|
As you may know, if you go to McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, etc., a kids' meal also gets a free toy with it. Well, the board of supervisors in San Francisco thinks that before restaurants are allowed to do this, the meals that the toys are served with should be somewhat healthy for children. The city plans to accomplish this by mandating that the meal contain less than six hundred calories, less than thirty-five percent of the calories are from fat, and a serving of fruit or vegetables comes with the meal.
San Francisco's board of supervisors has voted, by a veto-proof margin, to ban most of McDonald's Happy Meals as they are now served in the restaurants.
The measure will make San Francisco the first major city in the country to forbid restaurants from offering a free toy with meals that contain more than set levels of calories, sugar and fat.
The ordinance would also require restaurants to provide fruits and vegetables with all meals for children that come with toys.
"We're part of a movement that is moving forward an agenda of food justice," said Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure. "From San Francisco to New York City, the epidemic of childhood obesity in this country is making our kids sick, particularly kids from low income neighborhoods, at an alarming rate. It's a survival issue and a day-to-day issue."
Just after the vote, McDonald's spokeswoman Danya Proud said, "We are extremely disappointed with today's decision. It's not what our customers want, nor is it something they asked for."
The ban, already enacted in a similar measure by Santa Clara County, was opposed by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who was vying to be lieutenant governor in Tuesday's election. But because the measure was passed by eight votes — one more than needed to override a veto — his opposition doesn't matter unless one of the supervisors changes his or her mind after the promised veto.
Under the ordinance, scheduled to take effect in December 2011, restaurants may include a toy with a meal if the food and drink combined contain fewer than 600 calories, and if less than 35% of the calories come from fat.
Over the last few weeks, the proposed ban caused a stir online and on cable television, with supporters arguing that it would help protect children from obesity, and opponents seeing it as the latest example of the nanny state gone wild.
Supervisor Bevan Dufty, whose swing vote provided the veto-proof majority, said critics should not dismiss the legislation as a nutty effort by San Franciscans. "I do believe the industry is going to take note of this. I don't care how much they say, 'It's San Francisco, they're wacked out there.' "
Proud, the McDonald's spokeswoman, said the city was out of step with the mainstream on the issue.
Article: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/02/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103
Now, I believe that childhood obesity is a big problem in the United States. But I do not think that measures like this will help to reduce it. I believe that if a child becomes obese, it is most likely the parents' fault, as they are responsible for raising a healthy child. Also, this could harm the revenue of the restaurants, as one of the most popular meals will no longer appear on the menu.
I am interested to see how the restaurants will handle the ordeal.
Edit: Here's a pdf chart of the nutritional values of Happy Meal options:
http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritionexchange/Happy_Meals_Nutrition_List.pdf
|
inb4 right wingers complain about the liberal nanny state taking away toys.
I haven't been to a fast food restaurant in years and will hopefully never have to again.
|
Good idea imo.
Sure it's mostly the parents' fault but if the kid is not constantly asking to get a happy meal because of the toy there's less pressure on the parents to eat unhealthily.
|
On November 16 2010 12:01 Ferrose wrote:
Now, I believe that childhood obesity is a big problem in the United States. But I do not think that measures like this will help to reduce it. I believe that if a child becomes obese, it is most likely the parents' fault, as they are responsible for raising a healthy child. Also, this could harm the revenue of the restaurants, as one of the most popular meals will no longer appear on the menu.
I am interested to see how the restaurants will handle the ordeal.
I agree its entirely the parents fault, but you have to consider if your kid is constantly nagging you 24/7 to go to mcdonalds, and all the kids friends get to go because their parents gave in, it can be really hard to say no because it makes you seem like an asshole parent and your kid will be pissed at you even though you're actually doing him or her a favor. but of course your kid doesn't understand that. and alot of kids want mcdonalds mostly because they want the little happy meal toy they saw on tv so this is a way to reduce that pressure.
And while less kids begging to go to mcdonalds because of the toys they give out might hurt their revenue a little bit, the statement "one of the most popular meals will no longer appear on the menu" isn't true. fast food places can still serve whatever meals they want (and they will continue to serve their current ones i'm sure), they just can't include toys with them unless they meet these requirements.
|
|
|
I know that at McDonald's they actually offer apples and milk as an alternative, but I doubt many kids want milk and apples over Coca-Cola and french fries respectively.
For referencing the Onion, I love you.
|
Osaka27151 Posts
McDonalds sells more toys than any other company in the world, so it is obviously a huge part of their business plan to get kids into their stores.
It is just unfortunate that corporate social responsibility has to be legislated rather than something voluntarily undertaken for the good of us all.
|
@ ferrose yeah but I think if eating apples and milk will get a kid a shiny new toy, most will give in.
I think overall it's a good start. Hopefully this will start a new trend of healthy behaviour.
|
It's the parents' fault but that means we should just say to some fat diabetic kid 10 years later: "Sorry but you happened to have shitty parents, now you're fucked." I believe that adults should have the freedom to choose for themselves, but we should protect children until they are presumed able to make responsible choices.
|
On November 16 2010 12:11 Masamune wrote:
@ ferrose yeah but I think if eating apples and milk will get a kid a shiny new toy, most will give in.
I think overall it's a good start. Hopefully this will start a new trend of healthy behaviour.
I would be nothing short of enraged if they tell me what I can and cannot eat. Let's hope it stays at this...I'm an adult and I value my ability to decide these things
|
Potatoes are a vegetable (i think).
Plus, the toys suck anyways.
|
Good. I'm getting sick of listening to kids whine and bitch and tear my ears a metaphorical new asshole because they didn't get the toy they wanted. Serves the little pricks right. -.-
I like the idea behind the ban, though, despite my obvious bias against Happy Meals and such. If kids are gonna be eating at fast-food restaurants, it's nice to ensure that not everything they're eating is total crap.
|
United States4126 Posts
I would hate to be a child in San Francisco now. I grew up with happy meals all throughout my childhood and I'm completely healthy now as an adult.
|
|
|
This ban will have a negligible effect on childhood obesity. The reason why parents, by proxy of their children, prefer the unhealthy happy meals over the healthy options is because calories are tasty. I do not see how this legislation will magically cause a child craving fat calories to no longer demand them.
|
I think most parents want what's best for their children, but often times, they can't give them the best. The parents want to feed their children healthy things, but its just not economically viable sometimes. Vegetables and other healthy foods cost way more than a fast food meal. Sometimes, its either eat the fast food meal, or starve. I watched a family in the documentary, Food Inc, go through this.
As for the ban, I'm all for it. To give toys to the kids was like rewarding them for eating bad and terribly unhealthy food. No one, especially kids, should get a prize for doing that.
|
Thank you, I'll add that to the OP.
|
I am somewhat surprised that so many people appear to be supporting this. This is such a ridiculous example of the government poking its head places it shouldn't, it simply isn't the government's business to get involved in this.
If I were a cynic I would say that they want to ensure a productive future workforce but I don't believe that is the actual reason for this. I think that this legislature probably stems from overzealous (for aiur) idealists who believe that because this may increase the public good it is alright to stomp on the freedoms of businesses.
It is the job of the parents to take care of this problem, not the government. This is a dangerous precedent to set.
|
This will have no effect on childhood obesity, even were it adopted on a global scale, which it is not being.
World with less toys = a little bit sadder, perhaps 
Doesn't this seem like a bunch of adults tearing a teddy bear out of a kid's hand and telling him he can have it back when he behaves?
Also, on another note, this is just another manifestation of our current culture's discrimination against the overweight.
|
On November 16 2010 12:10 Manifesto7 wrote:
McDonalds sells more toys than any other company in the world, so it is obviously a huge part of their business plan to get kids into their stores.
It is just unfortunate that corporate social responsibility has to be legislated rather than something voluntarily undertaken for the good of us all.
It's probably too much to expect every single parent to single-handedly fight against a corporation armed with the best marketers and millions of dollars to brainwash kids as much as they possibly can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
