Happy Meals banned in San Francisco!

K-9

Happy Meals Banned in San Francisco

(Reuters) - San Francisco has become the first major U.S. city to pass a law that cracks down on the popular practice of giving away free toys with unhealthy restaurant meals for children.

San Francisco's Board of Supervisors passed the law on Tuesday on a veto-proof 8-to-3 vote. It takes effect on December 1, 2011.

The law, like an ordinance passed earlier this year in nearby Santa Clara County, would require that restaurant kids' meals meet certain nutritional standards before they could be sold with toys.

Opponents of the law include the National Restaurant Association and McDonald's Corp, which used its now wildly popular Happy Meal to pioneer the use of free toys to market directly to children.

"We are extremely disappointed with today's decision. It's not what our customers want, nor is it something they asked for," McDonald's spokeswoman Danya Proud said in a statement.

"Getting a toy with a kid's meal is just one part of a fun, family experience at McDonald's," Proud said.

The San Francisco law would allow toys to be given away with kids' meals that have less than 600 calories, contain fruits and vegetables, and include beverages without excessive fat or sugar.

Backers of the ordinance say it aims to promote healthy eating habits while combating childhood obesity.

"Our children are sick. Rates of obesity in San Francisco are disturbingly high, especially among children of color," said San Francisco Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure.

"This is a challenge to the restaurant industry to think about children's health first and join the wide range of local restaurants that have already made this commitment," Mar said.

I wonder will it make any difference to obesity levels? 15% of American children are over weight or obese.

The practice of bundling toys in Happy Meals seems quite the lucrative business for McDonalds and the fast food industry in general and surely adds to their attractiveness.

In 2006, the latest year for which data is available, fast-food companies led by McDonald's spent more than $520 million on advertising and toys to promote meals for children, according to a U.S. Federal Trade Commission report.
When the efforts of other food and beverage companies were included, promotional spending aimed at children topped $1.6 billion.

Nanny State or in the best interest of children?

Overheal

Nanny State or in the best interest of children?

who the hell cares: we'll find out the answer in 10 years

But perhaps you'd also like to visit http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/ which i think makes a few interesting points.

Black Swan

Who wants to be toyed with?

News flash! millions of Chinese toymakers lose their jobs! :pac:

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

News flash! millions of Chinese toymakers lose their jobs! :pac:

And Ronald Mc Donald.

K-9

Overheal wrote: »

who the hell cares: we'll find out the answer in 10 years

But perhaps you'd also like to visit http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/ which i think makes a few interesting points.

Well somebody does! :pac:

Cheers for the link, some mad stuff there! Don Draper would be a happy man!

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

And Ronald Mc Donald.

Well, he was always a bit of a clown!

I took my eldest into Mc D's a couple of years ago, he was in a fowl mood and demanded a chicken nugget happy meal, then hated the toy. When we got home the missus asks where we'd been and I said that he went to Mc D's and had a "grumpy meal"

senordingdong

Not in favour of anyone banning anything but the likely outcome of this is that McDonalds will start making healthier happy meals rather than lose them altogether.

Terry

If you can't say no to your child, then perhaps you should brush up on your parenting skills.
McDonald's should only ever be a treat, and not somewhere for lazy people to take their kids.
This won't change anything. Lazy parents will still be lazy. Fast food places will find a loophole in this law.



Please note that this is not a comment on the post above mine. I'm not calling you a lazy parent, dolanbaker.

PanchoVilla

senordingdong wrote: »

Not in favour of anyone banning anything...

Because lead-based paint chips were fúcking tasty!! When I was a kid, there was nothing like chowing down on those delicious lead-based paint chips to keep me going after lunchtime.

senordingdong

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Because lead-based paint chips were fúcking tasty!! When I was a kid, there was nothing like chowing down on those delicious lead-based paint chips to keep me going after lunchtime.

You knew full well what I meant.
Stop flame baiting me or I will report you.

K-9

Terry wrote: »

If you can't say no to your child, then perhaps you should brush up on your parenting skills.
McDonald's should only ever be a treat, and not somewhere for lazy people to take their kids.
This won't change anything. Lazy parents will still be lazy. Fast food places will find a loophole in this law.



Please note that this is not a comment on the post above mine. I'm not calling you a lazy parent, dolanbaker.

That was my initial thought on it too, they'll probably find some way around it.

They probably should be shaming the toy companies as well, paying Billions world wide, never mind Disney, Dreamworks etc.

PanchoVilla

senordingdong wrote: »

You knew full well what I meant.
Stop flame baiting me or I will report you.

Who's flame baiting? You said you don't think anyone should ban anything and I just pointed out how ridiculous that statement is. Report away.

Mister men

"15% of American kids are obese or overweight"....? Surely it's more than that. Went to disneyland with the family last year and i'd say it was closer to 50% fat kids.

PanchoVilla

Mister men wrote: »

"15% of American kids are obese or overweight"....? Surely it's more than that. Went to disneyland with the family last year and i'd say it was closer to 50% fat kids.

Poor kids don't go to Disneyland. Also, you probably tend to notice fat kids more than skinny kids. I bet if you actually observed the kids going through the gates and tallied who was visibly obese you'd have much less than 50%. I'd say there are just as many obese kids, if not more, in Ireland.

Edit: A study of overweight and obese children in RoI and NI in 2002.

Overall, almost one in four boys (23% RoI and NI) and over one in four girls (28% RoI, 25% NI) were either overweight or obese. In RoI, the highest prevalence of overweight was among 13 year old girls (32%) and obesity among 7 year old girls (11%).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1950090/

pickarooney

Terry wrote: »

If you can't say no to your child, then perhaps you should brush up on your parenting skills.
McDonald's should only ever be a treat, and not somewhere for lazy people to take their kids.

These two sentences are contradictory to me. Unhealthy food should never be used as a reward. That's not good parenting.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I took my eldest into Mc D's a couple of years ago, he was in a fowl mood and demanded a chicken nugget happy meal, then hated the toy. When we got home the missus asks where we'd been and I said that he went to Mc D's and had a "grumpy meal"

I see what you did there! :pac:

Anyway I don't know if this will make a difference. Healthy happy meal plus toy plus "can I have a couple hamburgers for him/her as well"...
Or they can buy the toy separately as well

Burkatron

Another case of a Nanny state who instead of deal with the root cause i.e the lazy parents, penalise a couple of industries! If a kid is obese without medical reasoning it should be seen as a form of abuse & the parents should be punished the same as if the kid was malnourished!

For once I'm on the side of the fast food industry! They should be fined for shovelling out the **** they serve, not for giving a toy away with it!!!

senordingdong

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Who's flame baiting? You said you don't think anyone should ban anything and I just pointed out how ridiculous that statement is. Report away.

Ok, take what I said too litteraly, and I will take what you said litteraly.

No, lead based paint chips shouldn't have been banned.

If people are stupid enough to continue eating them after being made aware of the risks, then that's their perogative.
If they decide they don't want to eat crap that could kill them, then demand would fall and the product would no longer be produced.

Problem solved, without the intervention of a nanny state on the behalf of a lazy, stupid, hysterical public.

Sam Vimes

Deleted User wrote: »

I took my eldest into Mc D's a couple of years ago, he was in a fowl mood and demanded a chicken nugget happy meal

Well chicken is the best thing to get for someone in a fowl mood

Naos

I don't see the problem here at all.

Kid eats healthy meal.
Kid receives toy as reward, reinforcing healthy meals as a good thing.

Sounds great to me, I'd love if we followed suit.

Snakeblood

K-9 wrote: »

Happy Meals Banned in San Francisco





I wonder will it make any difference to obesity levels? 15% of American children are over weight or obese.

The practice of bundling toys in Happy Meals seems quite the lucrative business for McDonalds and the fast food industry in general and surely adds to their attractiveness.




Nanny State or in the best interest of children?

Best interests of children, and everyone. Otherwise it turns the nation into a league of fatties and then into a league of people lying on hospital beds at 25 suffering from diseases they shouldn't have till they're 60, if at all.

amacachi

Most likely so that their farts smell nice since all they do over there is walk around sniffing them all day.

Snakeblood

Burkatron wrote: »

Another case of a Nanny state who instead of deal with the root cause i.e the lazy parents, penalise a couple of industries! If a kid is obese without medical reasoning it should be seen as a form of abuse & the parents should be punished the same as if the kid was malnourished!

For once I'm on the side of the fast food industry! They should be fined for shovelling out the **** they serve, not for giving a toy away with it!!!

The root cause is that McDonald's make bad food cheap and target it at children. The parents are then trying to stop the kids from getting what looks to them delicious, and comes with a free toy.

Anyone who thinks McDonald's are being unfairly targeted is insane. If they weren't giving garbage to kids in order to get them to pressure their parents to buy more, then maybe there would be a case. But they're spending 520 million on getting Junior to kick up and demand McDonald's.

Greyfox

pickarooney wrote: »

These two sentences are contradictory to me. Unhealthy food should never be used as a reward. That's not good parenting.

That's nonsense, so it's wrong to reward a child with a little bit of chocolate? For generations things like chocolate, ice cream, dessert etc have been given as a reward for a child been good, it's called a balanced diet!

Theirs 100% nothing wrong with bringing your kid to mcdonalds just as long as their weekly diet is balanced.

This law is the nanny state taking over again, apparently parents do not have the capability to provide a balanced diet for their kids, if I was a parent I'd find this very insulting

phill106

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Poor kids don't go to Disneyland. Also, you probably tend to notice fat kids more than skinny kids. I bet if you actually observed the kids going through the gates and tallied who was visibly obese you'd have much less than 50%. I'd say there are just as many obese kids, if not more, in Ireland.

Edit: A study of overweight and obese children in RoI and NI in 2002.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1950090/

Assuming the fat kids could fit through the gates...

Snakeblood

Greyfox wrote: »

That's nonsense, so it's wrong to reward a child with a little bit of chocolate? For generations things like chocolate, ice cream, dessert etc have been given as a reward for a child been good, it's called a balanced diet!

Theirs 100% nothing wrong with bringing your kid to mcdonalds just as long as their weekly diet is balanced.

This law is the nanny state taking over again, apparently parents do not have the capability to provide a balanced diet for their kids, if I was a parent I'd find this very insulting

Just because something has been done for generations doesn't mean it's right. McDonald's is muck. It has very little nutritional value and is stuffed with salt and sugar. If kids were taught that healthy food was a reward, they'd see healthy food as a reward.

amacachi

Greyfox wrote: »

That's nonsense, so it's wrong to reward a child with a little bit of chocolate? For generations things like chocolate, ice cream, dessert etc have been given as a reward for a child been good, it's called a balanced diet!

Theirs 100% nothing wrong with bringing your kid to mcdonalds just as long as their weekly diet is balanced.

This law is the nanny state taking over again, apparently parents do not have the capability to provide a balanced diet for their kids, if I was a parent I'd find this very insulting

Bit different when there wasn't overly-easy access to food the whole time.

AnonoBoy

Unhappy Meals more like.......






















..........Jesus shoot me now, that was f*cking terrible!

Greyfox

Snakeblood wrote: »

Just because something has been done for generations doesn't mean it's right. McDonald's is muck. It has very little nutritional value and is stuffed with salt and sugar. If kids were taught that healthy food was a reward, they'd see healthy food as a reward.

Well if Mcdonalds sold only healty food and a toy their profits would plummit, and that would not be fair on any business! Instead of blaming Mcdonalds we should be blaming the parents who bring them their too often!

liah

Quick question: what is it that parents actually have to do these days?

Don't have to watch what your kid is eating, government does it for you. Don't have to watch your kids, government's making everything kid-safe now. Don't have to monitor what movies or videogames they buy, the government makes IDs get checked now. Etcetera, etcetera.

Pretty sure the government's got parenting totally covered at this point. Good to know I wouldn't have to do anything as a parent should I choose to have kids.

Snakeblood

Greyfox wrote: »

Well if Mcdonalds sold only healty food and a toy their profits would plummit, and that would not be fair on any business! Instead of blaming Mcdonalds we should be blaming the parents who bring them their too often!

Why not blame both? Why does McDonald's get a free pass? They spend far more than parents can or do on persuading kids they should eat filth.

My heart bleeds for a corporation that will lose money if it only sells stuff that isn't actually harmful to children, with a corporate presence in hospitals and schools.

syklops

Snakeblood wrote: »

Why not blame both? Why does McDonald's get a free pass? They spend far more than parents can or do on persuading kids they should eat filth.

My heart bleeds for a corporation that will lose money if it only sells stuff that isn't actually harmful to children, with a corporate presence in hospitals and schools.

McDonalds sell things that people choose to buy. They should not be blamed for childhood obesity.

When I was a kid I went to McDonalds for my birthday and that was it. Anytime I asked if we were in Dublin the answer was no. Pester power was just as strong in those days. My sister and I could pester for hours on end. The answer was always a firm no. In those days there was one McDonalds in all of Ireland. How many are there now?

Feckin hell. I just looked up how many there are in Ireland now. 79! :eek:

So what has changed in society? Why have parents stopped saying no?

Greyfox

Snakeblood wrote: »

Why not blame both? Why does McDonald's get a free pass? They spend far more than parents can or do on persuading kids they should eat filth.

My heart bleeds for a corporation that will lose money if it only sells stuff that isn't actually harmful to children, with a corporate presence in hospitals and schools.

Because McDonalds aren't trying to pretend their food is healthy so I can't see what their doing wrong, everyone already knows it's junk food including the parents who buy happy meals, next we'll be blaming mcdonalds for the fact that so many adults are overweight.

But eating Mcdonalds occasionally is NOT harmfull to kids, I ate their quite a bit as a kid and I've never had any health problems! I also know parents who never bring their kids to McDonalds, it's called bringing your kids somewhere else for food!

slarkin123

I think this is a complete joke. Its down to the parents to make sure their kids have a healthy diet. The government or a food company shouldn't have to tell you what to feed your kids.

My 2 are lucky if they go once a month. Parents really need to cop on, everyone knows mc donalds is junk food and should be taken in moderation.

Snakeblood

syklops wrote: »

McDonalds sell things that people choose to buy. They should not be blamed for childhood obesity.

When I was a kid I went to McDonalds for my birthday and that was it. Anytime I asked if we were in Dublin the answer was no. Pester power was just as strong in those days. My sister and I could pester for hours on end. The answer was always a firm no. In those days there was one McDonalds in all of Ireland. How many are there now?

Feckin hell. I just looked up how many there are in Ireland now. 79! :eek:

So what has changed in society? Why have parents stopped saying no?

You went to one mcdonald's a year when there was one in the country. now they permeate it and people constantly go to it. You're asking me what has changed?

McDonald's advertise more to kids, have better P.R. about their nutrition or lack thereof, and parents are more hassled than they used to be. They expand so they're in most areas, and they're bright and colourful and kids want the food and toys, and their parents think 'Oh, it's a treat'.

So the next time they are around, and their kids are misbehaving, they bribe them with a treat to shut them up. And the next time. And the next time. And then the kid learns that McDonald's is the treat place, so that's where they always want to go if given a choice, or even if not given a choice.

Snakeblood

Greyfox wrote: »

Because McDonalds aren't trying to pretend their food is healthy so I can't see what their doing wrong, everyone already knows it's junk food including the parents who buy happy meals, next we'll be blaming mcdonalds for the fact that so many adults are overweight.

But eating Mcdonalds occasionally is NOT harmfull to kids, I ate their quite a bit as a kid and I've never had any health problems! I also know parents who never bring their kids to McDonalds, it's called bringing your kids somewhere else for food!

Actually, they are trying to pretend their food is healthy. If you don't know that, then go read their nutritional information.
And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case

Yes, it is harmful to kids. It makes them fat. It teaches them that eating junk food is a treat to be enjoyed. It makes them want too much salt and sugar in their diet that they don't need. McDonald's is directly competing with what is good for children to eat. It doesn't want people eating carrots or healthy food. It wants children eating its food. It spends hundreds of millions of dollars getting kids to eat its food.

It's feeding kids muck and it's a bad thing to do.

icrusader

Yep! I have turned off sky kids tv because of toy based brainwashing also.
Well done san francisco!who says smoking hapes of waccy baccy makes you stupid?

stovelid

liah wrote: »

Quick question: what is it that parents actually have to do these days?

Bring them up.

senordingdong

stovelid wrote: »

Bring them up.

In an ideal world maybe.

Stercus Accidit

Happy Meals?

More like Crappy Meals Amirite? :cool::pac:

loool

Procasinator

Snakeblood wrote: »

Actually, they are trying to pretend their food is healthy. If you don't know that, then go read their nutritional information.
And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case

Yes, it is harmful to kids. It makes them fat. It teaches them that eating junk food is a treat to be enjoyed. It makes them want too much salt and sugar in their diet that they don't need. McDonald's is directly competing with what is good for children to eat. It doesn't want people eating carrots or healthy food. It wants children eating its food. It spends hundreds of millions of dollars getting kids to eat its food.

It's feeding kids muck and it's a bad thing to do.

Their nutritional information far from paints a picture of healthy food.

And eating junk is a treat to be enjoyed. Much like some Ben & Jerry's, a pint or two, etc. If people think of McDonald's as a treat to be enjoyed, but not part of a regular diet, what is your gripe?

Snakeblood

Procasinator wrote: »

Their nutritional information far from paints a picture of healthy food.

And eating junk is a treat to be enjoyed. Much like some Ben & Jerry's, a pint or two, etc. If people think of McDonald's as a treat to be enjoyed, but not part of a regular diet, what is your gripe?

The gripe would be that 15% of american kids are obese. So clearly, there's some disconnect between having a treat and pigging out, and given the proliferation of fast food chains, the child meals with the toys, and the amount of fat kids now as opposed to 10-20 years ago, and the salt and sugar levels in the food in fast food in general, there's a problem that parents either aren't prepared or arent equipped to deal with, and the people who are suffering will be the next generation, in either being horrifically unhealthy, or having to pay for the hospital care of horrifically unhealthy people.

pickarooney

Greyfox wrote: »

That's nonsense, so it's wrong to reward a child with a little bit of chocolate? For generations things like chocolate, ice cream, dessert etc have been given as a reward for a child been good, it's called a balanced diet!

Yes, it's a terrible idea, as bad as punishing them with vegetables. There's nothing wrong with eating all kinds of food in moderation but the link between behaviour and food is just brainless.

KungPao

I wonder if Ronald McDonald will be banned some time soon. Joe Camel http://www.bambootrading.com/1300/1385.jpg was given the heave ho because the character was attractive to children and was promoting a very damaging product.

Ron McD is promoting a damaging product too, obviously targeted towards kids and even dressed in colours that make people feel hungry.

And he's creepy.

Snakeblood

KungPao wrote: »

I wonder if Ronald McDonald will be banned some time soon. Joe Camel http://www.bambootrading.com/1300/1385.jpg was given the heave ho because the character was attractive to children and was promoting a very damaging product.

Ron McD is promoting a damaging product too, obviously targeted towards kids and even dressed in colours that make people feel hungry.

And he's creepy too.

He always reminds me of the dude from IT by stephen King. Pennywise.

I should also say in the interests of full disclosure, I've eaten in McD's and will do so again. I just dislike that they aim at kids. I won't bring my kid there though. She doesn't deserve it.

KungPao

Snakeblood wrote: »

He always reminds me of the dude from IT by stephen King. Pennywise.

I should also say in the interests of full disclosure, I've eaten in McD's and will do so again. I just dislike that they aim at kids. I won't bring my kid there though. She doesn't deserve it.

Yeah, the way they aim at kids is so fooked up, but some people just don't see the problem. I mean a HUGE corporation selling harmful rubbish and designing characters and with colours that make kids want to stuff their face with salt, fat, carbs and sugar.

How do they get away with saying junk food is ok as part of a balanced diet? It's terrible for your body, no matter what way they spin it.

Imagine Phillip Morris being allowed to say that cigs are bad for you BUT the odd fag as a treat is perfectly fine.

liah

KungPao wrote: »

Yeah, the way they aim at kids is so fooked up, but some people just don't see the problem. I mean a HUGE corporation selling harmful rubbish and designing characters and with colours that make kids want to stuff their face with salt, fat, carbs and sugar.

How do they get away with saying junk food is ok as part of a balanced diet? It's terrible for your body, no matter what way they spin it.

Imagine Phillip Morris being allowed to say that cigs are bad for you BUT the odd fag as a treat is perfectly fine.

Chrissake. So what if they're advertising to kids? It's the PARENTS who buy the product. It's the PARENT'S decision to feed their kid that, it's their money, it's their choice, the child is in their control.

This is the parent's job, not the government's. I mean, come on. They're children. They pester. It's what they do. Every parent ever has had to deal with it. It's the parent's job to say no.

Procasinator

Snakeblood wrote: »

The gripe would be that 15% of american kids are obese. So clearly, there's some disconnect between having a treat and pigging out, and given the proliferation of fast food chains, the child meals with the toys, and the amount of fat kids now as opposed to 10-20 years ago, and the salt and sugar levels in the food in fast food in general, there's a problem that parents either aren't prepared or arent equipped to deal with, and the people who are suffering will be the next generation, in either being horrifically unhealthy, or having to pay for the hospital care of horrifically unhealthy people.

So your gripe is that these items are no longer seen as a treat, but as a large part of a persons diet.

Just to avoid confusion, I am taking treat to mean:
An event or item that is out of the ordinary and gives great pleasure.

Greyfox

Snakeblood wrote: »

So the next time they are around, and their kids are misbehaving, they bribe them with a treat to shut them up. And the next time. And the next time. And then the kid learns that McDonald's is the treat place, so that's where they always want to go if given a choice, or even if not given a choice.

In this case the problem is the fact that the parent felt the need to bribe their child rather then telling them that if they don't stop misbehaving they will get a punishment. This is a very clear case of bad parenting and to blame mcdonalds on this would be just like blaming the tv for the fact that your kid didn't do their homework

Snakeblood wrote: »

Actually, they are trying to pretend their food is healthy. If you don't know that, then go read their nutritional information.
And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case

Yes, it is harmful to kids. It makes them fat. It teaches them that eating junk food is a treat to be enjoyed. It makes them want too much salt and sugar in their diet that they don't need. McDonald's is directly competing with what is good for children to eat. It doesn't want people eating carrots or healthy food. It wants children eating its food. It spends hundreds of millions of dollars getting kids to eat its food.

It's feeding kids muck and it's a bad thing to do.

Well in fairness they can say things like theirs protien in this or that etc but only a complete and utter idiot would believe it's healthy as everyone knows the amount of salt etc that's added to their food

That's only if they eat too much junk food and in this case that's bad parenting, theirs absolutely nothing wrong with a little bit of junk food. You only get fat if you eat a lot of junk food and if a parent see's their kid is getting fat they should then get then to cut down

Of course eating junk food is a treat to be enjoyed, for me every normal human being would agree with this as it's a fact of life, in most cases unhealty food tastes better then healty food and this will never change. Should we bad kids from eating chocolate, watching tv or playing computer games on the grounds that their unhealthy? It's not Mcdonalds fault that some people don't have the ability make sure they and their kids only eat junk food in moderation

Princess Peach

Think of the children! Won't somebody please think of the children!