California votes to ban toys in happy meals

Muffin™

Knows your age
    • 429
    Posts
    15
    Years
    Time blog said:
    Santa Clara County, California became the first to ban toys in fast food meals for children. As CNN reports, 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 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?"
    Click to expand...

    Link.
    Now what do you think of this ban???

    Discuss.
     
    Last edited:
    Uhhh...people are obese because they eat the food, not the toys. Why can't they just make healthier food, for pete's sake?
     
    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.


    Trap-Eds said:
    Uhhh...people are obese because they eat the food, not the toys. Why can't they just make healthier food, for pete's sake?
    Click to expand...
    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.
     
    I don't think Fast Food should exist at all, honestly. =/
     
    Xephyr said:
    I don't think Fast Food should exist at all, honestly. =/
    Click to expand...

    ^ 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:<
     
    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.
     
    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.
     
    Oh, let's blame toys for obesity! /sarcasm.

    Geeze, man. I hate litigious societies. Blame the food, not a goddamn plastic toy!
     
    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.
     
    Fxcking Tatertots said:
    . Blame the food, not a goddamn plastic toy!
    Click to expand...

    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 -.-
     
    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.
     
    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.
    Click to expand...
    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.
     
    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.
     
    Trap-Eds said:
    Uhhh...people are obese because they eat the food, not the toys. Why can't they just make healthier food, for pete's sake?
    Click to expand...

    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.
     
    ^ 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.
     
    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.
     
    Timbjerr said:
    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.
    Click to expand...

    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.
     
    Trap-Eds said:
    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.
    Click to expand...


    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 awesome, super cool toy!
     
    Last edited:
    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
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top