In his article in The New York Times, Jesse McKinley reports on the November 2 decision by San Francisco's Board of Supervisors to "ban ... restaurant toy giveaways unless the aforementioned meals meet certain" nutrition standards (2010, ¶ 2). As McKinley points out, McDonalds are not the only people who think that this decision wrong. McDonalds objects on the grounds that Happy Meals are what their customers demand, while San Francisco's mayor, although unable to stop it, opposes his supervisors' decision because it is "the wrong approach to fighting childhood obesity," according to his spokesman (¶ 6). McKinley further reports that the board's decision was based on the facts that show how serious a problem childhood obesity has become in the US, and that a similar law had previously been implemented in Santa Clara.
As every one in level 5 is already aware, this controversial decision forces us to consider not only the relevant facts, but also how those facts relate to and justify the formation of government policy, which in some answers raised questions about the role and responsibilities of lawmakers, as well as the role of other parties involved. A couple of the inferences that have been made from McKinley's article also interested me. In particular, what can we infer about McKinley's opinion on the issue? What is his opinion about the ban on giveaway toys with Happy Meals? This is your chance to argue a little more for your stand on the moral right or wrong of the ban. Or if you are in level 6, and would like to contribute, please feel welcome to state your ideas and respond to any comments.
So, what do you think?
Did the Board of Supervisors make the right decision? Or are the mayor and McDonalds right?
Is it in the best interests of San Franciscans? Is it right for San Franciscans?
How should such decisions be made? What are the relevant criteria and how important is each?
What should be the role and responsibilities of governing bodies such as the board of supervisors?
__________
References
I can not say this is moral right or wrong about the ban. I already stated in my article that I agree with the voted result from San Francisco's Board of Supervisors.
ReplyDeleteNext, the SF's Mayor's spokesman stated that "the wrong approach to fighting childhood obesity." What is the right to solve the problem? Parents should take care more about their children eating habit , mustn't they? or Kids should enlighten their own how to control diet? In my own opinion, anyway, which could help to solve the problem, is the right procedures.
Also, the voted was not performed easily. i think before the SF government was passing the law, the SF's citizen had to be polled. Furthermore, the policy is not definitely ban all kinds of food. the government make this law with the compromise way. Only the foods, which is under healthy nutritional standard, are not allowed to sell with giveaway toys. This is fair enough.
Peter,before I answer your questions I have to question you first.
ReplyDeleteAm I understand clearly about the article?
Firstly, I think "he would veto the bill, though the eight “yes” votes would be enough to override"(¶5) means the Mayor would voted yes to support the ban of giving away toy but why in ¶6 it looks like he think it's ineffective?
Another question,
Is the "board"(¶7) means Lawmakers? and "soon-to-be-former mayor" means Gavin Newsom? Am I understand correctly?
For your questions, I think McKinley doesn't like this law because in the first sentence in ¶3 when I read it, I felt like he feels sarcastic with the reason of the ban.
Personally, I don't like this law because it doesn't tackle the problem directly and it also violates human right. The law should be created to benefit their citizen not to prevent them to do things so lawmakers should cancel this law which banning the giving away toys; however, they should keep the law which limit the colories and sodium in the food.
Net,
ReplyDeleteThe mayor did not vote, but will veto (refuse to approve) the law. However, he cannot stop it becoming law (¶ 5).
Newsom is currently mayor, but has been elected lieutenant governor of California, so must give up his position as mayor of San Francisco (¶ 7).
OMG !!
ReplyDeleteI though veto is the writer's typo, and he wants to type vote. -*- It's my misunderstand.
Thank you for your explaination.
There are occasionally typos in the NY Times, but not often, rather fewer than the typos I make in my comments here.
ReplyDelete