number of reasons why smoking has reduced so much over the past 50 years, and at least part of it is because of societal attitudes toward smoking.

Societal attitudes are often molded by a process of constant reinforcements. The warning labels on cigarettes were not the only anti-smoking reinforcements, but they were one of them, and they were constantly there: on every pack of cigarettes, and on every ad for cigarettes. So did the warning labels, alone, reduce smoking? No, not alone. But did they contribute to the cocktail of reinforcements toward an overall societal attitude which, in turn, has greatly reduced smoking? Yes, they did.

So your saying government stepping in ,forcing companies on how to market, and forcing parents to make good choices in food is a good idea?

[Southern_Man 0]

If we don't take a stand now, they will be coming for our bacon next....

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

In 1965 in the US about 42% of people smoked (chart & data). That's about when the signs on packs started.
Now around 20% smoke.
Sounds like all that education is working to me. The signs on the packs are a part of it.

Wendy P.

Sigh. Compare your post with mine. I get paid by the word, Lady; and you're cutting into my profits.

I'm having a bit of trouble believing that in 10 years the rate of smoking dropped from 85 to 42%. One of you two has a source that is likely in error.

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

In 1965 in the US about 42% of people smoked (chart & data). That's about when the signs on packs started.
Now around 20% smoke.
Sounds like all that education is working to me. The signs on the packs are a part of it.

Wendy P.

Sigh. Compare your post with mine. I get paid by the word, Lady; and you're cutting into my profits.

I'm having a bit of trouble believing that in 10 years the rate of smoking dropped from 85 to 42%. One of you two has a source that is likely in error.

Here is california, smokers are treated like lepers , recently going so far as to bar them from smoking on their front porch, (I have not heard this being enforced, but it is on the books)..

Here, it may be true, but other states....I travel a lot, and get surpirsed at how much the rest of the country smokes compared to here!

[The111 1]

Quote

Here, it may be true, but other states....I travel a lot, and get surpirsed at how much the rest of the country smokes compared to here!

It's true. I've lived here for 3 months, and the other day I walked by a girl smoking on a patio outside of a restaurant, and was confused by the smell. I think it was the first time I've smelled it since living here.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

Here, it may be true, but other states....I travel a lot, and get surpirsed at how much the rest of the country smokes compared to here!

It's true. I've lived here for 3 months, and the other day I walked by a girl smoking on a patio outside of a restaurant, and was confused by the smell. I think it was the first time I've smelled it since living here.

Us Cal. non smokers get spoiled!

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

In 1965 in the US about 42% of people smoked (chart & data). That's about when the signs on packs started.
Now around 20% smoke.
Sounds like all that education is working to me. The signs on the packs are a part of it.

Wendy P.

Sigh. Compare your post with mine. I get paid by the word, Lady; and you're cutting into my profits.

I'm having a bit of trouble believing that in 10 years the rate of smoking dropped from 85 to 42%. One of you two has a source that is likely in error.

I was just going by the chart linked in my post. Both her and my sources said 42% for 1965. If you think I mis-read my chart re: 1955, I'll certainly stand corrected.

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

In 1965 in the US about 42% of people smoked (chart & data). That's about when the signs on packs started.
Now around 20% smoke.
Sounds like all that education is working to me. The signs on the packs are a part of it.

Wendy P.

Sigh. Compare your post with mine. I get paid by the word, Lady; and you're cutting into my profits.

I'm having a bit of trouble believing that in 10 years the rate of smoking dropped from 85 to 42%. One of you two has a source that is likely in error.

I was just going by the chart linked in my post. Both her and my sources said 42% for 1965. If you think I mis-read my chart re: 1955, I'll certainly stand corrected.

55 or 65? make up your mind!

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yep, it worked soooo well for cigerrettes too , millions stopped smoking, thank Gawd for that warning label, it worked miracles... [/saracsim]

That was my initial reaction, too - but thinking about it further.... Look at how much the rate of adult smoking in the US has dropped over the years: from 85.3% in 1955 to 20.8% in 2007.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762370.html

I remember when the warning labels were first added to cigarette packs in the mid-1960s. That coincided with the start of a big anti-smoking public education campaign. There are a number of reasons why smoking has reduced so much over the past 50 years, and at least part of it is because of societal attitudes toward smoking.

Societal attitudes are often molded by a process of constant reinforcements. The warning labels on cigarettes were not the only anti-smoking reinforcements, but they were one of them, and they were constantly there: on every pack of cigarettes, and on every ad for cigarettes. So did the warning labels, alone, reduce smoking? No, not alone. But did they contribute to the cocktail of reinforcements toward an overall societal attitude which, in turn, has greatly reduced smoking? Yes, they did.

So your saying government stepping in ,forcing companies on how to market, and forcing parents to make good choices in food is a good idea?

No, I'm saying that the warning labels on cigarettes were one of many factors to educate people and change attitudes on the dangers of smoking, resulting in a significant reduction in the rate of smoking between 1965 and 2007.

[skyrider 0]

Then you are being a tool, those labels did nothing, but make smokers laugh..(then cough for a few minutes)

[wmw999 2,603]

What do you think made the difference?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[skyrider 0]

Quote

What do you think made the difference?

Wendy P.

"People"....Finally tired of stinking just so their office partener could be relaxed while he worked...while they sucked in the fumes....

It was NOT Government.....

Gawd, are you so weak that you think Government needs to lay out the map for your life?

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

I was just going by the chart linked in my post. Both her and my sources said 42% for 1965. If you think I mis-read my chart re: 1955, I'll certainly stand corrected.

Yeah, you misread your chart and simply added the number of women and the number of men smokers together. Looks to me like it was about the same in 55 and 65 (slightly fewer men, slightly more women smoked in 65).

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Yeah, you misread your chart

Well, I do that. Now you now why I'm not a doctor or engineer.