Last week, San Francisco became the first major city to make Happy Meals illegal.
The city passed an ordinance forbidding the inclusion of a free toy in any children’s meal that contains more than set levels of calories, fat, and sugar. The standards ban most McDonald’s Happy Meals as they are now served in restaurants.
Under the new law, fast-food kids meals also must contain fruits, vegetables and beverages without excessive fat or sugar to qualify for toy inclusion.
A McDonald’s spokesperson, however, says the law will take the joy out of the Happy Meal.
The measure starts next December. So, as of Dec. 20, 2011, San Francisco restaurants will no longer be able to offer free toys with meals containing higher levels of calories, sugar and fat.
CNN reports that the proposed ordinance is part of a “food justice movement.” To be sure, McDonald’s kids lunch isn’t the only target here. About 50 fast-food restaurants in the San Francisco area use giveaway toys, according to CNN.
I know that childhood obesity is an epidemic in our country. And I know being overweight at a young age has serious repercussions for children’s health for the rest of their lives. I know that obesity costs Americans millions of dollars a year in health care bills.
But I also know that parents are the first authorities over their children. Not the state.
This news story reminds me of a doctor’s visit I once had for a routine checkup for my then 6-year-old son.
“And you know,” the young physician assistant lectured him, “that you should NEVER drink soda or have sugary snacks.”
“Except as a treat sometimes,” I interrupted.
She looked surprised that I dared to correct her. Wasn’t it her job to decide what my son’s diet should be (my very slight and if anything underweight son, I should add)?
Well no, it’s not. And it’s not the city of San Francisco’s job either. It’s a parent’s job.
If states and schools and doctors want to educate parents about childhood obesity and encourage healthy eating and physical activity beginning at a young age, I’m all for it.
But deciding that Happy Meals are the enemy and usurping competent parents’ rights to choose what’s best for their children is not only insulting. In this case, I am convinced it is futile.
Comments
Post a Comment
I AGREE!! I am amazed at the people, including a former doctor, who even upon looking at my very healthy, not a single one overweight, make this over-reaching statements about soda, cookies and such like. I’m not a parent who uses fast-food or junk food as a regular menu choice but we’ve made use of their availability and ease (and yes, the treat factor).
And, as if the parents who buy Happy Meals in SF aren’t going to still go in there and then buy their children a regular meal which then means more french fries, larger soda, etc. Government gone amok!
Parents aren’t just buying their kids the ‘happy meal’ for the toy. They will continue to buy these meals for their children. I’m all for encouraging healthy eating, but this just seems silly to me. Also, San Fran is one of the biggest promoters of the Gay lifestyle (spiritual suicide), abortion (killing your child), and yet they won’t let you have a little toy with you burger????
This is a great way to put it, Danielle! Your are the word master. Hits them where they think.
I agree about the doctor’s comment needing to be rephrased, but as for the “happy meal law” I have to ask, who voted for it? Didn’t parents vote? Bc if they had a chance to vote on it, then they had their choice. And of all the things to take a stand on, are we really going to make a fuss about losing toys over a vegetable? Have we lost or desire to give food with actual nutritional value to our kids? And health problems can come from underweight children eating food void of real nutritional value in place of fruits & veggies too. Right? This is not just about our growing obesity problem. It is about our growing trend to feed our children, & ourselves btw, so much food w/o nutritional value. And about those marketing strategies designed to fuel that trend. See?
To Greenmama, This is not about losing a toy over a vegetable. It is about government overreaching. It is about government believing it is God. He has been taken out of our schools and our public lives and people have become lost. Government will never admit that we need Him so they are going to MAKE us do what a conscious or love of Christ would normally make us do. It is sick and sad. Danielle we AGREE on something!
Greenmamma asks “Who voted for it?” A closer look at the story gives the answer: not the voters, but the city council (“The city passed an ordinance”). Ordinances are not put up for vote to the populace.
I, personally, would leave the state of california. It seems to be a magnet for all the fruitcakes. Pretty soon, they will be telling people how much air they can breate in a 24 hour period. What really amazes me is that most of the population goes along with this. I just feel sorry for the people who can’t leave.
But what if it’s a good idea and may initiate a positive change? Just because there is a market for something doesn’t make it ok to keep selling it, ie: drugs, cigarettes, abortion.
It’s never a good idea to let government decide what free people can and cannot do. The same government that has given us legal abortion and other social ills, cannot be trusted with legislating health.
Healthy eating is a good thing, so let the people do it. Inviting government to force us to, is another step on the road to totalitarianism.
As an aside to your story about the doctor visit, the mentality of people in authority that they should decide for us is getting very excessive. Some friends of mine went to the hospital to have their baby. Afterward, the nurse came in with a prescription for the pill, “we want to make sure you have some contraceptives so you have the right-sized family” (it was their first!). “No,” the wife said. “What?!” The shocked nurse exclaimed. “I want more children,” the wife said. “I see,” said the nurse before orderinng her husband to leave the room. When the door closed behind him, the nurse started interrogating the new mother, “is he making you have more children? How often does he beat you?”
Demented.
To Dancingcrane-but don’t we want the same “government” to make abortion illegal again? So isn’t that one place we ask for a legislative support in “telling us what to do”? And I don’t see the city ordinance “forcing” anyone to eat healthy. It just asks for a separation of the excessively unhealthy food and the free toy. The people of San Fran will still be able to buy the high fat, high calorie, high sugar combos; they just won’t get the toy on the side after Dec 2011.
I have a family member, and her family is all obese. We’ve discussed healthy diet and excersize with them often, and I’m sure this law in San Fransico is aimed at families like my cousins. It is futile, cuz once those children were over the age of 3 they no longer ate happy meals anyways and ate fast food meals off of the adults menu and not the kids. And then there are the underweight children like mine who eat you out of house and home and every nutritionist on the planet says GIVE THEM EXTRA FAT in each meal, because of their high metabolisms and difficulty in gaining weight. The law is stupid, and will end up being completely irrelevant, cuz the only people who will pay attention are the people who don’t need to worry about this in the first place. It breaks my heart to know that I won’t have a choice for my children if I visit San Fransisco.
greenmama - Laws against abortion are not telling anyone what to do. They are protecting an unborn child’s life. Just like laws against murder are not telling me how to deal with my obnoxious teenager, they merely keep my obnoxious teenager alive another day. There is a huge difference between protecting someone’s life, liberty or property (good laws) and dictating choices that are not in and of themselves harmful (nanny laws). One happy meal will not kill you. One abortion kills somebody.
This law is merely a feel good law. It makes SF feel that they are being proactive in dealing with childhood obesity. It’s very easy to make laws. It is much harder and more expensive to get to the root of the issue as to why people make fast food (or any unhealthy food) a regular option for meals and to establish and maintain effective programs (free classes on nutrition, time management, budgeting, exercise) that would combat the root issues.
I’m no fan of the Happy Meal, so I’m not exactly mourning San Francisco’s loss, but it does worry me to think of how far this line of thinking might be taken in the future.
I mean, maybe I’m clueless or something, but it seems like the next “logical” step would to be prevent parents from giving their kids homemade versions of the burger and french-fry. The nutritional value is about the same, isn’t it? Why is it only taboo when McDonald’s wants to do it? Because they gave them a toy with it?
Beware clowns bearing toys, I guess.
Greenmamma,
You are right on. I’m surprised so many people, especially devote Catholics, find a happy meal toy with an awful meal something so important to fight for. Very disheartening.
Danielle—Unfortunately Americans in general do not use McD and soda as just a treat. Are you able to look outside or your own world? Hopefully, when your health insurance bill comes in the mail you won’t be the one complaining about it.
hc, how many times does it have to be said: it’s not about the food or the toy? It’s about whether Uncle Sam has any right to dictate what you feed your kid.
Incidentally, I wonder how many people realize, you can get just the toy without having to buy the meal?
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.