McDonalds gives toys to fatten children, circumvents SF law


McDonald’s finds a way around San Francisco’s ‘Happy Meal ban’

San Francisco’s so-called "Happy Meal ban" goes into effect Thursday, but McDonald’s has already found a way around it.

The ordinance prohibits fast-food restaurants from including free toys with children’s meals that don’t comply with nutritional standards.

McDonald’s answer? It will charge 10 cents for the toy. The proceeds will be donated to Ronald McDonald House, the company’s charity for children with cancer.

McDonalds-Happy-Meal-SpidermanIt would be more behooving to start a charity for childhood diabetes and other obesity related diseases.  An NGO for promotion of exercise also could help undo the damage.

[…] that McDonald’s response "allows them to continue marketing this unhealthful food to children in the midst of an obesity crisis."

Eric Mar, the member of the Board of Supervisors who led adoption of the law, called the 10-cent charge a "marketing ploy," but he told The Associated Press that he didn’t plan to seek any changes to address the tactic.

Maybe he should change his plans. We are talking hundreds of millions of children, world wide, heading towards a life of obesity, disease and early death. And almost nothing is being done about it.

McDonald’s, said all of the company’s U.S. stores would offer Happy Meals with apples and smaller servings of french fries by March.


We are amazed how McDonald’s escapes through a loop hole huge as a barn door and can continue to cause grave damage to children. The damage is not just the one happy meal, but conditioning malleable children to a life-long preference of wrong foods.

Human-Stupidity is amazed, how, on the other hand, any loop-hole gets closed to prevent people from seeing so called child porn, due to voodoo theory. In spite of evidence by professor Milton Diamond that Child pornography viewing reduces child abuse.

We would like to invert the situation: seducing children to grievous bodily harm should be a crime, whose damage has been clearly proven.

Should Parents of Obese Kids Lose Custody? Yes. They expose children to harm. Our entire system needs to be revamped. Feeding children into obesity, allowing them to sit all day on video games and in boring schools, all this needs to be seriously changed. Social workers, advertising, public relations, all need to work together to save our children.

Author: Human-Stupidy (Admin)

Honest Research, Truth, Sincerity is our maxim. We hate politally correct falsification, falsification, repression of the truth, academic dishonesty and censorship.

6 thoughts on “McDonalds gives toys to fatten children, circumvents SF law”

  1. I against child pornography and that toys propaganda in terms of seducing kids to keep eating that crap fast food. Both are harming children and destroy their future. Parents should be aware and keep their children away from those. I prefer cooking our own meal for the children…and as a result they are healthy inside out.

  2. Re: admin,

    I agree with you on child pornography; it should not be illegal to possess, or view, images. As for selling crack to adolescents, I think the word “adolescent” is confusing. If the individual is a child, then providing him with poison should definitely be illegal. Adolescents are a grey area and need to be judged case by case.

  3. I’m leaning toward disagreeing with you her H.S. Companies should be allowed to give away whatever they please. It is not up to the law, or restaurants, to fight obesity; it is up to the parents.

    Should kids be taken away from parents who allow them to become dangerously obese? If the obesity is, indeed, dangerous, then I’d say yes. But more often than not, this would be a tough call with arbitrary lines between “fat” and “obese” making all the difference.

    1. @rhayat: Actively seducing millions of pliable children to forever destroy their health is serious. Still, as a Libertarian I understand your point. Then you should find alternative methods then, like government propaganda in favor of healthy food, influencing parents, etc.

      Maybe children need to be protected from their obese ignorant parents, who themselves get seduced by harmful advertising, propaganda, and presents.

      So what is your libertarian opinion about 5 year in prison for possessing 0’s and 1’s on a computer file, that depicts nude 15 year olds? Which does not hurt anyone.

      And what about selling crack to adolescents? Also no government interference? McDonalds and other fast food joints probably cause more deaths then drug dealers.

  4. “We would like to invert the situation: seducing children to grievous bodily harm should be a crime, whose damage has been clearly proven.”

    This is just another typical example of how the welfare of children is NOT the agenda of the feminist movement, the UN, governments, healthcare professionals nor the world’s law enforcement agencies.
    What all of those authorities are concerned about is the perpetual fueling of the world-wide paedo-hysteria machine, which the first group (the feminists) have so carefully socially engineered!
    Children eating junk food and dying prematurely does not sexaully threaten the middle aged fuglys of the feminazi party which reigns supreme over all of the authorites concerned, thus it isn’t important to them…
    What it is paramount to their cause is the criminalization and demonization of all male sexuality, NOT the safety or welfare of children.
    The safety of children is nothing more than smoke screen they were able to produce to effectively brainwash the majority into hating ‘paedophiles’; where ‘paedophiles’ now means practically any ‘male-person’ (to quote their stupid PC approved language) other than GAY male-persons.

Leave a Reply. We appreciate a discussion: if you disagree, your comment still is welcome.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.