city "bans" fast food meals w/toys

[Jean in Newcastle]

Do that many kids urge their parents to buy simply for the toy? Or is the toy just a nice thing they get too? I would assume that a lot of kids will want their happy meals without the toy because that is the food that they are accustomed to eat. That's why they serve food that is essentially fast food for many school lunch programs ( chicken nuggets, hamburgers, pizza, tacos but not the really authentic ones, etc.). And the schools don't have to pass out toys for the kids to choose those foods!

[pqr]

But the law isn't telling you not to buy a hamburger, is it? It's just telling the corporations that they can't incentivize the hamburger with a toy geared for children.

 

It is silly plain and simple.

 

I make the choice not some bureaucrat, where does it stop?

[mo2]

Do that many kids urge their parents to buy simply for the toy? Or is the toy just a nice thing they get too? I would assume that a lot of kids will want their happy meals without the toy because that is the food that they are accustomed to eat. That's why they serve food that is essentially fast food for many school lunch programs ( chicken nuggets, hamburgers, pizza, tacos but not the really authentic ones, etc.). And the schools don't have to pass out toys for the kids to choose those foods!

 

 

:iagree:Mine would still want Happy Meals even without the toy.

[mo2]

So I wonder.....Should there be a law against TV shows, movies, and video games for kids too? Because doesn't the amount of screen time kids are getting contribute to obesity as well? And perhaps there shouldn't be ads for cookies and snacks geared towards kids, because those aren't healthy either.

 

Where do you draw the line?

 

How about a Surgeon General's warning placed on the Happy Meal box?

[pqr]

:iagree:Mine would still want Happy Meals even without the toy.

 

The simple solution is ban Happy Meals.

 

"Happy Meals are Death".

 

Feed kids cod liver oil instead. Force feed them blended peas and egg whites with assorted vitamins thrown in. (Vegans obviously are exempt from the egg whites so we will substitute tofu)

While the children are being fed they can be on a tread mill and lifting weights. They can also watch educational shows at the same time interspaced with "approved socially acceptable music representing all the oppressed peoples of the earth."

 

The government knows best!!!! You parents, or should I say breeders, go and sit in a corner.

 

We will create the "perfect child" after all look at how well we are teaching children in PS. It takes a village to raise a child and we are the village.

 

 

Bravo San francisco....leading the way to the Nanny State!

[Stacy in NJ]

So I wonder.....Should there be a law against TV shows, movies, and video games for kids too? Because doesn't the amount of screen time kids are getting contribute to obesity as well? And perhaps there shouldn't be ads for cookies and snacks geared towards kids, because those aren't healthy either.

 

Where do you draw the line?

 

How about a Surgeon General's warning placed on the Happy Meal box?

 

These are great points. I bet if we outlawed the production of entertaining video games and movies that would have a profound affect on obesity. And there would be folks who would be quite happy to go along with that because they disapprove of the games and movies.

[Halcyon]

 

To suggest that removing a toy from a purchase of a cheeseburger is on par with reporting a deadly pathogen is ridiculous.

 

 

Hmm, that wasn't what I was saying. I was saying that it seems in some instances we condone govt involvement, and in other instances, we condemn it.

[Murphy101]

Hmm, that wasn't what I was saying. I was saying that it seems in some instances we condone govt involvement, and in other instances, we condemn it.

 

Of course we do.

 

Because we believe the govt should be limited in it's involvement in our lives, rather than given free reign over all aspects of our lives and businesses.

[Halcyon]

Of course we do.

 

Because we believe the govt should be limited in it's involvement in our lives, rather than given free reign over all aspects of our lives and businesses.

 

I think you're putting words into my mouth unintentionally ;) I never said the government should be given "free rein over all aspects of our lives". I merely said I think it's appropriate for the govt to limit corporations' ability to market unhealthy food to my children by bundling it with silly toys.

Edited November 11, 2010 by Halcyon

[justamouse]

For good cause.

 

We stopped cigarette manufactures from marketing to children with things like Joe Camel, because marketing to children "works."

 

I know none of the parents here feed their children "Happy Meals" (heaven forbid) but I know lots of kids who seem to get these as a regular part of their diets. The screaming for the toy gets indulged in some quarters.

 

And look at what is happening in our society. The rates of obesity and type II diabetes are shocking. And it is due to diet. These are not "airy-fairy" concerns, but a response to a demonstrable threat to the health of this nation's children.

 

Bill

 

:iagree:

 

Oreos aren't healthy, brownies aren't healthy, potato chips aren't healthy, fruit loops aren't healthy....

 

There's a list a hundred miles long of things that aren't healthy and there are parents who feed their children these things every day. Should those be banned also?

 

ETA: How about taking relatively healthy things and cooking them in an unhealthy manner. Okra is healthy, but the only way my kids like it is breaded and fried. Should that be banned? Where do you stop regulating to prevent poor decisions by a portion of the population?

 

But your kids don't get rewarded like Pavlov's dogs with a toy for eating those things. Remember when you got free toys in all of the high sugar cereals? The reward for the bad choice?

 

San Francisco did not ban the food. They banned the marketing to children through toys as inducements in conjunction with very unhealthful "food" choices. You can still purchase these unhealthful items for your children if that is the choice you want to make.

 

Bill

:iagree:

Warning: dissenting opinion ahead!! Okay, the food schools offer is horrible. And yes, it is NY that bans transfats, and as a former NYer I think it's great.

 

Remember the hullaballoo when cities started banning smoking indoors? It was SUCH a big deal. Now, when I see shows like Mad Men where people are puffing away like chimneys indoors, I cringe. I think it's GREAT that those laws were put into place. And I think it's great that transfats are limited in NY. And personally, I think cigarettes should be banned outright.

 

Re the Happy Meals? Not so happy when a great percentage of kids are overweight, diabetic, and being diagnosed with adult disease due to their horrible diets. If not including a toy in a meal is a way to help cut down on those diseases, I'm all for it. I don't see it as Big Brother-ish. You can still buy your junk food if you want it, but your child is going to get a REWARD in the form of a TOY for making such a choice. Basically, children are being "trained" that they will be rewarded in the form of a toy for eating junk food. I don't get it.

 

To be frank, I don't think this is so much an imposition on the free rights of the parents to make poor food choices. I rather think it's an attempt to limit the power of transnational conglomerates who care NOT A FIG about your child's health from making a buck by selling junk masquerading as food. Perhaps the previous poster is right: hopefully, it will be the kick in the pants McDonald's and the like need to find healthier alternatives that still appeal to kids.

 

Yeah, what kills me about these conversations is that the people screaming for freedom from government want to largest corporations to have free reign and rule-corporations that have no interest in the greater good of the populace. It's kind of a pot meet kettle thing.

 

Government should stay out of our lives!

 

But we want uncontaminated food, no child slavery, no one going and putting dirt in a capsule and marketing it as a vitamin, no placebo drugs, no toys with lead, no cribs that kill, no baby food with nothing but tapioca...I can go on. Yet they cry out for the noose of the big corporations. Never mind that if there were a level playing field small businesses could flourish-that doesn't matter, either. Cause we WANT Con Agra, Tyson and Monsanto to put all of the farmers out of business. Yeah, bring on big business and no regulation. :glare:

[KidsHappen]

I used to collect McDonald's Happy Meal Toys, seriously, it was like an addiction. I have all 101 Dalmations from the first set and all 101 from the second set. I have almost all of the Fisher Price Toddler toys (also close to 100). Let's assume that I got a new toy every time I went (never happens - the ratio is more like 1:3 or 1:4), that means I would have had to eat or feed my children 300 Happy Meals. Trust me that didn't happen either. My kids are vegetarians and even McDonld's fries get old after awhile. You can just buy the toy seperately but for some strange reason it costs more that way. :confused: So I would buy the Happy Meal, keep the toy and give the food to homeless people. Good feelings all around. Trust me this will have no effect on McDonald's sale of HMs. They will probably just sell the toys as an add-on, toys $.49 with HM.

 

ETA: I know it might sound strange but collecting HM toys is a big market. 10 years ago I was on a forum about the size of the old board that was exclusively for buying, selling and trading toys. Flea markets have huge stalls that sell nothing but HM toys. Ebay was started for the purpose of buying, selling and trading HM toys. I bet that there will be a lot more upset adults than children.

[Murphy101]

I think you're putting words into my mouth unintentionally ;) I never said the government should be given "free rein over all aspects of our lives". I merely said I think it's appropriate for the govt to limit corporations' ability to market unhealthy food to my children by bundling it with silly toys.

 

 

And I disagree. Because marketing towrds kids only works when parents let it.

Plus, just bc they are offering the free toy does not mean you have to take it.

On the three occasions we've purchased a happy meal, twice we refused the toy and we told our kids before we went they wouldn't be getting the toy.

 

 

Government should stay out of our lives!

 

But we want uncontaminated food,

 

Of course. I want what I paid for. I do not want what I didn't pay for, scab covered bandaids, ecoli, cockroaches....

 

no child slavery

 

Iffy there. I think sometimes the USA goes too far on what it considered child slavery to the point that children can't legally attain meaningful work at all

 

no one going and putting dirt in a capsule and marketing it as a vitamin, no placebo drugs, no toys with lead,

 

See above

 

no cribs that kill,

 

Again, I don't want to own a known defective to the point of life threatening product. I would feel I was not getting what I paid for.

 

no baby food with nothing but tapioca...

 

One of the dumbest creations ever. "baby" food is whatever mom and dad is eating around here.

 

Yet they cry out for the noose of the big corporations. Never mind that if there were a level playing field small businesses could flourish-that doesn't matter,

either. Cause we WANT Con Agra, Tyson and Monsanto to put all of the farmers out of business. Yeah, bring on big business and no regulation. :glare:

 

What carp.

 

In fact, no one in this thread has said anything like that in the least.

In fact, I wrote that I think all incentives for the companies mass producing crap (and not having to label it as modified or where it came from and getting patents that basically make them legal gods over nature that no other competitor can afford to fight) should be revoked and there should be big huge incentive created for healthier more natural more USA produced foods.

 

I am pro truth in labeling.

People have a right to know what they are paying for.

I am anti forcing people or companies to do stupid stuff that is likely to have zero effect on health or in awareness of their purchase.

[pqr]

ETA: I know it might sound strange but collecting HM toys is a big market. 10 years ago I was on a forum about the size of the old board that was exclusively for buying, selling and trading toys. Ebay was started for the purpose of buying, selling and trading HM toys.

 

There are currently 6,414 eBay auctions for happy Meal toys, who would have thought it?

 

Perhaps a mandatory "cooling off period" and a required Happy Meal Safety Course plus registration of all Happy Meal toys is in order.

[Laurie]

Perhaps a mandatory "cooling off period" and a required Happy Meal Safety Course plus registration of all Happy Meal toys is in order.

 

:lol:

 

Every toy should be a wanted toy. Every meal should be a mother's right to chews.

[justamouse]

 

In fact, no one in this thread has said anything like that in the least.

 

But don't you want to be in control of what you eat and what you put in your mouth?

 

In fact, I wrote that I think all incentives for the companies mass producing crap (and not having to label it as modified or where it came from and getting patents that basically make them legal gods over nature that no other competitor can afford to fight) should be revoked and there should be big huge incentive created for healthier more natural more USA produced foods.

 

I am pro truth in labeling.

 

And how do you think that is achieved?

 

People have a right to know what they are paying for.

 

again, how is this achieved?

 

I am anti forcing people or companies to do stupid stuff that is likely to have zero effect on health or in awareness of their purchase.

 

And what would be your marker of success in that effort?

.

[Spy Car]

I used to collect McDonald's Happy Meal Toys, seriously, it was like an addiction. I have all 101 Dalmations from the first set and all 101 from the second set. I have almost all of the Fisher Price Toddler toys (also close to 100). Let's assume that I got a new toy every time I went (never happens - the ratio is more like 1:3 or 1:4), that means I would have had to eat or feed my children 300 Happy Meals. Trust me that didn't happen either. My kids are vegetarians and even McDonld's fries get old after awhile. You can just buy the toy seperately but for some strange reason it costs more that way. :confused: So I would buy the Happy Meal, keep the toy and give the food to homeless people. Good feelings all around. Trust me this will have no effect on McDonald's sale of HMs. They will probably just sell the toys as an add-on, toys $.49 with HM.

 

ETA: I know it might sound strange but collecting HM toys is a big market. 10 years ago I was on a forum about the size of the old board that was exclusively for buying, selling and trading toys. Flea markets have huge stalls that sell nothing but HM toys. Ebay was started for the purpose of buying, selling and trading HM toys. I bet that there will be a lot more upset adults than children.

 

Just what this country needed was obese homeless people with stage II diabetes :D

 

Bill

[Murphy101]

Just what this country needed was obese homeless people with stage II diabetes :D

 

Bill

 

Yes, we already have lots and lots of them.

Seriously.

The notion that all homeless are skinny is a stereotype that's about 50 years outdated.

[justamouse]

You know what absolutely kills me in these threads? How people yell that they don't want Gov being Big Brother, and yet they have happily let the Supreme Court sell their freedom to the highest payers, ( thanks to Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and Roberts) with not a screech to be heard.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122805666

[Spy Car]

Yes, we already have lots and lots of them.

Seriously.

The notion that all homeless are skinny is a stereotype that's about 50 years outdated.

 

I'm sure this is true actually.

 

Bill

[mo2]

I'm sure this is true actually.

 

Bill

 

Of course it's true. When someone gives a homeless person a dollar, they can either go to McD's and buy a double cheeseburger off the $1 menu, or they can go to the grocery store and buy.....what? Pretty much nothing.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

You know what absolutely kills me in these threads? How people yell that they don't want Gov being Big Brother, and yet they have happily let the Supreme Court sell their freedom to the highest payers, ( thanks to Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and Roberts) with not a screech to be heard.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122805666

 

:iagree:

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

 

 

Yeah, what kills me about these conversations is that the people screaming for freedom from government want to largest corporations to have free reign and rule-corporations that have no interest in the greater good of the populace. It's kind of a pot meet kettle thing.

 

Government should stay out of our lives!

 

But we want uncontaminated food, no child slavery, no one going and putting dirt in a capsule and marketing it as a vitamin, no placebo drugs, no toys with lead, no cribs that kill, no baby food with nothing but tapioca...I can go on. Yet they cry out for the noose of the big corporations. Never mind that if there were a level playing field small businesses could flourish-that doesn't matter, either. Cause we WANT Con Agra, Tyson and Monsanto to put all of the farmers out of business. Yeah, bring on big business and no regulation. :glare:

 

Amen:D

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

They are not individuals. The rights of corporations to advertise as they choose, for the sole purpose of maximizing profit, are not addressed in the constitution. So there's nothing to prevent cities or states from legislating as they choose. There are plenty of laws regulating corporations advertising behavior and this is just another one.

 

:iagree: I think we can all agree we would not want pornographic advertising to market things. Why do we want things that market to our children?

[StephanieZ]

I think it's an awesome idea. I think marketing to children should be illegal. Period.

 

Personally, I have always boycotted toys at fast food places. When we go to McD's, we go there to EAT. We do NOT buy kids meals. Never. Ever.

 

I teach them about marketing. . . and that we "Eat at eating places. Buy toys at toy places. . ." Period.

 

There have been times when we've eaten fast food once a week. . . but never have my kids advocated to go there! Ever!! Except. . .

 

When my youngest was born, my mom had my older two (3 & 5) at her house for a couple days a week -- maybe one or two overnights -- over the first month of so of my baby's week. She took them to McD's probably once a week for 4-8 weeks. . . She always bought them happy meals. My kids were then instantaneously insane to "go to mcdonald's" every time we got in the car!! Every time!!

 

I reaffirmed my no-toys-at-eating-places rule and the begging to go to McD's ended within weeks.

 

It was such a brilliant example of the reasons why I already knew it was a really bad idea to associate toys with eating. . .

 

I hope the whole country bans toys at eating places. . . and then moves to further restrict marketing to CHILDREN.

[sandellie4]

If I can figure out how to deep fry a Happy Meal (toy & all) and put it on a stick, I'll be a millionaire!!

 

Or cajones! (Or, in my neck of the woods, prairie oysters....)

 

Sandy

[elizabeth]

You know what absolutely kills me in these threads? How people yell that they don't want Gov being Big Brother, and yet they have happily let the Supreme Court sell their freedom to the highest payers, ( thanks to Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and Roberts) with not a screech to be heard.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122805666

 

I love you.

[justamouse]

I love you.

 

The feeling is mutual. :001_smile:

[ChristusG]

I wish that fast food places would begin offering healthier options.....organic ones would be awesome. When we go to McDonalds (which is not often), my kids know that they do not get fries, they get apple slices. And they do not get soda, or even juice....they get a bottled water. And chicken nuggets. We try to eat as healthy as possible when at a fast food place.

 

I wish they would offer organic things. Or side salads in the kids meals. More fruit options. A side of broccoli instead of fries, etc. My kids (and I) would totally go for that.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I found the Frontline show on marketing to kids which I found quite shocking:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/view/

[cdrumm4448]

Wow. I do school and violin lessons and this thread runs away from me.

 

To be frank, I don't think this is so much an imposition on the free rights of the parents to make poor food choices. I rather think it's an attempt to limit the power of transnational conglomerates who care NOT A FIG about your child's health from making a buck by selling junk masquerading as food. Perhaps the previous poster is right: hopefully, it will be the kick in the pants McDonald's and the like need to find healthier alternatives that still appeal to kids.

 

I must, MUST interject here. I don't think anyone here knows my history, but I have worked for/with McDonald's twice in my lifetime. The first time at 15 1/2 (they're the only company that would hire me under 16 years old), and again in my late twenties. The first time was in a regular restaurant, and the second was for one of the sales promotion agencies that makes Happy Meal toys for McDonald's. (Remember the Monopoly scandal years ago? Not that company.:glare:)

 

I participated in the planning and execution of McDonald's movie tie-ins with Happy Meal toys. I can tell you from firsthand experience that our marketing team didn't sit around and plan the demise of children's health through their diet. We weren't crazy, money-obsessed, emotionless zombies doing anything we could to generate money for McDonald's. So, this characterization is offensive to me.

 

McDonald's assumes parents will parent. What a philosophy.

[pqr]

 

 

McDonald's assumes parents will parent. What a philosophy.

 

Given the idiocy coming out of San Francisco it is obvious that that particular city thinks it can parent better than the parents. What a philosophy.

 

Do you not deem yourself a "Merchant of Death" on par with those who deal in blood diamonds???

 

Remember "Happy Meals are Death"

 

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/what-will-san-francisco-ban-next/

[cdrumm4448]

Do you not deem yourself a "Merchant of Death" on par with those who deal in blood diamonds???

 

Remember "Happy Meals are Death"

 

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/what-will-san-francisco-ban-next/

 

I know. I can hardly sleep over the whole thing. Although that may be because of the huge bags of cash I have stashed under my mattress from the sale, through devious child marketing, of all those Happy Meals.

 

All kidding and sarcasm aside, parents are the final decision-makers. I obviously have two kids. They're fully my responsibility.

 

I'm getting exhausted from the constant threats to liberty lately. If I'm not dealing with one idiotic thing, it's another. The feds need to stay out of my home. My life would be even better.

[OnTheBrink]

I know. I can hardly sleep over the whole thing. Although that may be because of the huge bags of cash I have stashed under my mattress from the sale, through devious child marketing, of all those Happy Meals.

 

All kidding and sarcasm aside, parents are the final decision-makers. I obviously have two kids. They're fully my responsibility.

 

I'm getting exhausted from the constant threats to liberty lately. If I'm not dealing with one idiotic thing, it's another. The feds need to stay out of my home. My life would be even better.

 

I agree.

 

I don't care who markets what, if my child wants something that I don't want her to have, I say, "no". Pretty simple.

 

The whole thing is ridiculous.

[katemary63]

I teach them about marketing. . . and that we "Eat at eating places. Buy toys at toy places. . ." Period.

 

 

Holy Cow! That's just so ridgid! When I think of all the fun I've had with my kids doing things at one place that were not exactly what the place was designed for. Let's see, we always get popcorn and soda at the movies so we eat at the movie place. That's really fun. We sometimes take our school work to the diner, so we do school in an eating place. We sometimes take our lunch out and lay on the trampoline, so we eat in a jumping place.

We sometimes jump on the bed, so we jump on a sleeping place. And the funnest thing of all...we get a toys at Mcdonalds! Let's see, we've collected the Beanie Babies, the barbie dolls, oh and all the cars from the movie Cars. We still have those! I still have Happy Meal toys from when my older kids were toddlers. Fun times. Wouldn't have missed it for the world! Gosh :chillpill::chillpill:

[mazakaal]

Reading this, it doesn't sound like a ban at all. It sounds like if they want to have toys, it has to be a more nutritionally complete meal so that the toys aren't enticing kids to buy complete junk.

 

 

:iagree: I totally understand why so many posters are up in arms that we should have the right to choose whether or not to buy a happy meal with toys. Americans hate the government making all their decisions for them. I guess the problem is that way too many Americans make really stupid decisions. They eat too much, drink too much, smoke too much, do too many drugs, and then want the government to take care of the problems that result (think Obama's new health care bill). (And yes, I do realize that I'm oversimplifying the health care bill thing. There are many, many health problems that are not the result of over-indulging. But there are also many health problems that do result from bad choices.) I guess the fact that I recently watched Supersize Me is having some affect on my response here. I know that most of the people here make extremely intelligent decisions - probably feed their kids better than I do - organic, whole foods, etc. I'm just saying that there are a whole lot of Americans who don't.

 

I hope I don't get kicked off the board for this. And actually I agree with the OP. I don't think that SF should be wasting time passing a law about this. I'm just saying that I do understand why they're doing it.

[FlockOfSillies]

Well, you're getting into the discussion of who should be paying for health care. That brings me to my constant question, "Why should we continue with a system that separates the recipients of health care from the costs of it?"

 

The main problem with health care costs is that we pay for only part of our insurance and not for actual health care services. A lot of the costs are therefore hidden from us, the consumers, so we can't shop for checkups or broken-bone-setting or stitches based on price (unless they're not covered by insurance... think Lasik and plastic surgery -- areas where costs are decreasing). There's really nothing to keep the costs from spiralling upward. If people had to really foot the bill for most routine health care services, then prices would come down because people would begin making smarter choices, and less of those costs would be falling on the rest of us.

 

The second problem with the health care system is that it's tied to employment. It wasn't always this way. No one loses his job and thinks, "Oh no! My car insurance is going away!" But we do it with health insurance. It's stupid.

[creekland]

I'm curious if you also think it inappropriate to have regulations around the use of the words 'healthy' or 'organic' or 'low fat' on packaging of food items? These types of restrictions currently exist so that companies cannot use whatever phrases they like to market their foods unless it meets certain criteria. Is that also an issue, in your mind?

 

That is not an issue for me. That's truth in advertising. I wish it would apply to more than food - like political commercials for example.

 

If any fast food joint were advertising their non-healthy meals as healthy that would bug me. That's not what's happening when they're adding a toy to a meal. It's no different than the toy in Cracker Jack or cereal boxes.

[creekland]

For good cause.

 

We stopped cigarette manufactures from marketing to children with things like Joe Camel, because marketing to children "works."

 

I know none of the parents here feed their children "Happy Meals" (heaven forbid) but I know lots of kids who seem to get these as a regular part of their diets. The screaming for the toy gets indulged in some quarters.

 

And look at what is happening in our society. The rates of obesity and type II diabetes are shocking. And it is due to diet. These are not "airy-fairy" concerns, but a response to a demonstrable threat to the health of this nation's children.

 

Bill

 

My kids got them when they were younger. Sometimes we went there just because they wanted the toy and we indulged them. Other times they returned the toy because they didn't want it. And we still eat at McD's once or twice a month as it's the closest place to our house (Wendy's or Burger King are also there, but we like McD's better than those two). Last night we were going to go to Taco Bell, but opted for McD's mushroom and swiss burgers instead. Actually, every single Wednesday night we eat fast food since we have activities going on and I just don't feel like cooking. Fast food is quick and fits our budget.

 

I'm not apologizing and my kids are quite healthy as per our doctor and their "stats." My cholesterol is low, my BP is low. I have a few extra pounds (kids don't), but they don't bug me enough to change my diet. We eat a variety at home (healthy and not - sometimes even brisket). ;)

 

Sorry, but I don't buy the Happy Meals are death belief. I won't say they are healthy, but not everything we choose to eat even at home is healthy. Some things we simply eat because they taste good.

[creekland]

Well, there are two things that could come of this new regulation. 1) McDonalds will stop selling Happy Meals with toys or 2) McDonalds will change their Happy Meals to include a more nutrient rich meal so they can still include the toys. I don't think they're going to give up the very big money they get from toy advertising, therefore this "lazy" move on the part of the politicians is likely to result in more healthy food options at fast food restaurants. That might result in better diets for the children who do eat in such places on a regular basis which should have an impact on childhood obesity in as much as this is a related cause. Seems a reasonable enough approach for them to take, really.

 

This seems to not think of the obvious to me.

 

Either McD's will:

 

1. Challenge the regulation in court costing SF a bit of tax dollars to defend it (and I thought there was a budget issue in CA?).

 

or

 

2. Have the Happy Meal on the menu without the toy, but offer the toy for sale with any meal for a paltry price - encouraging kids to "up" their meals if they want and still get the toy. Selling the toy totally bypasses the regulation and makes McD's more money. For kids where a Happy Meal doesn't provide enough food to "fill them up" this will be quite a "bonus" over what they otherwise would get.

[MelanieM]

I agree.

 

I don't care who markets what, if my child wants something that I don't want her to have, I say, "no". Pretty simple.

 

The whole thing is ridiculous.

 

This suggests that the only issue is whether or not a child can immediately/easily get something that is advertised to them. I actually think never giving a child something that they see advertised regularly can cause more problems than giving in, because it creates a growing sense of desire for that wonderful thing over there that everyone tells me is fabulous but I'm not allowed to have. In other words, even if your kid isn't getting that toy/candy/hamburger they see advertised, if they're seeing it advertised regularly they're being impacted by the message.

 

These marketing people are *genius* at making everyone think they need what they see in advertisements. Thinking that we can simply keep our children away from such things and that will solve the issue is just not accurate. We can't control our kids forever, and even with a lot of education and discussion, this stuff has to seep in and make an impact on some level.

 

I mean really, look at the state of things these days with poor food choices, over consumption... are we really saying that it's all the result of bad parenting? People just need to be told no? Advertising suckers people in. I don't think it unreasonable that people should want more regulation to stop companies from extensively marketing to our children, no matter what the product or service.

 

Holy Cow! That's just so ridgid! When I think of all the fun I've had with my kids doing things at one place that were not exactly what the place was designed for. Let's see, we always get popcorn and soda at the movies so we eat at the movie place. That's really fun. We sometimes take our school work to the diner, so we do school in an eating place. We sometimes take our lunch out and lay on the trampoline, so we eat in a jumping place.

We sometimes jump on the bed, so we jump on a sleeping place. And the funnest thing of all...we get a toys at Mcdonalds! Let's see, we've collected the Beanie Babies, the barbie dolls, oh and all the cars from the movie Cars. We still have those! I still have Happy Meal toys from when my older kids were toddlers. Fun times. Wouldn't have missed it for the world! Gosh :chillpill::chillpill:

 

Goodness, that was excessively snarky. She's actually agreeing with you that parents should just make these decisions for their kids. So it's over the top to have regulations, but it's also over the top to have house rules? Sometimes there's just no room for differing opinions, I suppose.

 

If any fast food joint were advertising their non-healthy meals as healthy that would bug me. That's not what's happening when they're adding a toy to a meal. It's no different than the toy in Cracker Jack or cereal boxes.

 

But they are advertising the meals as healthy. McDonalds is always going on about their white meat only chicken nuggets and how healthy they are. Or the apple slices, dipped in HFCS caramel sauce. They *do* market their Happy Meals as healthy options for kids, and this is why there's an issue here. The criticism comes from their meals not being nutritional enough to match their marketing strategy.

 

This seems to not think of the obvious to me.

 

Either McD's will:

 

1. Challenge the regulation in court costing SF a bit of tax dollars to defend it (and I thought there was a budget issue in CA?).

 

or

 

2. Have the Happy Meal on the menu without the toy, but offer the toy for sale with any meal for a paltry price - encouraging kids to "up" their meals if they want and still get the toy. Selling the toy totally bypasses the regulation and makes McD's more money. For kids where a Happy Meal doesn't provide enough food to "fill them up" this will be quite a "bonus" over what they otherwise would get.

 

Yes, these are also options. I actually think your second scenario is quite likely and honestly, I would prefer it to the current situation.

[regentrude]

I do not think it is up to the government to regulate people's stupidity.

I think, however, that parents need to shoulder the responsibility for their kids' health issues stemming from a junk diet and stop blaming the fast food manufacturers just because the parent does not have the ability to say no to a child.

[creekland]

 

But they are advertising the meals as healthy. McDonalds is always going on about their white meat only chicken nuggets and how healthy they are. Or the apple slices, dipped in HFCS caramel sauce. They *do* market their Happy Meals as healthy options for kids, and this is why there's an issue here. The criticism comes from their meals not being nutritional enough to match their marketing strategy.

 

 

 

Ok, I've missed that, but it doesn't surprise me as we don't watch advertising in our house (tape shows, fast forward commercials). The few times we watch commercials (at motels or watching live news/weather) we tend to make fun of them or critique them. My absolute favorite (and somewhat most useful) class in college was a class on advertising. Naturally I've passed that info on to my kids from a young age on. Even when we give in to advertising, we talk with each other about doing it and give credit to the advertiser. :tongue_smilie: Generally we make fun of it though.

 

All that said, if what they are advertising isn't true, attack it that way as they do with labels on food, etc. That's truth in advertising. Passing legislation about the toy is likely to backfire with the American psyche. We talked about that last night when we changed our fast food destination from Taco Bell to McD's... merely by the power of suggestion and identifying with a cause - though we aren't in SF and didn't opt for a Happy Meal (seriously, my family has outgrown those until grandkids come along).

 

Health-wise I've no idea if McD's or Taco Bell is better. I don't really care. We don't go to fast food for our healthy meals. I do, however, always pick McD's over Burger King if we're looking for a hamburger joint due to the health content. We subscribe to Nutrition Action and they once compared the two. In every aspect (at the time) McD's was "healthier," so that changed our behavior. (They are right next to each other where we live, so distance is not a factor.) Of course, sometimes Nutrition Action backfires as the pics and descriptions of "Food Porn" and other things in articles look so good we eventually try them. I've often thought they should drop the pics for those...

[TXMary2]

I dare say that unless one is eating hormone free meat, whole grain breads, fruits and veggies only - that no one eats "healthy" these days. The left just needs a new evil money maker to attack. First it was tobacco, now it is McDonald's that gets beat up over and over. Nevermind they are only one of many evil fast food places.:001_huh:

[EKS]

The idea behind a representative government is that people elect folks who supposedly will put their wishes into practice. If SF has elected people who have decided that Happy Meal toys are something that they don't want in their community, so be it. Frankly, Happy Meal toys are one symptom of what is deeply wrong with our society, and while banning them doesn't do much to change it, many such bans could do something.

 

People should be allowed to intentionally create their own communities. Maybe if enough thoughtful communities are created, it will change the world.

[TXMomof4]

Nobody is banning the food from Happy Meals, so this isn't entirely relevant. However, I will say that there are certainly days when I think the world would be better if there was no manufacturing of any of that garbage. But that's merely because *I* would be less likely to eat it if it didn't exist! (Though in reality I'm all for people having whatever choices they want.)

 

Priscilla, I'm with you in my discomfort around marketing to children, and I have no problem with restrictions around such things. In fact, I think it would be even better if there were a blanket statement that applied such marketing restrictions to all food items.

 

Those sweets and kid cereals ARE marketed to children which is the argument. THere's a toy in the box. They are designed to get children to want them. Why wouldn't that be the next logical step?

 

How about video games that are marketed to kids. I'd argue that that is as much of a cause of obesity as the food eaten. If a parent lets their child come home from school and play video games all afternoon instead of getting outside and doing something who is at fault there. Wii, Playstation, DS, computer games, etc. are obviously marketed to kids. Should those be banned?

[MelanieM]

I dare say that unless one is eating hormone free meat, whole grain breads, fruits and veggies only - that no one eats "healthy" these days. The left just needs a new evil money maker to attack. First it was tobacco, now it is McDonald's that gets beat up over and over. Nevermind they are only one of many evil fast food places.:001_huh:

 

It's not just McDonalds. The restriction applies to all restaurants, preventing any establishment from adding incentives (toys and promotions) to foods that do not meet the nutritional requirements laid out as healthy (enough). People are just talking about McDonalds and Happy Meals because it makes for good headlines.

[MelanieM]

Those sweets and kid cereals ARE marketed to children which is the argument. THere's a toy in the box. They are designed to get children to want them. Why wouldn't that be the next logical step?

 

How about video games that are marketed to kids. I'd argue that that is as much of a cause of obesity as the food eaten. If a parent lets their child come home from school and play video games all afternoon instead of getting outside and doing something who is at fault there. Wii, Playstation, DS, computer games, etc. are obviously marketed to kids. Should those be banned?

 

Yes, I would be in favour of removing toys from cereals as well. (Haven't some places already done that?) In fact, I would be just fine with a blanket ban that says no marketing anything to children, regardless of the product.

[pqr]

The idea behind a representative government is that people elect folks who supposedly will put their wishes into practice. If SF has elected people who have decided that Happy Meal toys are something that they don't want in their community, so be it.

People should be allowed to intentionally create their own communities. Maybe if enough thoughtful communities are created, it will change the world.

 

 

So when a town outside, pick a US city, decides that women are only allowed in public wearing a full burka and even then they must be escorted by a husband or other male family member you have no truck with that. Those "people should be allowed to intentionally create their own communities". When they decide to burn homosexuals alive (as is done in certain parts of this world) you have no issue with that. Those "people should be allowed to intentionally create their own communities".

 

Liberties are not to be infringed on and this, while seemingly small, is an infringement. It is an infringement on how I may decide to raise my child and is demonstrative of the attitude of some that they are smarter and know better than their fellow citizens. Even were this true, and looking at San Francisco it is not, that would not give them the right to make these decisions.

 

This attitude is exemplified in Orwell's classic Animal Farm:

 

"Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure. On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"

 

 

<EM>"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."

[cdrumm4448]

These marketing people are *genius* at making everyone think they need what they see in advertisements. Thinking that we can simply keep our children away from such things and that will solve the issue is just not accurate. We can't control our kids forever, and even with a lot of education and discussion, this stuff has to seep in and make an impact on some level.

 

I guess I should say thank you for the compliment? I was one of those marketing people for McDonald's. I didn't realize I was so powerful and could control so many people. ;)

 

The bottom line is that the government, in almost every area, has no business making decisions for myself or my children. And if the majority of PEOPLE of SF are for this, then I applaud them for making their lives the way they want them to be. If, on the other hand, it's an idea from politicians being forced on the people, then I don't agree.

 

Most people believe we are responsible for ourselves. Good decisions or bad.

[EKS]

So when a town outside, pick a US city, decides that women are only allowed in public wearing a full burka and even then they must be escorted by a husband or other male family member you have no truck with that. Those "people should be allowed to intentionally create their own communities". When they decide to burn homosexuals alive (as is done in certain parts of this world) you have no issue with that. Those "people should be allowed to intentionally create their own communities".

 

Liberties are not to be infringed on and this, while seemingly small, is an infringement. It is an infringement on how I may decide to raise my child and is demonstrative of the attitude of some that they are smarter and know better than their fellow citizens. Even were this true, and looking at San Francisco it is not, that would not give them the right to make these decisions.

 

This attitude is exemplified in Orwell's classic Animal Farm:

 

"Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure. On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"

 

 

<EM>"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."

 

So what you're saying is that we should not be able to use legislation to make our communities better places to live?

 

We have *laws* against burning people alive.