PDA

View Full Version : California votes to ban toys in happy meals


Muffin™
April 29th, 2010, 03:17 PM
Santa Clara County, California became the first to ban toys in fast food meals for children. As CNN reports (http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/04/28/fast.food.toys.california/index.html), county officials voted 3 to 2 to ban the plastic toys in any meals with more than 485 calories. County supervisor Ken Yeager said the decision was made in an effort to prevent "restaurants from preying on children's love of toys to peddle high-calorie, high-fat, high-sodium kids' meals." Those in favor of the decision—which bans restaurants from including toys in meal packages of more than 485 calories, or that more than 600 mg of sodium, more than 35% of total calories from fat or 10% from added sugar—say that it will help combat childhood obesity. (Most McDonald's Happy Meal (http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritionexchange/nutrition_happymeals.html) options fit those parameters, for example.)

While high-calorie low-nutrition fast food, added sugar and excess sodium are increasingly in the sights of public health officials who are working to reduce Americans' consumption of products that increase our risk for obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease and other health ailments, inevitably there are many people who wonder at what point it isn't the government's business. Unsurprisingly the California Restaurant Association ranks among those who think the county ordinances overreaches. In efforts to dissuade county officials from imposing the ban, the association recently ran a series of ads in a local newspapers, CNN reports. One read: "Who Made Politicians the Toy Police?"

Link.
(http://wellness.blogs.time.com/2010/04/29/california-county-bans-toys-in-happy-meals/#ixzz0mXA389g8)
Now what do you think of this ban???

Discuss.

Trap-Eds
April 29th, 2010, 03:21 PM
Uhhh...people are obese because they eat the food, not the toys. Why can't they just make healthier food, for pete's sake?

Throat
April 29th, 2010, 03:24 PM
I agree. Speaking of kids, it's hard to say they could be free to decide anything, actually, easy to say they can't tell what's good and bad for themselves. I'm totally against unhealthy food for kids, to be fat is really bad for one's self-esteem and the parents should care more about it.


Uhhh...people are obese because they eat the food, not the toys. Why can't they just make healthier food, for pete's sake?
Agreed, agreed, healthy food isn't as appealing as fast food when you first see, so, maybe a cute toy would help the kids to try on.

Xephyr
April 29th, 2010, 03:25 PM
I don't think Fast Food should exist at all, honestly. =/

Muffin™
April 29th, 2010, 03:25 PM
Why can't they just make healthier food, for pete's sake?

Because little kids hate fruit/vegetables. (65% of the time.)


And the fact that McDonald's has that clown who looks like IT...

Yusshin
April 29th, 2010, 03:30 PM
I don't think Fast Food should exist at all, honestly. =/

^ This D: Seriously, if it's fast food, it should be salads with low-fat dressing .-.

They should ban this in Houston and Dallas really lol They have the worst issues.

+1 to ban. We should get this in Canada D:<

Sneeze
April 29th, 2010, 03:46 PM
I think this is a downright stupid personally, I loved happy meals as a kid, my parents where responsible and I've always been underweight if anything. Unhealthy food is fine in moderation, once a fortnight, maybe even once a week as a treat, as long as you have a healthy diet to back it up there shouldn't be an issue. Let kids be kids and enjoy their crappy food and toys, they'll only be children once. Also, stop blaming the food companies, they didn't force feed the children, in the end its down to the parents and if they feed their kids and all manner of **** they have no right to complain to McDonalds about how it made there kid fat.

Yusshin
April 29th, 2010, 03:49 PM
I like it because kids can be so pressuring. I mean, they'll whine and complain that Bob gets it all the time, or all their friends have these toys and you need it for school.

Sure, it's the parent job to say no, but in some circumstances, it's really, really hard to do that / shut your kid up.

That's why I like the law in Quebec about television ads. You can't show children having fun on television with a toy as an advertisement. It causes young children to think that those kids are really having fun, and don't realize it's just a way to get them to lust after that toy or product. They then force their children to buy it for them or they throw tantrums / cause family issues. Much like that law.

Kinda the same thing.

Fxcking Tatertots
April 29th, 2010, 03:53 PM
Oh, let's blame toys for obesity! /sarcasm.

Geeze, man. I hate litigious societies. Blame the food, not a goddamn plastic toy!

Bluerang1
April 29th, 2010, 03:54 PM
This is ridiculous. The whole point of Happy Meals is the toys. The kids hardly eat their meals as they get distracted by the toys, it's parents who urge their children to finish their food. Here we have option of fruit bags and carrot sticks which are is highly encouraged as those are what feature in the ads. But seriously, that's a lot of calories and salt; I see where they're coming from.

EmeraldSerenade
April 29th, 2010, 03:57 PM
. Blame the food, not a goddamn plastic toy!

Point made right here.
This seems like a ridiculous idea... Its the food that's getting these kids fat, not the toy -.-
They need to look at this problem from another point of view..

But I just don't like fast food period.
But the point of a happy meal is the toy -.-

Melody
April 29th, 2010, 03:57 PM
Honestly, I think this is an ineffective way to act upon obesity which will feel more like tyranny on the government's part than an actual law with the good of the children in mind. Anyone stupid enough to vote for this law, is clearly not considering the issue from a parent/child point of view, as well as not considering the fact that parents can indeed be urged to do more about making sure the child isn't going to be obese. Parents can say "No" and this right must be flexed more often. It makes far more sense to inform parents of the dangers of these "Happy Meals" rather than taking the "Happy" out of the meal.

This stupid ham-handed measure is something which a stupid lobbying group came up with, while failing to see the obvious flaws in this regulation. If urging parents doesn't work, then perhaps urging McDonalds to include more healthy food choices will work. To be perfectly honest, a good balanced diet consists of 2000 calories according to most governmental agencies, so why are we making a law about a 485 calorie meal?!

Now it'd be acceptable if the bar was set at about...800 calories, but 485 is ridiculous. It's not the State's job to define what a child eats, it's the parent's job. If in the long-term, the child becomes morbidly obese, then yeah, that's a signal to let Social Services take the kid away or impose a fine and require a diet, but I'd sooner only take action on the parent if it's become glaringly obvious that the child's nutrition isn't being taken care of properly.

Gary, the Magic Fairy
April 29th, 2010, 03:58 PM
This is ridiculous. What's next, not allowing foods over 400 caloires to be on a value menu because "it encourages poor people to eat unhealthy foods"? It should be the restaurant's and customer's decision what to sell and buy, respectively. If they fall for cheap marketing ploys, that's their business.
That's why I like the law in Quebec about television ads. You can't show children having fun on television with a toy as an advertisement. It causes young children to think that those kids are really having fun, and don't realize it's just a way to get them to lust after that toy or product. They then force their children to buy it for them or they throw tantrums / cause family issues. Much like that law.That's an even stupider law. In all likelihood, THOSE KIDS REALLY ARE HAVING FUN. Kids like toys, a commercial only lets them know of its existence, which they will discover eventually.

Kids want things, and the way they're advertised won't stop anything. Kids will still love their happy meals without a toy.

Yusshin
April 29th, 2010, 04:00 PM
I took a nutrition class. Fast Food is just terrible. In a day, you're supposed to eat maximum 2300mg of salt. Cholesterol? Less than 200mg. Fat? 100g. Carbohydrates? Around 70g.

Mcdonald's food passes all of that lol not a kid's meal, no, but a Big Mac certainly does. Kid meals are just as bad but in a smaller amount :|

Unfortunately, Mcdonald's site has nutrition information, but you can't actually find a chart on it lol How ridiculous.

Timbjerr
April 29th, 2010, 04:08 PM
Uhhh...people are obese because they eat the food, not the toys. Why can't they just make healthier food, for pete's sake?

What? I ate tons of happy meal toys when I was a kid...you mean you weren't supposed to eat them? D:

I see where this ban is coming from and it makes sense. The toys help draw kids into McDonalds and gets them addicted at a young age. I know McDonald's (and several other fast food resturants) are stepping up their healty selection menu nowadays, even offering the choice of healthy sides to kids' meals instead of french fries. This is one of the few things about living in America that I am actually impressed with.

Fxcking Tatertots
April 29th, 2010, 04:11 PM
^ They are doin' it right with the healthier selections. But when it comes to the toys, that's going waaaaaay too far. I understand their intentions, but the county is approaching it the wrong way.

Aureol
April 29th, 2010, 04:18 PM
Eh, this is absurd in my opinion. California's always been a little loopy, but this is a new level. Parents need to be responsible for their children, not the government. If they passed this where I lived, I would promptly begin to buy toys for my kids whenever we eat fast food, just because it's none of their business how I raise my child (setting aside abuse and whatnot, obviously).

If parents boycotted fast food and McDonald's responded to it, fine, but I really hate the fact that the government is getting involved in yet another parental responsibility. Even if it wasn't the responsibility of the parent, who's the government to say what a restaraunt can and can't sell? It's not like McDonald's is pretending that their food is healthy.

Trap-Eds
April 29th, 2010, 04:26 PM
What? I ate tons of happy meal toys when I was a kid...you mean you weren't supposed to eat them? D:

I see where this ban is coming from and it makes sense. The toys help draw kids into McDonalds and gets them addicted at a young age. I know McDonald's (and several other fast food resturants) are stepping up their healty selection menu nowadays, even offering the choice of healthy sides to kids' meals instead of french fries. This is one of the few things about living in America that I am actually impressed with.

Lol, I was wondering if anyone was going to catch that. ;)

I don't think the McDonalds toys-or any fast food toy set-are that great quality anyways, except for the little stuffed animals. But ehh, kids ask for anything.

Muffin™
April 29th, 2010, 04:32 PM
I don't think the McDonalds toys-or any fast food toy set-are that great quality anyways, except for the little stuffed animals. But ehh, kids ask for anything.


Uh... ever heard of Japan? They have the BEST happy meal toys.


BTW, my opinion on this has changed: yes, the government has voted this, but maybe it should be the parent' choice. In order to make a happy meal, you have to have a toy in it, right? So why don't they put healthy food in the bag along with an [s]awesome, super cool toy!

Erin
April 29th, 2010, 04:34 PM
Honestly, I feel that this is just another example of policymakers trying to rectify mistakes that fall under parental responsibility.

Parents should be the ones instilling healthier dietary habits on their children at an early age. This isn't to say that all of them will, but measures such as a "fast food tax" would produce more results, as it has shown to have in other areas where it has been implemented.

The fact of the matter is, most people who buy fast food do so because... well, they need food. Fast. The removal of toys from Happy Meals isn't going to stop a parent from buying a burger on their way to work, nor so a happy meal for their child on their way to day-care.

A fast food tax would be a more effective alternative, or even better, price ceilings for healthier foods. A lot of people say that they would eat healthier on a more regular basis if they could afford it, && it is true that healthy food is more expensive. If a government should do anything at all, it's prioritizing farm subsidation for producers of healthy food or setting a cap on the price at which certain foods could be sold is a much more efficient solution, because it's actually tackling the problem at its root.

Moreover, I see no legal precedent that allows state government to control who can && cannot sell plastic children's toys. It'll be interesting to see them trying to defend the legitimacy of this action if it's ever called into question.

What I see in this is state politicians making it look like they're doing something, but doing it in a way that they can't be blamed when the legislation proves useless

Velvex the Øverlørd
April 29th, 2010, 04:41 PM
I don't think Fast Food should exist at all, honestly. =/
My opinion on this whole thing.
[hr]
And am I the only one who feels California should be worrying about more important things. Recently my state's government has been focusing on matters such as this, and violent video games. -.- I swear, sometimes the state government forgets how much we are in debt.

Erin
April 29th, 2010, 04:47 PM
I swear, sometimes the state government forgets how much we are in debt.
Oh, they know for sure.
This is so typical in state/provincial governments, though.
They're just avoiding real issues by passing symbolic legislation, or stuff that won't take effect for several years, to trick voters into think they're actually doing things.

Illekn
April 29th, 2010, 05:59 PM
Wel.. that is rather odd. Every child that I know, gets the happy meal just for the toy.. they don't even touch their food...

.Gamer
April 29th, 2010, 06:35 PM
Well I'm never buying happy meals again...

ER I MEAN...

Its pretty dumb imo. Toys don't do anything really... its the whole reason to buy a happy meal. It doesn't accomplish anything, its just a stupid law so that they look busy.

And @ the topic of banning fast food: If you don't like it, don't eat it, problem solved. Man I am great.

Yoshimi
April 29th, 2010, 06:39 PM
How about instead of this, we just show the kids a video of what happens with the cow before they turn into that little slab of processed beefy goodness. That should shock a majority of them so much that they won't ever eat those kinds of processed meats for a long while.

Porygon-Z
April 29th, 2010, 06:55 PM
If the kid is young enough to be playing with toys it's the parent who will be buying the happy meal for them anyway, so this ban makes little sense.

Loxius
April 29th, 2010, 07:14 PM
Honestly, I feel that this is just another example of policymakers trying to rectify mistakes that fall under parental responsibility.

Parents should be the ones instilling healthier dietary habits on their children at an early age. This isn't to say that all of them will, but measures such as a "fast food tax" would produce more results, as it has shown to have in other areas where it has been implemented.

The fact of the matter is, most people who buy fast food do so because... well, they need food. Fast. The removal of toys from Happy Meals isn't going to stop a parent from buying a burger on their way to work, nor so a happy meal for their child on their way to day-care.

A fast food tax would be a more effective alternative, or even better, price ceilings for healthier foods. A lot of people say that they would eat healthier on a more regular basis if they could afford it, && it is true that healthy food is more expensive. If a government should do anything at all, it's prioritizing farm subsidation for producers of healthy food or setting a cap on the price at which certain foods could be sold is a much more efficient solution, because it's actually tackling the problem at its root.

Moreover, I see no legal precedent that allows state government to control who can && cannot sell plastic children's toys. It'll be interesting to see them trying to defend the legitimacy of this action if it's ever called into question.

What I see in this is state politicians making it look like they're doing something, but doing it in a way that they can't be blamed when the legislation proves useless

I think you've got a great opinion on this. I'm personally on the side that thinks this is a dumb idea. >-> Those little toys aren't the greatest of course but when I was a kid I honestly loved them haha. I think fast food is alright but WITH moderation and that's what my parents always taught me.

If the healthier foods were cheaper and more accessible, I would definitely be going for that instead when going to fast food joints. That little bit about them trying to make it look like they're doing something sounds exactly like that to me too lmao. Anyway I don't think this idea will make a difference at all. I mean it's just a toy, it's not like parents get it for the toy lawl. It should be on the parents to make things right.

Porygon-Z
April 29th, 2010, 07:30 PM
Moreover, I see no legal precedent that allows state government to control who can && cannot sell plastic children's toys. It'll be interesting to see them trying to defend the legitimacy of this action if it's ever called into question.



Yeah, come to think of it, isn't that kind of inconstitutional.

Eternal Nightmare
April 29th, 2010, 07:34 PM
Wow just wow. I have a four year old brother and he like Mcdonalds basically for the toy that comes in a happy meal. But just because he ask for Mcdonalds does that mean we are gonna give it to him...hell no. It seriously isn't the toys fault while children are so fat nowadays its because of the parents who don't take time to consider the choice they are making my going the extra way to please there child. There is nothing wrong with making your child happy and content but it is best to find healthier alternatives that they will more than likely not enjoy. A few fries and maybe two chicken nuggets arnt all that bad but letting the child eat all the fries, all the nuggets, drink all the SODA, and maybe an apple pie of to the side for dessert is just sheer madness. Basically, the parent should make the right decisions for there child no matter how bad they want that toy. Hell, go get him/her something from one of those convienient 25 cent machines it will have the same effect. Its cheaper in the long run and can save that poor child from developing twin chins and extra skin.

RuRuBell
April 29th, 2010, 08:36 PM
Well, personally speaking...when I was a kid, I was more excited about eating fast food than getting the toy...

I guess it's supposed to be like a 'reward' for choosing the healthier meanu items. I suppose I can agree with the idea, but I don't think it will work out well. The problem with that is they really don't have a lot of variety of healthier items. I think there's only apple slices instead of fries, and milk? They should introduce a variety of different healthy sides, so it appeals to more kids.

At the same time, though, isn't it the parents that's buying the child the food? It really depends on them...

Gumball Watterson
April 29th, 2010, 08:42 PM
How about instead of this, we just show the kids a video of what happens with the cow before they turn into that little slab of processed beefy goodness. That should shock a majority of them so much that they won't ever eat those kinds of processed meats for a long while.
Goodbye, Vegan.

My point of view is that this law actually has some reason to it. Kids like toys. To get toys, you have to get food. Kids feel hungry when they see the food, you know how bratty they get, so they munch it down while they play with their new toy.

That's gonna happen inevitably, one way or another in a lot of times in a kid's life. So by restricting these health requirements, they don't have to exchange much health just of a toy. Let kids be kids, seriously. They're gonna grow up someday and you're never gonna see them play on the slides again (and give you an excuse to go near games).

Of course, parental responsibility also plays a major role in the development of a child, so just this law, even though I agree with it, probably won't be enough. Parents also have to get a wake up slap and watch their children from the beginning. Getting them used to balanced diets and getting them away from popular culture from the time they are infants will help a lot.

Children are not born with common sense, they are born with a sponge that's gonna suck up whatever comes its way first. Most of the children that dislike vegetables get that idea from the stupid cartoons that idealize it, only a few actually hate it from the flavor. I'm proud of the way my parents raised me in my early childhood. Because of that, I had no problem consuming vegetables. Unfortunately, I was flawed in the sense of physical activity, and that cost me a lot of appeal later in elementary school. I try my best nowadays, and I am glad of my results.

So yeah, it's not only what the food companies have to do, but also what parents have to do. Let's face it, Fast Food has become a permanent part of diets. Getting rid of them now would be unfair and chaotic in many ways. But restrictions like these is what helps prevent, but not directly prevent, bad health habits in children.

FreakyLocz14
April 29th, 2010, 10:43 PM
I live in Santa Clara County!!!

I need to go to McDonald's and ask about this.

loliwin
April 30th, 2010, 01:09 AM
lolwut voting to ban toys in happy meals?

:O

I just think that kids get a Happy Meal JUST for the toys. thats it.

Meowth! That's right!
April 30th, 2010, 05:53 AM
I ate quite a lot of happy meals as a kid and I was never fat. People just need to use common sense and take responsibility for themselves, if your kid weighs like 200 pounds then maybe it's time to lay off the cheeseburgers. Mcdonalds isn't forcing you to buy their food, and you could always get a salad and buy the toy seperately for like 50 cents.

Cherrim
April 30th, 2010, 05:59 AM
I actually disagree with this. :/ I don't think it's going to stop people from buying fast food for their kids.

It's up to the PARENTS to watch what their kids are eating and to make sure they eat healthily. Having McDonald's once or twice a month? That's perfectly okay so long as it's supplemented with, you know, REAL MEALS. McDonald's and similar restaurants are not to blame here... sure, okay, they could stand to make their meals healthier (the McDonald's hamburgers are disgustingly greasy in the US... when they aren't in Canada... so I KNOW they can do better). But if they don't want to make their meals better for the populous, they should not be required to. If people want to spend their money on cheap, quick, bad food, it's their own fault. And if they can't even say no to their child requesting a Happy Meal for the toy... that's doubly their own fault.

:/ I'm sick of legislation being introduced to protect children from their own parents. I mean, I guess it must be necessary if they're going that far, but are adults really becoming that stupid and ineffective at parenting? Maybe the government should invest in teaching parents how to be parents rather than making a temporary fix by discouraging kids from prompting their parents to make bad decisions. Which honestly, is really all this is (the way I see it).

It'll stop the parents who buy their kids Happy Meals to shut them up about the toys from buying them, but it won't stop the parents who are too lazy to cook a decent meal (or spend extra on a pre-prepared decent meal) from pulling into the drive-thru to get a quick, unhealthy fix for their kids.

(Though if it does inspire McD's to cut down on the levels of sodium/calories/whatever, I suppose it can be declared fairly win-win, though it doesn't stop either underlying problem, tbh.)

Elite Overlord LeSabre™
April 30th, 2010, 08:33 AM
Around age 9 I began to realize that a) Happy Meal toys are cheap plastic that wouldn't be around six months later and b) the mini hamburger, drink, and fries were not enough food to satisfy my hunger.

So basically, once these kids realize that they can get far better quality toys elsewhere, and McDonald's sells things like Quarter Pounders and Medium/Large sized drinks and fries, the law becomes pointless.

Aside from all that, the toy in the Happy Meal has been a McDonald's tradition for how long now? Coming in now, after 40-50 years and saying, "No, you can't sell toys in Happy Meals anymore" just seems stupid to me. After all, without the toy, the Happy Meal is no longer a Happy Meal. It's a small hamburger/cheeseburger/McNugget combo meal.

Sylphiel
April 30th, 2010, 09:19 AM
I heard this on the radio the other day, and just had to shake my head in disbelief. Of all the ways to try and combat childhood obesity...this? Seriously?

Yeah, if any action should be taken, it should be on the parents to encourage them to make better food choices for their kids. After all, the kids who'd be most likely to get those toys? Chances are they're not heading down to McDonald's by themselves in order to get these meals, someone else has to take them there!

(But nope, parents can never make wrong choices, so let's just slam the fast food places for their poor decisions, it's easier.)

Right idea...wrong execution, I think.

Narcissus Secret
May 1st, 2010, 06:34 PM
Banning toys won't really solve anything. They will still get food, and they will still eat it... they just won't be happy. I really only ever eat Taco Bell these days... and as far I'm concerned, they don't have happy meals.

AeroZeppelin
May 1st, 2010, 06:47 PM
Good. This is another step towards affecting child obesity rates. Shows those greedy corporate a-holes at McDonalds the error of their ways.

ILoveDragonite
May 1st, 2010, 07:11 PM
Wait....what? If child obesity is the problem stop stuffing your kids faces with crap, ban the food not the toys retards ._.

SIN1488
May 1st, 2010, 10:24 PM
I kind of agree, but it probably won't completely stop the problem. Maybe they should only give the toys with the "healthier" meals, so kids want to get those instead. Even though it would taste like crap compared to the other meals, they would eventually get used to it.

When I saw this thread I thought they were banning them because they are cheaply made and probably contain a bunch of toxic chemicals in them. >_<

And it's funny how people say kids can't easily make decisions, yet they can easily convince their parents to buy them fast food instead of a healthier home cooked meal.

Pokeyomom
May 1st, 2010, 10:47 PM
Honestly, I feel that this is just another example of policymakers trying to rectify mistakes that fall under parental responsibility.

Parents should be the ones instilling healthier dietary habits on their children at an early age. This isn't to say that all of them will, but measures such as a "fast food tax" would produce more results, as it has shown to have in other areas where it has been implemented.

The fact of the matter is, most people who buy fast food do so because... well, they need food. Fast. The removal of toys from Happy Meals isn't going to stop a parent from buying a burger on their way to work, nor so a happy meal for their child on their way to day-care.

A fast food tax would be a more effective alternative, or even better, price ceilings for healthier foods. A lot of people say that they would eat healthier on a more regular basis if they could afford it, && it is true that healthy food is more expensive. If a government should do anything at all, it's prioritizing farm subsidation for producers of healthy food or setting a cap on the price at which certain foods could be sold is a much more efficient solution, because it's actually tackling the problem at its root.

Moreover, I see no legal precedent that allows state government to control who can && cannot sell plastic children's toys. It'll be interesting to see them trying to defend the legitimacy of this action if it's ever called into question.

What I see in this is state politicians making it look like they're doing something, but doing it in a way that they can't be blamed when the legislation proves useless

We should all be trying to rectify mistakes that fall under the catagory of parental responsibility, because most parents are uninformed/irresponsible in regards to these sorts of situations. That being said- you're absolutely right about the healthy food conundrum. It's a damn shame that we can buy 10 big macs for the price of a couple pieces of fruit.

Either way- these toys are just useless junk anyways. Just more waste to stuff in a land fill...

Zet
May 1st, 2010, 11:02 PM
Happy meals aren't happy without the toy ;o;

Katie_Q
May 1st, 2010, 11:22 PM
The kids have parents. If parents don't want their kids obese, they'll try and get them to exercise in some fun form. If the kids don't want to exercise, the parents can still buy them healthy foods and get them better toys then crappy mcdonalds ones. I had plenty of happy meals when I was little, and I've always been thin. Never had any problems with my weight. Then again maybe I'm just weird, I can eat all the junk I want, heaps of it, sit at home doing nothing, and still don't put on weight! Seriously, wtf? I bet I'll be fat when I'm older, really obese.

They do usually sell the toys by themselves as well though don't they? Kids can go to maccas, get a sorta healthy meal and buy a toy. EDIT: Their parents can get them the healthy meal and toy. Oh and drive them there.

robobbiebob
May 2nd, 2010, 07:26 AM
a happy meal is a treat it shouldnt be given to children all the time so they shouldnt have to change the for nor the toy, it shouldnt be changed its perants fault for being to lazy to give there kids an apple or summit healthy.

well thats the case here anyway.

and also you can buy the toy here for £1 if they wanted it so much....

Kenpari
May 2nd, 2010, 07:50 AM
I don't think this will do much. I understand why they would do it, but I honestly see it as pointless. There are a few kids that get happy meals because they want the toys, sure, but for the most part this won't help prevent obesity. People will still just get it to be getting food. I suppose it may help by whatever small amount.

InMooseWeTrust
May 2nd, 2010, 09:58 AM
It seems like a nanny state is the answer to all of the problems caused by the mass media. Yes, kids are heavily advertised into eating junk and being unhealthy in just about every aspect. However, these people in the media are trying to sell a product that a certain demographic wants. If you don't want your kids to pay attention to this crap, who's stopping you from turning off the television and having some good, healthy family time? Also, the politicians having control over children's lives (instead of parents, which is how it has been since the dawn of time) implies that the politicians somehow own all of the people in the country. That's just sick, sad, and wrong.

Besides, why are they banning the TOYS and not the junk food? This seems counterproductive, because now the kids will actually eat more junk without playing. Playing is how they learn, and over time, kids are losing the opportunity to play.

You can also get the toys without the happy meals, like I used to do. I was health-conscious (my parents weren't....) as a small child, and a toy wasn't going to coerce me into eating junk. In fact, you can only get coerced into these things if you understand how you're being manipulated, and it's easy to teach children how to not be manipulated. I've done it to my siblings so don't tell me it can't be done.

SIN1488
May 2nd, 2010, 10:16 AM
Besides, why are they banning the TOYS and not the junk food? This seems counterproductive, because now the kids will actually eat more junk without playing. Playing is how they learn, and over time, kids are losing the opportunity to play.

They can't ban the food because that's what makes the business. If they ban the toys, they will still get many customers, but if they ban the food, they will go out of business. Also, good luck fighting those big companies in court to get it banned, as they can easily afford a huge team of lawyers.

And don't you love how Mcdonalds helps kids with cancer, yet in turn they give kids obesity? Yeah, sounds like they really care....

InMooseWeTrust
May 2nd, 2010, 10:45 AM
They can't ban the food because that's what makes the business. If they ban the toys, they will still get many customers, but if they ban the food, they will go out of business. Also, good luck fighting those big companies in court to get it banned, as they can easily afford a huge team of lawyers.

And don't you love how Mcdonalds helps kids with cancer, yet in turn they give kids obesity? Yeah, sounds like they really care....

Actually, if they ban toys, they might actually get less customers if the kids are less enthusiastic about buying the meals. A lot of things government does will have unintended consequences that do great harm. It's like how when the government put a tax on yachts, the yacht industry almost went completely bankrupt (along with jobs) because it was too expensive for people who were not already millionaires to afford one anymore. I'm not making this up.

McDonald's doesn't give people obesity. You don't have to buy burgers. You can buy a salad. PARENTS don't have to buy happy meals for their kids. No matter how much kids pester them, if the parents refuse to pay, then who can do anything about it?

I'd be more concerned with ideologue politicians than business lawyers. A lot of things big businesses do that most people find reprehensible are the result of things imposed on them by government in the first place.


Would you eat at McDonald's, get fat, and then sue McDonald's for making you fat? You CHOOSE to eat junk food, and it's somehow the fault of fast food restaurants.

SalemGreen
May 2nd, 2010, 10:57 AM
As a Parent myself I can say that I'm honestly laughing at how some of the people in this thread are going to be in for a helluva surprise when their kids come. It's not that easy, guys. When your kid wants something because all of his friends are getting it and it's on TV all the time, you kinda have to either get it for them, or be the bad guy. Statistically, upsetting your kid like that that frequently will also lead into some child issues INCLUDING obesity so that's obviously not a solution. Turning off the tv? Family time? Yeah, just let me know how that goes when you have a kid. You'd have to throw out the TV until they are 16 in order for that to work, then they have their friends in school making fun of them for it.

Those suggestions don't work.


This law is a great one though and I will support it for my area. It's a great idea, and will help prevent kids from wanting these unhealthy meals so greatly.

InMooseWeTrust
May 2nd, 2010, 10:59 AM
As a Parent myself I can say that I'm honestly laughing at how some of the people in this thread are going to be in for a helluva surprise when their kids come. It's not that easy, guys. When your kid wants something because all of his friends are getting it and it's on TV all the time, you kinda have to either get it for them, or be the bad guy. Statistically, upsetting your kid like that that frequently will also lead into some child issues INCLUDING obesity so that's obviously not a solution. Turning off the tv? Family time? Yeah, just let me know how that goes when you have a kid. You'd have to throw out the TV until they are 16 in order for that to work, then they have their friends in school making fun of them for it.

Those suggestions don't work.


This law is a great one though and I will support it for my area. It's a great idea, and will help prevent kids from wanting these unhealthy meals so greatly.

By your logic, it would be a good idea to ban the food. No one's banning the food. They're banning the TOYS. The food will still exist in some way.

Trap-Eds
May 2nd, 2010, 11:56 AM
As a Parent myself I can say that I'm honestly laughing at how some of the people in this thread are going to be in for a helluva surprise when their kids come. It's not that easy, guys. When your kid wants something because all of his friends are getting it and it's on TV all the time, you kinda have to either get it for them, or be the bad guy. Statistically, upsetting your kid like that that frequently will also lead into some child issues INCLUDING obesity so that's obviously not a solution. Turning off the tv? Family time? Yeah, just let me know how that goes when you have a kid. You'd have to throw out the TV until they are 16 in order for that to work, then they have their friends in school making fun of them for it.

Those suggestions don't work.


This law is a great one though and I will support it for my area. It's a great idea, and will help prevent kids from wanting these unhealthy meals so greatly.

...I feel sorry for you. Really. Your kid must be a hoot. :/

I honestly don't see how banning toys will get the kids to stop eating the food. Half of them don't even EAT the food, they just play with the toy.

Sylphiel
May 2nd, 2010, 12:09 PM
As a Parent myself I can say that I'm honestly laughing at how some of the people in this thread are going to be in for a helluva surprise when their kids come. It's not that easy, guys. When your kid wants something because all of his friends are getting it and it's on TV all the time, you kinda have to either get it for them, or be the bad guy. Statistically, upsetting your kid like that that frequently will also lead into some child issues INCLUDING obesity so that's obviously not a solution. Turning off the tv? Family time? Yeah, just let me know how that goes when you have a kid. You'd have to throw out the TV until they are 16 in order for that to work, then they have their friends in school making fun of them for it.

Heh.

Parents do not have to always buy their kid a happy meal every time the kid wants a toy - sometimes you kind of have to be the "bad guy", because kids, especially younger ones, are usually not that well informed about what's "good" or "bad" for them.

Again, it still boils down to them banning stuff because people are not making proper decisions for their kids. A happy meal with a toy once in a while? Sure, why not. But if you're (general you, not specific) getting your kid a happy meal every time they demand one for a toy, then something's wrong, and it's not with the fast food places.

It's still the wrong execution.

FreakyLocz14
May 2nd, 2010, 01:26 PM
You can get them something healthier.
You can get toys at a toy store without the happy meal.

Sneeze
May 2nd, 2010, 02:04 PM
That why you take said kid to McDonalds every two weeks or so, if it's become a routine and something they are used to they'll have no reason to throw a tantrum when they haven't been in one week.

salochin
May 3rd, 2010, 05:31 PM
Ban on toys? REALLY? Of course since all junk food consists of Mickey D's right? Why not subsidize healthy foods? OTHER THAN CORN! Corn honestly when made into thousands of foods not corn is bad, High fructose corn syrup is horrible just so you know (Oh hey wouldn't you know it makes up mc donalds food). Parents go for quick and cheap, not becuase their kid is complaining to get a cheap toy.

My mom happens to work at a mc donalds, guess what happens to most of the toys THEY GET THROWN OUT. So no it's not the toys it's the parents who buy the crap food. It's not the choice between a toy and non-clogged arteries, it's cheap and quick versus effort and cost.

Aureol
May 3rd, 2010, 07:59 PM
As a Parent myself I can say that I'm honestly laughing at how some of the people in this thread are going to be in for a helluva surprise when their kids come. It's not that easy, guys. When your kid wants something because all of his friends are getting it and it's on TV all the time, you kinda have to either get it for them, or be the bad guy. Statistically, upsetting your kid like that that frequently will also lead into some child issues INCLUDING obesity so that's obviously not a solution. Turning off the tv? Family time? Yeah, just let me know how that goes when you have a kid. You'd have to throw out the TV until they are 16 in order for that to work, then they have their friends in school making fun of them for it.

My parents did a pretty good job, and there's 10 of us (not all of us are well-behaved, either). I also babysit two nephews often (6-year-old and 2-year-old, been around them for pretty much their whole lives), and I know how to say "no," even in situations when their parents would probably let them. And I'm willing to put up with being the bad guy for a while, too. Maybe it'll be different once I have my own kids, but if my parents can do it with 10, I sure hope I'm competent enough to do it with 4 or so.

Maybe it's different in your case, but as far as I see, it's just about showing them that you're in charge. If kids are impossible to that extent, there is counseling and other appropriate programs available.

Anyways, this is another way the government is trying to override parental responsibilities. Too often do we fail to realize how much parents actually can do. Next, they'll start banning popular TV shows because it encourages children to stay inside.

TRIFORCE89
May 4th, 2010, 03:57 AM
I say "Screw off"

Not everyone who eats at McDonalds is obese. Not every child who eats a Happy Meal is overweight. The toys certainly are not to blame.

You can order a Happy Meal with apples. Parents responsibility to do that. Also parents choice to go to McDonalds or not in the first place. Doesn't matter if there is a toy, or how badly the child wants it, the child has no way of getting to McDonalds without their parent. So, parent is to blame not the toy.

Also... when I was little, the toys were significantly cooler than they are now. There were some cool "collector's" sets. If you got all the parts from the Inspector Gadget set you could build a large Gadget figure. People were going crazy over the 101 Dalmations toys. etc. If we wanted a particular toy, but not the food - which was often. We'd go there, pay $1 and get a toy and leave. Wouldn't be able to do that now. There are people who do legitimately collect these things. And now they can't because of bad parents.

InMooseWeTrust
May 4th, 2010, 06:45 AM
TRIFORCE89, I know exactly what you mean. I was one of those kids. My parents forced me to overeat junk food thinking I'll starve to death or something (I've always been skinny), but I only wanted the toys.

Sotto Voce
May 4th, 2010, 06:59 AM
When it comes right down to it, does this in of itself really matter?
So you don't get toys with some meals, big deal.

Think about it.

Cherrim
May 4th, 2010, 06:59 AM
As a Parent myself I can say that I'm honestly laughing at how some of the people in this thread are going to be in for a helluva surprise when their kids come. It's not that easy, guys. When your kid wants something because all of his friends are getting it and it's on TV all the time, you kinda have to either get it for them, or be the bad guy. Statistically, upsetting your kid like that that frequently will also lead into some child issues INCLUDING obesity so that's obviously not a solution. Turning off the tv? Family time? Yeah, just let me know how that goes when you have a kid. You'd have to throw out the TV until they are 16 in order for that to work, then they have their friends in school making fun of them for it.

Those suggestions don't work.


This law is a great one though and I will support it for my area. It's a great idea, and will help prevent kids from wanting these unhealthy meals so greatly.
Um, sometimes you do have to be the bad guy. Upsetting a kid for all of 3 hours before they're distracted by something else is just something you have to do, isn't it? Not a parent and I never plan to be one, but I still know it's necessary for parents to be able to firmly tell their child that, no, they can't always get what they want.

:/ If a kid gets untolerably upset over something like a Happy Meal Toy, what the heck would one do at Christmastime or their birthday when the kid wants every single toy on the market? If you can say no then, I don't see why saying no to a Happy Meal is much different. Yeah, "all the other kids" may have it, but I doubt there would ever be lasting resentment over a cheap toy from a fast food restaurant. @_@ The only time I think "other kids have/can do it!" is even an excuse is in the case of huge fads (which McD's toys never are) and even then, once the fad is over, the kid won't care anymore. It might come up much later in life (ie "Do you remember Furbies??" "No, my parents never got me one!" "Man, that sucks!") but seriously, a well-raised child will either be old enough to understand that they can't have absolutely everything or they will learn that process and respect it.

I still say blaming the toy for obese children is just an excuse for bad parenting and will not solve the problem.

donavannj
May 4th, 2010, 07:19 AM
As a Parent myself I can say that I'm honestly laughing at how some of the people in this thread are going to be in for a helluva surprise when their kids come. It's not that easy, guys. When your kid wants something because all of his friends are getting it and it's on TV all the time, you kinda have to either get it for them, or be the bad guy. Statistically, upsetting your kid like that that frequently will also lead into some child issues INCLUDING obesity so that's obviously not a solution. Turning off the tv? Family time? Yeah, just let me know how that goes when you have a kid. You'd have to throw out the TV until they are 16 in order for that to work, then they have their friends in school making fun of them for it.

Those suggestions don't work.
It's actually pretty easy to not have kids whining for McDonald's. Introduce them to a healthier chain like Subway instead while they are young, and eat home-cooked meals as often as possible, rarely eating out, and even less frequently dropping by McDonald's.

And playing the bad guy is a core part of helping a child learn discipline and self-control in the long run, even if it doesn't seem so in the short term.

Also, playing outside with your child is a great way to counter obesity in both yourself and your child. It's an all-around enriching experience. You also need to limit their TV time those first four years of life. (b'-')b

Pass!on
May 4th, 2010, 08:01 AM
I remember a couple times when the toy made me go to the restaurant. But its not like I ever overate fast food because of a toy. Most of the time when I went to a fast food place (which was rare for my family), I wanted to go because of the food.
When you are gaining weight from overeating, chances are its because you want to eat, not for a stupid little toy. So I doubt this will really do anything to combat child obesity.