Berkeley, California, bans candy, junk food at grocery checkouts

22lcidw

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
13,881
Reaction score
3,719
Points
275
Meanwhile.... this person not only gets the majority of her 'shovel in her face fat foods" paid for by the taxpayer... but she is also on disability, and medicaid....

View attachment 394049
And the Progs are promoting that as the new "beautiful". Like it should be validated. All of us have our own ways. We also know right from wrong in everything whether we follow it or not. The candy at the counter would make little difference except for a sugar high if the kids were out running around like they used to.
 

norwegen

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
8,274
Reaction score
2,868
Points
350
Location
Ormond Beach, FL
In my opinion, this is a great example of totalitarianism being implemented under the guise of good intentions.

It's not the job of politicians and government bureaucrats to decide where a storeowner locates their different merchandise. That decision should be up to the store owner.


Berkeley, California, bans candy, junk food at grocery checkouts

September 25, 2020

The city of Berkeley, California is back on the attack against unhealthy habits.

The progressive university town this time has passed an ordinance requiring stores over 2,500 square feet in size to sell more nutritious food and beverage options in their checkout areas.

That means no more candy, soda and salty snacks available for impulsive shoppers waiting in line to pay at the register. The ban is believed to be the first of its kind in the nation.

“This ordinance is another effort to create a healthy food environment that would support families by providing them the ability to avoid high-calorie, low-nutrient food and beverages when they do their grocery and other shopping,” said a city report on the ordinance passed this week by the city council. “Individuals and families who want to purchase sugary drinks, candy, chips, and other sweet and salty snacks will be able to find them in their respective aisles in the center of stores. By changing checkout norms, shoppers and their children face less temptation to consume sugary foods and there is less reinforcement of these unhealthy choices.”
Written by a man who has never had to do the grocery shopping with one or more toddlers, on a regular basis.

Every mother in the world applauds this move. Mothers have been complaining about having to run the candy gauntlet in the checkout aisle since I was a child. It's hard enough to take toddlers grocery shopping without having to endure long waits surrounded by junk food while waiting to finish your shopping and get the hell out of the store.

And you're stuck there, with a child who passed their tolerance for grocery shopping 5 minutes after you arrived at the store, who is bored and/or tired, and who absolutely doesn't need a sugar high to make them, or you, more miserable at this point.

My grocery store has baskets of bananas at the entrance for children coming into the store with their parents. It has magazines and books at the check out aisles It's a regular big box grocery store, not a hippy dippy organic outlet. It sells junk food - has a double wide aisle full of it, but not at the checkouts.
Boo fucking hoo. They also place candy under the counter at gas stations, gonna bitch about that now?

My god, you have to tell your kids "no". The fucking horror.

When I was a kid, if I whined about getting candy in the checkout. I got the "no", then the glare, and then I stopped, because I knew the glare was the last checkpoint before a full on scream-a-thon at home due to my shitty behavior.
Yea, she'll bitch about it until she has her way with someone else's business.
 

Polishprince

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
24,686
Reaction score
10,376
Points
950
In my opinion, this is a great example of totalitarianism being implemented under the guise of good intentions.

It's not the job of politicians and government bureaucrats to decide where a storeowner locates their different merchandise. That decision should be up to the store owner.


Berkeley, California, bans candy, junk food at grocery checkouts

September 25, 2020

The city of Berkeley, California is back on the attack against unhealthy habits.

The progressive university town this time has passed an ordinance requiring stores over 2,500 square feet in size to sell more nutritious food and beverage options in their checkout areas.

That means no more candy, soda and salty snacks available for impulsive shoppers waiting in line to pay at the register. The ban is believed to be the first of its kind in the nation.

“This ordinance is another effort to create a healthy food environment that would support families by providing them the ability to avoid high-calorie, low-nutrient food and beverages when they do their grocery and other shopping,” said a city report on the ordinance passed this week by the city council. “Individuals and families who want to purchase sugary drinks, candy, chips, and other sweet and salty snacks will be able to find them in their respective aisles in the center of stores. By changing checkout norms, shoppers and their children face less temptation to consume sugary foods and there is less reinforcement of these unhealthy choices.”
Written by a man who has never had to do the grocery shopping with one or more toddlers, on a regular basis.

Every mother in the world applauds this move. Mothers have been complaining about having to run the candy gauntlet in the checkout aisle since I was a child. It's hard enough to take toddlers grocery shopping without having to endure long waits surrounded by junk food while waiting to finish your shopping and get the hell out of the store.

And you're stuck there, with a child who passed their tolerance for grocery shopping 5 minutes after you arrived at the store, who is bored and/or tired, and who absolutely doesn't need a sugar high to make them, or you, more miserable at this point.

My grocery store has baskets of bananas at the entrance for children coming into the store with their parents. It has magazines and books at the check out aisles It's a regular big box grocery store, not a hippy dippy organic outlet. It sells junk food - has a double wide aisle full of it, but not at the checkouts.
Boo fucking hoo. They also place candy under the counter at gas stations, gonna bitch about that now?

My god, you have to tell your kids "no". The fucking horror.

When I was a kid, if I whined about getting candy in the checkout. I got the "no", then the glare, and then I stopped, because I knew the glare was the last checkpoint before a full on scream-a-thon at home due to my shitty behavior.

Telling children "no" is part of being a parent.

That's part of the problem in this country, parents don't want to do the job and TV don't help. You have that Mr. Rogers character on TV telling kids they "are special". When I was a kid, we saw the Mr. Howard character on TV telling us we were imbeciles and threatening to tear our tonsils out.
 

NightFox

Wildling
Joined
Jul 20, 2013
Messages
10,244
Reaction score
1,883
Points
280
Location
North beyond the Wall
In my opinion, this is a great example of totalitarianism being implemented under the guise of good intentions.

It's not the job of politicians and government bureaucrats to decide where a storeowner locates their different merchandise. That decision should be up to the store owner.
State and local governments have been doing this sort of thing for decades, primarily with rules involving how/when/where the display and sales of tobacco and alcohol products.

The other things to consider :
An estimated 75% of our health care expenditures go toward treating chronic lifestyle (i.e. diet, exercise, alcohol, tobacco, drugs) driven disease; so ultimately you'll be paying for the junk food your neighbors eat in the form of health care subsidies and increased insurance premiums, do you want to have some say in that equation?

Secondly, junk food is so prevalent and cheap largely because of our idiotic federal agricultural policy subsidizing the mass production of this garbage while at the same time providing ZERO subsidies for healthy alternatives, thus giving the junk food megacorps the wherewithal to hyper-market the junk that's making Americans fat, sick and nearly dead. The fact that we have epidemic levels of heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, preventable cancers, etc.., isn't an accident, it's directly linked to our abyssmal eating habits. So if that's going to be the case shouldn't state and local governments do SOMETHING to try and counter it?

I'm no fan of economic interventionism or regulation in general but if the oligarchs in charge are going to make me pony up for everyone else's health care while at the same time shelling out money to the junk food producers in the form of agricultural subsidies, I at least want a small bit of say in how merchants sell it.
Awwww, what a great point. Gubermint cares about me. That's so sweet. Thanks for letting me know, now I will let them do whatever they want ...
Uh-huh, I'm sorry to hear about your reading disability...

Unfortunately I must intrude into the reality distortion field you exist in and inform you that; gubmint doesn't give a fuck about you beyond your ability to shovel money its way and refrain from engaging in armed rebellion against it's authority.

Now back to what I actually wrote instead of what the voices in your head told you I wrote.....
Gotcha, so you are claiming government is doing a good thing but you're not claiming that government cares about you when they do good things for you.
There's that reading disability of yours rearing it's ugly head again...:rolleyes:

I never claimed any of those things, what I did say was that thanks to idiotic central government policy we're paying to poison ourselves with junk food and then paying on the other end to treat the effects of the poison.

The fact that a local government had the right INTENTIONS of trying to mitigate that vicious cycle isn't something to necessarily be critical of, unless of course you're a fan of incompetent centralized authority and letting it have it's way unhindered by localized authority.

Notice there's no speculation on my part with respect to the MOTIVES of said local government since in this case they're not relevant.
 

Dragonlady

Designing Woman
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
25,819
Reaction score
8,270
Points
910
Location
Niagara Escarpment
In my opinion, this is a great example of totalitarianism being implemented under the guise of good intentions.

It's not the job of politicians and government bureaucrats to decide where a storeowner locates their different merchandise. That decision should be up to the store owner.
State and local governments have been doing this sort of thing for decades, primarily with rules involving how/when/where the display and sales of tobacco and alcohol products.

The other things to consider :
An estimated 75% of our health care expenditures go toward treating chronic lifestyle (i.e. diet, exercise, alcohol, tobacco, drugs) driven disease; so ultimately you'll be paying for the junk food your neighbors eat in the form of health care subsidies and increased insurance premiums, do you want to have some say in that equation?

Secondly, junk food is so prevalent and cheap largely because of our idiotic federal agricultural policy subsidizing the mass production of this garbage while at the same time providing ZERO subsidies for healthy alternatives, thus giving the junk food megacorps the wherewithal to hyper-market the junk that's making Americans fat, sick and nearly dead. The fact that we have epidemic levels of heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, preventable cancers, etc.., isn't an accident, it's directly linked to our abyssmal eating habits. So if that's going to be the case shouldn't state and local governments do SOMETHING to try and counter it?

I'm no fan of economic interventionism or regulation in general but if the oligarchs in charge are going to make me pony up for everyone else's health care while at the same time shelling out money to the junk food producers in the form of agricultural subsidies, I at least want a small bit of say in how merchants sell it.
Awwww, what a great point. Gubermint cares about me. That's so sweet. Thanks for letting me know, now I will let them do whatever they want ...
Uh-huh, I'm sorry to hear about your reading disability...

Unfortunately I must intrude into the reality distortion field you exist in and inform you that; gubmint doesn't give a fuck about you beyond your ability to shovel money its way and refrain from engaging in armed rebellion against it's authority.

Now back to what I actually wrote instead of what the voices in your head told you I wrote.....
Gotcha, so you are claiming government is doing a good thing but you're not claiming that government cares about you when they do good things for you.

So how does that work then? What makes them do good things for you where they don't actually care? Why are they doing it for you then?
The concept involved is called "enlightened self interest". It's a concept that just goes right over the heads of fools like you.

Doing things that promote the good health of the people lowers the cost of health care, reduces the strain on hospitals, and lowers taxes. With a healthier, more productive population, you have a more capable and productive work force.

The fact that I even have to explain such simple basic economic concepts to you shows how woefully lacking your critical thinking skills are.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,071
Reaction score
10,693
Points
2,040
Location
Kazmania
In my opinion, this is a great example of totalitarianism being implemented under the guise of good intentions.

It's not the job of politicians and government bureaucrats to decide where a storeowner locates their different merchandise. That decision should be up to the store owner.
State and local governments have been doing this sort of thing for decades, primarily with rules involving how/when/where the display and sales of tobacco and alcohol products.

The other things to consider :
An estimated 75% of our health care expenditures go toward treating chronic lifestyle (i.e. diet, exercise, alcohol, tobacco, drugs) driven disease; so ultimately you'll be paying for the junk food your neighbors eat in the form of health care subsidies and increased insurance premiums, do you want to have some say in that equation?

Secondly, junk food is so prevalent and cheap largely because of our idiotic federal agricultural policy subsidizing the mass production of this garbage while at the same time providing ZERO subsidies for healthy alternatives, thus giving the junk food megacorps the wherewithal to hyper-market the junk that's making Americans fat, sick and nearly dead. The fact that we have epidemic levels of heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, preventable cancers, etc.., isn't an accident, it's directly linked to our abyssmal eating habits. So if that's going to be the case shouldn't state and local governments do SOMETHING to try and counter it?

I'm no fan of economic interventionism or regulation in general but if the oligarchs in charge are going to make me pony up for everyone else's health care while at the same time shelling out money to the junk food producers in the form of agricultural subsidies, I at least want a small bit of say in how merchants sell it.
Awwww, what a great point. Gubermint cares about me. That's so sweet. Thanks for letting me know, now I will let them do whatever they want ...
Uh-huh, I'm sorry to hear about your reading disability...

Unfortunately I must intrude into the reality distortion field you exist in and inform you that; gubmint doesn't give a fuck about you beyond your ability to shovel money its way and refrain from engaging in armed rebellion against it's authority.

Now back to what I actually wrote instead of what the voices in your head told you I wrote.....
Gotcha, so you are claiming government is doing a good thing but you're not claiming that government cares about you when they do good things for you.
There's that reading disability of yours rearing it's ugly head again...:rolleyes:

I never claimed any of those things, what I did say was that thanks to idiotic central government policy we're paying to poison ourselves with junk food and then paying on the other end to treat the effects of the poison.

The fact that a local government had the right INTENTIONS of trying to mitigate that vicious cycle isn't something to necessarily be critical of, unless of course you're a fan of incompetent centralized authority and letting it have it's way unhindered by localized authority.

Notice there's no speculation on my part with respect to the MOTIVES of said local government since in this case they're not relevant.
I like how you said I am not reading accurately then while I said I want government to stay out of it you somehow got out of that I want central government to do it instead of local government, LOL. I also oppose government interfering in healthcare. Government is not the solution, government is the problem (Ronald Reagan).

Look, guy. I don't trust government to make these decisions at all. I don't buy candy from checkout lines ever. If stores want to move them in all their lines or some of them, that's great.

But you're playing this game where government is doing the right thing but you're not saying they care about us while they do the right thing and you're for that.

I am not failing to read your posts at all, I fully recognize them for their full, glorious double speak
 

NightFox

Wildling
Joined
Jul 20, 2013
Messages
10,244
Reaction score
1,883
Points
280
Location
North beyond the Wall
In my opinion, this is a great example of totalitarianism being implemented under the guise of good intentions.

It's not the job of politicians and government bureaucrats to decide where a storeowner locates their different merchandise. That decision should be up to the store owner.
State and local governments have been doing this sort of thing for decades, primarily with rules involving how/when/where the display and sales of tobacco and alcohol products.

The other things to consider :
An estimated 75% of our health care expenditures go toward treating chronic lifestyle (i.e. diet, exercise, alcohol, tobacco, drugs) driven disease; so ultimately you'll be paying for the junk food your neighbors eat in the form of health care subsidies and increased insurance premiums, do you want to have some say in that equation?

Secondly, junk food is so prevalent and cheap largely because of our idiotic federal agricultural policy subsidizing the mass production of this garbage while at the same time providing ZERO subsidies for healthy alternatives, thus giving the junk food megacorps the wherewithal to hyper-market the junk that's making Americans fat, sick and nearly dead. The fact that we have epidemic levels of heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, preventable cancers, etc.., isn't an accident, it's directly linked to our abyssmal eating habits. So if that's going to be the case shouldn't state and local governments do SOMETHING to try and counter it?

I'm no fan of economic interventionism or regulation in general but if the oligarchs in charge are going to make me pony up for everyone else's health care while at the same time shelling out money to the junk food producers in the form of agricultural subsidies, I at least want a small bit of say in how merchants sell it.
Awwww, what a great point. Gubermint cares about me. That's so sweet. Thanks for letting me know, now I will let them do whatever they want ...
Uh-huh, I'm sorry to hear about your reading disability...

Unfortunately I must intrude into the reality distortion field you exist in and inform you that; gubmint doesn't give a fuck about you beyond your ability to shovel money its way and refrain from engaging in armed rebellion against it's authority.

Now back to what I actually wrote instead of what the voices in your head told you I wrote.....
Gotcha, so you are claiming government is doing a good thing but you're not claiming that government cares about you when they do good things for you.
There's that reading disability of yours rearing it's ugly head again...:rolleyes:

I never claimed any of those things, what I did say was that thanks to idiotic central government policy we're paying to poison ourselves with junk food and then paying on the other end to treat the effects of the poison.

The fact that a local government had the right INTENTIONS of trying to mitigate that vicious cycle isn't something to necessarily be critical of, unless of course you're a fan of incompetent centralized authority and letting it have it's way unhindered by localized authority.

Notice there's no speculation on my part with respect to the MOTIVES of said local government since in this case they're not relevant.
I like how you said I am not reading accurately then while I said I want government to stay out of it you somehow got out of that I want central government to do it instead of local government, LOL.
You really do need to work on your reading with comprehension skills, I didn't accuse YOU of doing anything. I don't really know (or care) what you want central government to do, in fact I suspect you don't even know what you want central government to do or not to do.

I also oppose government interfering in healthcare. Government is not the solution, government is the problem (Ronald Reagan).
That's great, so do I, unfortunately out here in the real world government is deeply involved in healthcare and while that's the case I'm all for a well intentioned measure implemented by a local authority that might have a snowballs chance in hell to reduce the cost of healthcare subsidies that I'm forced to pony up for , even if it's just by a tiny amount.

I am not failing to read your posts at all, I fully recognize them for their full, glorious double speak
LOL, the fact that you cannot understand what you're attempting to read doesn't mean you haven't failed, it just means that the only hope of effectively communicating with you is for me to start writing at a 2nd grade level which I'm not really willing to put the effort into.
 

Staidhup

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
4,223
Reaction score
928
Points
245
Location
PNW
Haha, These guys are killing me, so sell pot and beer, outlaw sweets. Got to love the trivial of liberalism in all its splendor. Heaven forbid they outlaw munchies.
Regretfully the fascists can’t see the forest through the trees. Obesity is a life style, legislating intended behavior didn’t work with pot or alcohol but heck give it a shot It’s what true fascism is all about.
 

Dragonlady

Designing Woman
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
25,819
Reaction score
8,270
Points
910
Location
Niagara Escarpment
In my opinion, this is a great example of totalitarianism being implemented under the guise of good intentions.

It's not the job of politicians and government bureaucrats to decide where a storeowner locates their different merchandise. That decision should be up to the store owner.


Berkeley, California, bans candy, junk food at grocery checkouts

September 25, 2020

The city of Berkeley, California is back on the attack against unhealthy habits.

The progressive university town this time has passed an ordinance requiring stores over 2,500 square feet in size to sell more nutritious food and beverage options in their checkout areas.

That means no more candy, soda and salty snacks available for impulsive shoppers waiting in line to pay at the register. The ban is believed to be the first of its kind in the nation.

“This ordinance is another effort to create a healthy food environment that would support families by providing them the ability to avoid high-calorie, low-nutrient food and beverages when they do their grocery and other shopping,” said a city report on the ordinance passed this week by the city council. “Individuals and families who want to purchase sugary drinks, candy, chips, and other sweet and salty snacks will be able to find them in their respective aisles in the center of stores. By changing checkout norms, shoppers and their children face less temptation to consume sugary foods and there is less reinforcement of these unhealthy choices.”
Written by a man who has never had to do the grocery shopping with one or more toddlers, on a regular basis.

Every mother in the world applauds this move. Mothers have been complaining about having to run the candy gauntlet in the checkout aisle since I was a child. It's hard enough to take toddlers grocery shopping without having to endure long waits surrounded by junk food while waiting to finish your shopping and get the hell out of the store.

And you're stuck there, with a child who passed their tolerance for grocery shopping 5 minutes after you arrived at the store, who is bored and/or tired, and who absolutely doesn't need a sugar high to make them, or you, more miserable at this point.

My grocery store has baskets of bananas at the entrance for children coming into the store with their parents. It has magazines and books at the check out aisles It's a regular big box grocery store, not a hippy dippy organic outlet. It sells junk food - has a double wide aisle full of it, but not at the checkouts.
Boo fucking hoo. They also place candy under the counter at gas stations, gonna bitch about that now?

My god, you have to tell your kids "no". The fucking horror.

When I was a kid, if I whined about getting candy in the checkout. I got the "no", then the glare, and then I stopped, because I knew the glare was the last checkpoint before a full on scream-a-thon at home due to my shitty behavior.
Well your mother wasn't capable of saying "No" to you in any sort of reasonable adult way. One would think you'd want to spare young children a fate such as yours. I'm sorry your mother had no parenting skills, and passed that lack onto you. This is a good part of the reason why you're an idiot.

When was the last time you dragged your children around the gas station for an hour while telling them not to touch anything, and trying to provision your household. Again, your utter ignorance of how the world works and why grocery stores do this is astounding.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
53,762
Reaction score
11,059
Points
2,040
In my opinion, this is a great example of totalitarianism being implemented under the guise of good intentions.

It's not the job of politicians and government bureaucrats to decide where a storeowner locates their different merchandise. That decision should be up to the store owner.


Berkeley, California, bans candy, junk food at grocery checkouts

September 25, 2020

The city of Berkeley, California is back on the attack against unhealthy habits.

The progressive university town this time has passed an ordinance requiring stores over 2,500 square feet in size to sell more nutritious food and beverage options in their checkout areas.

That means no more candy, soda and salty snacks available for impulsive shoppers waiting in line to pay at the register. The ban is believed to be the first of its kind in the nation.

“This ordinance is another effort to create a healthy food environment that would support families by providing them the ability to avoid high-calorie, low-nutrient food and beverages when they do their grocery and other shopping,” said a city report on the ordinance passed this week by the city council. “Individuals and families who want to purchase sugary drinks, candy, chips, and other sweet and salty snacks will be able to find them in their respective aisles in the center of stores. By changing checkout norms, shoppers and their children face less temptation to consume sugary foods and there is less reinforcement of these unhealthy choices.”
Written by a man who has never had to do the grocery shopping with one or more toddlers, on a regular basis.

Every mother in the world applauds this move. Mothers have been complaining about having to run the candy gauntlet in the checkout aisle since I was a child. It's hard enough to take toddlers grocery shopping without having to endure long waits surrounded by junk food while waiting to finish your shopping and get the hell out of the store.

And you're stuck there, with a child who passed their tolerance for grocery shopping 5 minutes after you arrived at the store, who is bored and/or tired, and who absolutely doesn't need a sugar high to make them, or you, more miserable at this point.

My grocery store has baskets of bananas at the entrance for children coming into the store with their parents. It has magazines and books at the check out aisles It's a regular big box grocery store, not a hippy dippy organic outlet. It sells junk food - has a double wide aisle full of it, but not at the checkouts.
Boo fucking hoo. They also place candy under the counter at gas stations, gonna bitch about that now?

My god, you have to tell your kids "no". The fucking horror.

When I was a kid, if I whined about getting candy in the checkout. I got the "no", then the glare, and then I stopped, because I knew the glare was the last checkpoint before a full on scream-a-thon at home due to my shitty behavior.
Well your mother wasn't capable of saying "No" to you in any sort of reasonable adult way. One would think you'd want to spare young children a fate such as yours. I'm sorry your mother had no parenting skills, and passed that lack onto you. This is a good part of the reason why you're an idiot.

When was the last time you dragged your children around the gas station for an hour while telling them not to touch anything, and trying to provision your household. Again, your utter ignorance of how the world works and why grocery stores do this is astounding.
She wasn't dealing with adults, she was dealing with a 5 year old, Why deal with a 5 year old in an "adult" way?

I didn't understand the adult reasoning for me not getting the candy, but I sure as hell understood her method of making me stop acting like a spoiled little runt.

Your parenting skills are in question if you can't say no to your kids and need government to shield them from the evil candy sitting their in the rack. Like all progressives you want someone else to do YOUR FUCKING JOB.
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
31,954
Reaction score
8,351
Points
1,340
In my opinion, this is a great example of totalitarianism being implemented under the guise of good intentions.

It's not the job of politicians and government bureaucrats to decide where a storeowner locates their different merchandise. That decision should be up to the store owner.


Berkeley, California, bans candy, junk food at grocery checkouts

September 25, 2020

The city of Berkeley, California is back on the attack against unhealthy habits.

The progressive university town this time has passed an ordinance requiring stores over 2,500 square feet in size to sell more nutritious food and beverage options in their checkout areas.

That means no more candy, soda and salty snacks available for impulsive shoppers waiting in line to pay at the register. The ban is believed to be the first of its kind in the nation.

“This ordinance is another effort to create a healthy food environment that would support families by providing them the ability to avoid high-calorie, low-nutrient food and beverages when they do their grocery and other shopping,” said a city report on the ordinance passed this week by the city council. “Individuals and families who want to purchase sugary drinks, candy, chips, and other sweet and salty snacks will be able to find them in their respective aisles in the center of stores. By changing checkout norms, shoppers and their children face less temptation to consume sugary foods and there is less reinforcement of these unhealthy choices.”
I actually SUPPORT this and they are not outright banning the sale of them it's JUST from the checkout areas:

“This ordinance is another effort to create a healthy food environment that would support families by providing them the ability to avoid high-calorie, low-nutrient food and beverages when they do their grocery and other shopping,”

“Individuals and families who want to purchase sugary drinks, candy, chips, and other sweet and salty snacks will be able to find them in their respective aisles in the center of stores. By changing checkout norms, shoppers and their children face less temptation to consume sugary foods and there is less reinforcement of these unhealthy choices.”


As a parent of 6 kidlets I SUPPORT this because we should not be encouraging our children to be wanting all this crap, we should be encouraging them to eat more healthy foods. Mr. Lucy and me do allow the kidlets SOME sugary drinks and candy etc but we ALSO encourage them to eat more healthy foods and for them to learn that the sugary drinks and candy etc are ONLY to be OCCASIONAL situations. We do NOT want our kidlets full of E numbers and sugar and general bad crap that has NO nutritional value.
..that's where it's the parents' problem-issue and NOT the stores'....
..either the family has the discipline/culture/etc to ''avoid'' the candy/etc---and have a healthy lifestyle--or they do not
...I see fatties eating LOTS of McDs/etc all the time ....they GO to the fat foods
Stores actually spend there time trying to undermine the parents... Why worldwide are these displays put at a lower height for children... This is just marketing to children the younger the better... Life is hard enough without responsible parents having to tell their kids they are not getting things that irresponsible parents allow...
Support better parenting...
..let me tell you something: if you don't and can't discipline your kids, more than likely, they will grow up undisciplined = crap
....stores are trying to SELL--not undermine parents
..it's real EASY--tell the kid NO!!!!
 

HenryBHough

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
29,304
Reaction score
5,629
Points
290
Location
Oak Grove, Massachusetts
In my opinion, this is a great example of totalitarianism being implemented under the guise of good intentions.

It's not the job of politicians and government bureaucrats to decide where a storeowner locates their different merchandise. That decision should be up to the store owner.


Berkeley, California, bans candy, junk food at grocery checkouts

September 25, 2020

The city of Berkeley, California is back on the attack against unhealthy habits.

The progressive university town this time has passed an ordinance requiring stores over 2,500 square feet in size to sell more nutritious food and beverage options in their checkout areas.

That means no more candy, soda and salty snacks available for impulsive shoppers waiting in line to pay at the register. The ban is believed to be the first of its kind in the nation.

“This ordinance is another effort to create a healthy food environment that would support families by providing them the ability to avoid high-calorie, low-nutrient food and beverages when they do their grocery and other shopping,” said a city report on the ordinance passed this week by the city council. “Individuals and families who want to purchase sugary drinks, candy, chips, and other sweet and salty snacks will be able to find them in their respective aisles in the center of stores. By changing checkout norms, shoppers and their children face less temptation to consume sugary foods and there is less reinforcement of these unhealthy choices.”
I actually SUPPORT this and they are not outright banning the sale of them it's JUST from the checkout areas:

“This ordinance is another effort to create a healthy food environment that would support families by providing them the ability to avoid high-calorie, low-nutrient food and beverages when they do their grocery and other shopping,”

“Individuals and families who want to purchase sugary drinks, candy, chips, and other sweet and salty snacks will be able to find them in their respective aisles in the center of stores. By changing checkout norms, shoppers and their children face less temptation to consume sugary foods and there is less reinforcement of these unhealthy choices.”


As a parent of 6 kidlets I SUPPORT this because we should not be encouraging our children to be wanting all this crap, we should be encouraging them to eat more healthy foods. Mr. Lucy and me do allow the kidlets SOME sugary drinks and candy etc but we ALSO encourage them to eat more healthy foods and for them to learn that the sugary drinks and candy etc are ONLY to be OCCASIONAL situations. We do NOT want our kidlets full of E numbers and sugar and general bad crap that has NO nutritional value.
I DID add emphasis (bold and color red) to one line of the quoted material. Simply to make it easier to see that to which I react below:

When Hitler said certain things he was excused by many because they felt ever-so-safe since it was ONLY THE JEWS.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top