Happy Meal Toy Ban in San Francisco - Page 12

On November 17 2010 05:00 Insanious wrote:
Awesome, so now in SF when parents take their kids to McDonald's they will just by them a value meal for about the same price as a happy meal... more food less toys .

Actually... at least in Canada happy meal costs more than value meal, the toy justified the lower amount of food the kids were getting.

for like $3.50 you can get McDouble + medium fries + medium drink.

vs.

$4.75 you can get hamburger + small fries + small drink + toy

Damn, now parents can pay less for more food for their kids at McDonalds.

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.

On November 16 2010 12:17 AzNxRaVeR wrote:
Mayor vetoes San Francisco ban on Happy Meals with toys
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/12/california.fast.food.ban/index.html

"Despite its good intentions, I cannot support this unwise and unprecedented governmental intrusion into parental responsibilities and private choices." - Mayor Gavin Newsom

On November 16 2010 12:01 Ferrose wrote:
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.



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

On November 17 2010 05:13 Impervious wrote:

Also, if it wasn`t vetoed, then selling the toys would be illegal in that situaion (much like selling other things to minors is illegal), so you could forbid the company from selling it.

On November 17 2010 05:19 mrgoochio wrote:

While I agree that child obesity comes in large part due to their parents, I think people should consider the fact that most parents make a lot of their decisions based on what the child nags about. How many times have parents bought their child something on a whim or on impulse simply because the child would nag and cry about it non stop? The children who want the toys will nag just as much and at least the happy meal will be healthier this way.

On November 17 2010 05:25 BlackJack wrote:


Except they're not selling anything to minors

On November 17 2010 04:18 MinoMino wrote:

Yeah, some kids can be, but if that kid doesn't realize how fat he/she is or is about to become, you can't blame it on the kid, at least in my opinion. Thus, if the kid wants a toy real bad and the parents choose the easy way out and just buys them the happy meal, the kid's going to suffer the consequences.

I'm not saying McD are the bad guys, they're just doing what best for the business. Sure, the law is pretty harsh on McD, but like I said, passing a law that somehow punishes the parents is something I doubt could work. This law, on the other hand, is pretty easy to make it work.

On November 17 2010 05:27 Impervious wrote:

True, but they`re selling something that is obviously targetted at minors. Not really much difference..... Just semantics.....

On November 17 2010 04:29 Offhand wrote:


Yeah but you're forgetting that children are capable of thinking. This law is based on the premise that the parents are blameless and that kids are actually just small retards that get whatever toy they want.

I have a little cousin that's 11 now. She was always a thin little kid but recently started gaining weight (hooray for puberty starting to kick in). She's well aware that eating certain foods will cause weight gain to the point where she doesn't want to eat freezer packaged chicken nuggets every meal. That 11 year old kid is capable of seeing a cause and effect and actually wants to prevent herself from getting fat.

+ Show Spoiler +

On November 17 2010 05:30 Offhand wrote:


Err no. It's a quite important legal distinction. Your parents can get you into an R rated movie, or buy you a M rated game, or even buy you alcohol in some states. Once again, the decision of what's appropriate is left to the parent, not the state.