Kids meals in San Francisco aren’t so happy anymore.
That’s because the city council has effectively banned the McDonald’s Happy Meal. The council voted earlier this month to require fast food meals with toys to meet certain nutritional guidelines.
What is the reasoning behind the ban? “Happy meals make kids fat.”
My brother and I grew up on Happy Meals. I will never forget our meal of choice: Chicken McNuggets with sweet and sour sauce. What wasn’t there to love? It had everything: a cool box, good food, and of course, a toy. My brother grew up to be a star baseball player in college. And as for me? Let’s just say I could use a few more McDonald’s meals in my diet, because I’m as skinny as a french fry.
Eating McDonald’s as a kid didn’t implant a craving for the food into my mind. It didn’t make me want to overindulge in fatty foods later in life.
Joe Eskenazi at the San Francisco Weekly hits the nail on the head. “It seems the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has accomplished what the Hamburglar never could. They’ve made off with McDonald’s fare,” he wrote.
But are toys really the only thing the city council has taken away?
Who are they to mandate how parents should feed their kids? Where is the personal responsibility? If you don’t want them to eat the food, take them someplace else. If they still nag you enough to take them to Micky D’s, choose healthier options, like apple dippers.
If a city can tell McDonald’s that they can’t put toys in Happy Meals, what could be next? Will they take away our gelato in Scooters? If they deem bacon unhealthy, will they tell Mary how to make her sandwiches in the Binz? The government can’t even effectively run the DMV or the post office, so why should we trust it to make decisions about our food?
Is getting rid of toys really the best way to fight childhood obesity? The city officials in San Francisco seem to think so. It’s as if they think people are incapable of making personal decisions. Parents can always swap for healthier food options, and kids can get plenty of exercise outside. There’s no need to take the “happy” out of the Happy Meal.
Long before the golden arches, our founding fathers wrote the Constitution. They didn’t mean for the government to micromanage our lives. The document was only four pages long, and mainly described what the government can’t do to the people, not the reverse.
So city, state and national officials: can you please get your priorities in order? College students are graduating and unable to find jobs. Stop the witch hunt of Happy Meal toys and set your sights on the economy.
In the meantime, I’m going to McDonald’s to get a Happy Meal. They still have toys here in St. Paul.
Zach Pagano can be reached at paga7147@stthomas.edu.
“The government can’t even effectively run the DMV or the post office, so why should we trust it to make decisions about our food?”
What about all the things the government does run effectively? Your hasty generalization here is unfair. It would be like me dismissing your entire opinion because you also use a slippery slope fallacy (“What could be next? Will they take away our gelato in Scooters?”). But one mistake in reasoning doesn’t make your whole article wrong. Similarly, an ineffective post office or motor vehicles department doesn’t make our entire government inept.
Also, if we’re to follow your reasoning above, why should we trust the Constitution? Did you know some of our founding fathers used slaves? Isn’t that more censurable the DMV or the Postal Service?
“So city, state and national officials: can you please get your priorities in order? College students are graduating and unable to find jobs. Stop the witch hunt of Happy Meal toys and set your sights on the economy.”
Since this is a decision only the San Francisco Board of Supervisors seems to have made, I think it’s a little too dramatic to call out state and national officials. Certainly one city’s officials aren’t preventing the rest of the country from getting things done.
Zach, great article, Sorry Grant, you are way off base. Government intrusion in our lives is a major issue in America now. Who knows the limit of government intrusion? With free reign, they may what to limit catholic universities and their standards. How would that fit with you? Most all countries who intrude in their citizen’s lives also intrude in their religious lives. Where does it end? Oh I have good place. DO NOT allow it at all.
To clarify, Mr. Pagano, my post was about syntax and argumentation, not politics. At no point did I suggest free reign for government. I was neither opposing nor supporting Zach’s sentiment. Instead, I acknowledged that some of his arguments didn’t work logically. My purpose was to address objective flaws in reasoning.
For example, a jump from the fast-food-toy ban in San Francisco to sandwich restrictions in the Binz doesn’t make sense unless it’s supported by an argument of its own. Why would that jump happen? The article gives no reason. I’m not saying the idea is implausible, but rather the reasoning is lacking.
Your comments are interesting, but I’m not sure how I’m off base here.
Zach makes some good points. Let’s also think about the fact that the government can’t even police our borders properly. It also failed to prevent the housing collapse. The government should have bigger fish. Stop worrying about Happy Meals.
Grant, it isn’t too dramatic to call out state and national officials. They like to tell people how to live too. They’ve established regulations aimed at smoking, drinking, eating etc. Local, state and federal governments are more willing than ever to make decisions for you. This article has simply focused on one ridiculous example in San Francisco.
Zach, you are dead on! Grant, what exactly does the government run effectivley, other then the military? Are you thinking of health care, Katrina, the BP spill, the border, our finances…im just not sure what you mean. Unfortunley Grant, Michelle Obama is making it her priority to so called “keep kids thin” by nudging schools to offer only healthy choices and make the so called fatty foods less appealing, i guess they think when it comes to the freedom to choose what we eat, the American people are to dumb to the make the right decisions for ourselves. Government is not the answer, we the people are the answer!”
Zach, I could remember when we would take you to McDonalds it was a fun
time for the family. We agree with your letter and your comments and we
hope other cities don’t follow San Francisco.
There are more important issues to worry about in this country.
Jim & Jeanne Pagano
Grant- I see the jump from fast-food to Scooters and the Binz as a means of localizing the story for the St. Thomas community. Zach simply asked what else a city can do with its power, and mentioning regular dining options at St. Thomas helped put his argument into perspective.
I don’t think the bigger fish argument works against the ban since the big fish mentioned are outside the city’s jurisdiction. And on the other hand, isn’t heart disease the leading cause of death in the US? (For the record, I don’t have an opinion on the ban either way)
Once again, my post was not about politics; it was about reasoning. I’m not sure how to make that any clearer.
Rick, what you’re saying about the government’s willingness to tell people how to live may be true. My point, however, was that since the only mention of that behavior was the San Francisco ban, calling out federal officials to restore the economy came out of nowhere. Maybe that was the point of the article, but the headline and the 12 other paragraphs lead me to believe otherwise.
Dustin, look at the midterm elections. Who organized that? Who maintains that process and ensures safe transfers of power? Was that not effective government? Or how about the Minnesota Supreme Court hearing I attended this week? That sure seemed effective.
My point was that Zach’s sample was too small to make a general statement about the entire government’s trustworthiness. Regardless of whether one agree with his opinion, I think that should be clear. A writer can’t logically make such a broad conclusion with merely two vague examples.
[And people didn’t want TommieMedia to replace The Aquin and Campus Scope. Look what we would have missed out on: politics, discourse and a Pagano family reunion!]
God forbid the goverment try to motivate people to live and eat healthier; its not like 2/3 of American adults are overweight or obese, or that 1/3 of adults are obese. Its not like childhood obesity is the greatest indicator of obesity in adulthood. Its not like obesity is estimated to cost us anywhere from $140 to $170 billion dollars every year (a figure that is only rising as the rate of obesity climbs). The United States is the fattest country in the world – clearly Dustin, many Americans are unable to make appropriate dietary choices for themselves, and these poor choices cost us all money. I’ve seen people get angry at the Obama’s for many things (a number of them very legitimate), but for trying to encourage children to exercise and make healthy choices? Yikes…
Grant, in terms of the supreme court you are right. Our founding fathers intended for the President or Governor to appoint supreme court justices. However, those justices are put in place to interpert the law and constitution, NOT to let their own personal beliefs dictate their rulings, somthing to remember. In terms of elections, that is something Government is supposed to do, however one could point to black panthers threating people at voting boths, or hanging chads in Florida…However, i think it is insane to compare midterm elections to massive entitlement spending (devaluing our own dollar), or universal health care (things government is not supposed to do). Big government is effective at wasting our hard earned money and telling us whats best for us. And San Francisco is not the only one telling people what to eat, it has become Michelle Obama’s personal mission to tell kids what to eat. The midterm election showed that the American people are scared of the socialist experiment Obama, Reid and Pelosi have tried to force down our throat.
Hey Grant, you haven’t lived until you have attended a “Pagano” family reunion! Maybe Zach can bring you to the next one :0)
Dan, Where in the constitution does it say that it’s the government’s role to tell people what they can or can not eat? Trust me I have a lot of disagreements with Obama’s policies. But it’s the continued theme that is behind those policies that truly frustrates me. The fact that government doesn’t think we the American people can make our own decisions, that they know what is best for us. Whatever happended to people doing things on their own? If you are obese, and dont like it, change go on a diet, exercise (its called self-reliance). Like, I said this socialist experiment we have been on the last two years has done nothing but lead us to historic debt and a great increase in government intervention in our lives and if you know anything about history you know what a dark road that leads to. I believe in the American people and I believe it is we the American people that knows what is best for us, NOT Washington. Where does it stop Dan…
I was hoping to stay out of this conversation, but couldn’t believe nobody responded to this portion of Grant’s first comment:
“Also, if we’re to follow your reasoning above, why should we trust the Constitution? Did you know some of our founding fathers used slaves?”
WHY should we trust the constitution? It’s not like our elected officials take a sworn oath to protect it or anything. If you really have to ask that question, perhaps you should talk to one of our brave veterans who risked their lives to uphold it.
Dustin,
First of all, the historic debt we now face and goverment intervention in our lives started long before this so-called “socialist experiment” you keep referring to. Our debt really started climbing when Ronald Reagan took office and cut taxes drastically without cutting spending – he was the first true “spend and borrow” Republican. George W. oversaw the largest expansion in our debt in history. Do you consider these leaders socialists too?
What else about the last two years do you consider a socialist experiment? Is it the fact that 95% of Americans have received tax cuts totaling nearly $300 billion (which was 40% of the entitlement spending you reference) under the Obama administration? Or is it universal health care (which doesn’t exist in our country). If you’re referring to the health care bill, most economists tout the it as the biggest hand-out to health insurance companies (aka the private sector) of all time! I’m sorry Dustin, but while I disagree with many of his actions and policies, Obama is no socialist. You can’t believe everything Glenn Beck tells you…
Cassie, I think Grant’s point was actually that we *should* follow the constitution. I can’t speak for him, but it looks like he’s saying if a particular line of reasoning leads to absurd conclusions (not trusting the constitution), then there’s something wrong with the reasoning.
Dan, the national debt has risen under Bush and Obama at a rate unparallel to any other presidents in this history of our country (there is no denying that) and i do believe that means the $3 trillion dollars Obama has accumulated in merely two years. The spending, although while i disagree with most of it, is not what marks Obama with socialist tendencies. It is his push for the health care bill and his views on capitalism, its his numerous examples by both speech and action that tell us he thinks the capitalist system puts the needy at a disadvantage and that we need to redistribute income. It’s the black liberation theology that he sat and listened to from Jermiah Wright for years, that minorities are entitled to things because of the hand they have been delt. Dan, do you pay health insurance, because i do and guess what the premiums are risisng at an incredible rate, why do you think that is. Anticipation of OBAMACARE, its through the roof. We can’t afford it! I consider the constant government bailouts another example of socialism, the government is using our tax dollars to bail out the housing market and big business, does that sounds capitalist to you? It’s time to stop drinking the kool aide in this country, lets focus on balancing our budgets and being responsible!
Again, most of your examples of “socialism” involve multiple administrations and also lack concrete evidence. I’m afraid it seems you’ve already had your fill of the kool aide…
You are right on, Kathryn. Thanks for explaining.
They better not take away my blood orange gelato!!!! Scooters would never be the same!!
Grant, your logic isn’t going to get you anywhere here. You can use “logic” and “reasoning” all you want, but the bottom line is our country is being overtaken by socialists.
This is AMERICA and our constitution protects us from intellectual socialists who want to take away our freedom. Us real Americans know this is a crucial time for our country and we will not stand idle while our socialist president takes away every last freedom we have, especially our constitutionally protected right to enjoy a happy meal. The Constitution is the lifeblood of this great country and it gives us specific instructions that prohibit the government from requiring fast food meals with toys to meet certain nutritional guidelines.
What’s next? Soon we’ll all be eating government-issue meals while Obama takes vacations costing us taxpayers $200 million a day.
Alright folks, let’s get back on track. This article was about a city government creating a city wide ordinance. This is not the place for an exposition on national politics. I’m sorry, but the decision of one city council to enact a new city ordinance is not the Harbinger of this socialism Apocalypse that is so feared in this country. This article is about Happy Meals and the city council of San Fransisco, not “obamacare,” not socialism, and not economics. Let’s get off the democrat bashing bandwagon and actually talk about the article as it is written.
Tommie Media is a fine outlet for the respectable discourse that has occurred so far. The comments are moderated, and any given post is limited to under 1300 characters. Where else should one talk about governmental control of our lives than on a private university’s privately managed website?
With that in mind, I am absolutely astonished at the one-dimensional arguments depicting the country thus far. Primarily the call to arms against a “publicly” elected official, while maintaining that he isn’t what the country actually wants. Going by what was said here alone, it would appear President Obama somehow usurped the presidency from some other candidate against public opinion.
Also, I always find it ironic when someone points out what they believe to be faults of the government while benefiting from the entity. The roads you drive on, the infrastructure of the internet, the satellites that provide you cellular signals all have their upkeep or beginnings with the government. Those little men in blue uniforms that stop others from pillaging your belongs, while you drive a safety-regulated vehicle and consume equal regulated food. But, yea whatever, the government is terrible.
Not to say it is flawless, but find a better one. Perspective people, perspective.
got em.
go brett
“I believe in the American people and I believe it is we the American people that knows what is best for us, NOT Washington. ”
YES the American people ALWAYS knows what’s best.
That’s why public opinion used to be AGAINST women’s right to vote. That’s why public opinion used to SUPPORT slavery. That’s why public opinion used to be AGAINST integration of schools. That’s why public opinion used to be AGAINST the US entrance into WWII. That’s why the public opinion used to SUPPORT the Vietnam war. That’s why public opinion used to SUPPORT the Iraq the war. That’s why public opinion CONSTANTLY changes on issues that stay the same.
Let’s be real for a second. Generally speaking:
-Americans have no idea what is good for them.
-America is about making as much money as possible.
-Americans care nothing about other people. All we care about is me, me, me–how I’m going to get my next iPad, my next Hummer, or my next TV.
-HEY RICH AMERICANS. How about you think to care about other people and help those who live in poverty. How about you help those who are less PRIVILEGED than you.
-If Americans REALLY lived by its supposed Christian values of “loving thy neighbor”, THEN America will be in a better place. Until then, Americans really have…
Until then, Americans really have…no idea what’s good for them
That’s what I was trying to say…you just do it better ;)
Ditto!
the “black liberation theology” is the main grounds for obama’s political and social view? sick… super right dude.
“It’s the black liberation theology that he sat and listened to from Jermiah Wright for years, that minorities are entitled to things because of the hand they have been delt.”
Liberation Theology is a way of looking at scripture as a narrative that addresses problems in the here and now and not just the hereafter–a narrative that speaks of freedom and justice–contra the way Christianity was used historically to justify slavery and oppression. So I suppose that would mean minorities are entitled to things because of the hand they have been dealt, but these are things like parity, and not special privileges.
“Grant, your logic isn’t going to get you anywhere here. You can use ‘logic’ and ‘reasoning’ all you want, but the bottom line is our country is being overtaken by socialists.
This is AMERICA and our constitution protects us from intellectual socialists who want to take away our freedom. Us real Americans know this is a crucial time for our country and we will not stand idle while our socialist president takes away every last freedom we have, especially our constitutionally protected right to enjoy a happy meal. The Constitution is the lifeblood of this great country and it gives us specific instructions that prohibit the government from requiring fast food meals with toys to meet certain nutritional guidelines.
What’s next? Soon we’ll all be eating government-issue meals while Obama takes vacations costing us taxpayers $200 million a day.”
Todd: I’m planning to respond to your post, which in my view is wrong on many levels. However, before doing so I want to make sure it’s not an attempt at ironic humor.
Todd Anderson, you actually believe Obama’s latest foreign relations trip cost $200 million a day??? Hahahahahahahah……right…..
Ironic humor? What’s ironic is our president wasn’t even born in this country yet is managing to advance the socialist takeover of it. Meanwhile us true hardworking Americans carry the country on our backs, receiving absolutely no benefits from the government whatsoever, while socialist parasites bathe in pools of the money we shed blood and tears to earn. Is that funny to you?
Thomas, it’s not a question of belief. Fox News did a great job of exposing this horrific fact. That’s fair and balanced, which is more than I can say about you.
The President of the United States was born in Hawaii. To say that “our president wasn’t even born in this country yet is managing to advance the socialist takeover of it,” is ignorant. Get your facts straight before you spew falsities seen in forwarded emails. Above you say, “we will not stand idle while our socialist president takes away every last freedom we have, especially our constitutionally protected right to enjoy a happy meal.” As has been said countless times in the conversation above, the President did nothing to take away your precious happy meal. The city council of San Francisco did that.
Todd, your freedoms are not under attack. What freedoms do you believe you have lost in the last two years? Were you able to vote on November 2nd? Were you able to have a say in the leadership of this country? Every day, you wake up and make choices for yourself based on your freedom to do as you please. Nick Kor did a brilliant job replying to most comments, so I’ll leave it at that.
People are so quick to pass blame to the current administration. The fact is, President Obama was handed a sub-par economy/housing market/job market and has done more to IMPROVE our situation than the last president.
Todd: I wouldn’t see anything funny about the matter if your unsupported claims resembled reality. No offense intended, but your venomous posts sound like the ranting of a conspiracy theorist, victim of propagandists like Glenn Beck, or a bit of both. Without going too far down the path of argumentum ad hominem, I’ll try to address each of your points over a few replies.
Where are all these parasitic socialists of whom you speak? Marx, Engels, Debs—these were true socialists. If by “our country” you mean “our economy,” then I guess we’ve all got a little socialist in us because the US has a mixed economy that includes aspects of both capitalism and socialism. Also, when did the parasitic type of socialists start bathing in the blood- and tear-soaked money? I always thought that was the sport of bankers, oilmen, lobbyists; you know, basically the lifeblood of the Republican Party. And what’s wrong with being intellectual? I thought education was part of the American dream and if anything, the past administration has made clear where anti-intellectualism gets us—nowhere good.
Ummmm, he was born in Hawaii; if you don’t believe that go check his birth certificate yourself……..and you believe everything Fox News says? Wow. Still hard to believe you believe it cost $200 million a day. Just…..wow……
My Dad is getting Social Security right now, which I’m pretty sure is from the government.
What distinguishes you “real” Americans from those of us who are just pretending? You seem to be saying that real Americans are hardworking, which is interesting since as a demographic fake Americans—illegal immigrants—are some of the most hardworking people in the country. I know many progressives who are hardworking. Are they real Americans? Maybe the criterion shouldn’t be work ethic. How about race, ethnicity, or politics? They’ve all worked in the past. Or maybe we should just recognize that part of what makes America great is its diversity and let it be.
I’m not sure about you, but plenty of people seem to be getting more than “absolutely no benefits” from the government. The service of military and law enforcement personnel are the clearest examples, but of course there are many more. Most people are all on board with the Constitution but what makes you think it protects the “right” to a Happy Meal? It doesn’t protect your right to use narcotics or drive drunk because those activities place unacceptable social and financial costs on society. An argument can be made against Happy Meals because excessive consumption can easily lead to obesity, which is a major contributor to skyrocketing healthcare costs.
…But perhaps as a real American you’re okay with paying for your neighbor’s habit.
Maybe we can skip the President’s place of birth and grossly exaggerated travel expenses. I don’t want to be forced to break out the tinfoil cap.
oh yea todd my bad hawaii isnt part of this country. Obama was able trick the american governmental system and sneak into office. Your right i am sure that you have done much more for this country than obama.
Todd,
While I would love to dispel your inflammatory and often false uber right wing rhetoric, I’m not going to bother. You obviously won’t be swayed by logic and reason since your arguments aren’t based in either. Once again, this is an article about Happy Meals and the City of San Fransisco. That’s it.
I’m just impressed that Fox news was able to find out how much money the diplomatic trip to South Asia cost… Considering the Secret Service, the State Department, and the U.S. Air Force keep their expenditures on Presidential travel to themselves. It appears they more or less made the number up. Mr. Todd Anderson: do your statements come from education and deep thought…or from television entertainment programs?
I consider myself to be a real American and I disagree with every claim you have made.
In relation to the article: It’s a Mcdonalds happy meal…. who cares? Kids don’t need to receive a toy every-time they finish their chicken nuggets… it isn’t exactly a daunting task.
Why must you people be so reasonable and civil?
Why should I use logic and reasoning when it’s much easier to use hasty generalizations and red herrings to support my argument? Why should I question what I hear on the news or read in an e-mail forward? Why can’t I scream the most incendiary thing that comes to mind in the loudest way possible? I’m much more comfortable believing what I believe. You’re not going to change my mind, but I hope I can change yours.
Let me ask a question. What if you invest $250,000 of your money to start a McDonald’s? This was your place and your money invested and a public entity be it local, state or federal comes to your office and says, this is what you can or cannot serve, you own a construction company and some entity says this is what you can build or not build, or you own a bookstore and some entity tells you what you can sell or not sell.
What if it was your income that feeds your family. Would you think differently about such a little thing like a city telling YOU how do run YOUR business with YOUR money?
If you do not own a business, ask someone who does.
I don’t think that this particular measure will be very effective at curbing childhood obesity, but I think those of you decrying any government involvement in the obesity epidemic are not considering the seriousness of this issue.
This country is literally eating itself to death. If you are an adult in the US and not overweight you are part of a rapidly shrinking minority. I’m a health nut so whatever happens will not have any affect on me personally, but I’d rather not see my peers dropping dead at a young age or being crippled by the health problems that come with obesity. When a country’s obesity rate starts climbing at explosive levels, it ceases to become an issue of “personal responsibility.”
The obesity rate in this country has more than doubled since 1985, and continues to rapidly get worse. I don’t think anyone here would claim that America as a whole has gotten twice as lazy since 1985, so I think it’s time to start treating this as a societal problem and start seeking a societal solution.
Breaking news! The LA city council just banned plastic bags (http://www.care2.com/causes/environment/blog/breaking-la-county-bans-plastic-bags/) I’m certain this is Obama’s fault. Think about it, Happy Meal toys are typically plastic and plastic bags are (obviously) plastic. Plastic is made from oil. BP spilled oil in the gulf all summer. So…by simple, Glenn Beckian logic, Obama is saving the environment by banning all plastics. On a side note, I have fond childhood memories of playing with plastic bags. I used to carry stuff with them, put them over my head, etc. If I can’t have a plastic bag when I go grocery shopping, then I might as well move to Canada. Tonight I will write in my journal: “Nov. 17, The terrorists have obviously won.”
Jim: The government—local, state, and federal—has engaged in consumer protection for a long time and in part that’s the reason why quality of life has improved so dramatically in this country over the past century. The government currently tells restaurant owners that they can’t sell tainted food prepared in an unhygienic environment; construction companies must follow building codes established by government; and bookstores must control the sale of pornography to protect children. Each of these businesses can prosper while adhering to government-imposed regulations, which protect the consuming public in a fashion similar to the Happy Meal regulation aimed at limiting harm to children. If a McDonalds franchisee’s business is so fragile that they’ll go under by not selling Happy Meals to kids, perhaps they made an unwise investment. To survive they’ll have to do what slave traders and buggy whip makers did in the past—respond to changing regulations and market demands. Of course it’s unfortunate if the notional family you’ve described struggles in the face of change, but that’s why the government provides a safety net. You seem to devalue positive social change, while making a normative claim that McDonalds franchisees are somehow more important…
David,
I could remember (although it’s a little hazy) when we would play for hours with plastic bags. Taking turns caring things to a fro, and putting them on each others head. It was a fun time for the whole family.
I sure hope the Government stops intruding on MY ability to put plastic bags where I want
Brian,
It appears the Pagano family isn’t the only family having a pseudo-reunion on this article. Unfortunately, I cannot recall all the times you put a plastic bag on my head for not only was it due to lack of oxygen, but it was also from the thought that one day I would grow up to live in a Socialist society with president who was born in another country…Hawaii!!!
I am willing to bet not one person commenting actually read the happy meal ban. If someone has, I’m rather disappointed this wasn’t pointed out earlier (namely in the article). The ban simply states that meals offering toys have to meet the following:
Calories from drink and food must be fewer than 600.
Less than 35% of the calories come from fat.
Less than 640mg of sodium.
1/2 cup of fruit or 3/4 cups of vegetables.
That is it. If McDonald’s doesn’t want to make such a Happy Meal then so be it. I don’t understand why anyone would read this article and warp it into a soapbox for pushing political rhetoric. There were 8 votes in favor of this measure. That is enough support to outweigh the mayor’s veto. This is how democracy works. The only problem I have with this situation is that it isn’t effective until December 2011.
Keep the government out of our stomachs! I can test my own food for botulism.