San Francisco has a long history of bold public health and environmental stances, going after everything from plastic bags in grocery stores to cigarettes to sugary drinks.
The latest target: Ronald McDonald.
A proposed city ordinance would ban McDonald's from putting toys in Happy Meals unless it adds fruit and vegetable portions and limits calories. The proposal would apply to all restaurants, but the focus has been on McDonald's and its iconic Happy Meals.
Supervisor Eric Mar said he proposed the law to protect the health of his constituents, but McDonald's has waged an aggressive fight to block the measure. A battery of McDonald's Corp. executives showed up at city hall to argue that the legislation is a heavy-handed effort that threatens the company's decades-old business model and the free choice of its customers.
The proposed Happy Meal law is just the latest in a string of San Francisco ordinances aimed at regulating public health. The city recently expanded a law banning tobacco sales in pharmacies to include grocery stores and big-box stores that also have pharmacies.
Mayor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order earlier this year banning sweetened beverages like Coca Cola and Pepsi from vending machines on city property. Local leaders considered but ultimately abandoned laws recently that would have imposed a fee on businesses that sell sugary drinks and alcohol.
This seems like a good idea in some aspects. It encourages younger kids to put an end to those bad eating habits. Why should kids be lured into eating these meals all because of some little plastic toy that they'll probably forget about in a day or two? Do you think this is the right way to go?
12 comments:
I don't think this is all that bad. Even though I don't really have Happy Meals anymore, I think that the fact that it will not be available to San Franciscan families is a good idea. I don't really know what to think, since the situation will obviously play itself out, but there are two sides of the metaphorical coin, and some factors of this decision are:
1. The fact that Happy Meals will not be available to San Franciscan families will probably reduce the eating of foods high in fat and salt by a very big percentage, because families probably aren't going to drive longer distances just for a meal that costs a couple of bucks. Using that much gas money isn't really economical when compared to the "ease" of fast good.
2. The obesity epidemic may not improve in San Francisco because of this new "ban," because I'm sure other fast food chains would take advantage of a competitor being out of the picture (and if they haven't realized this, they probably should- not that it's good for our health, but it is for their profits. Just saying). This would just cause tired parents to buy other fast food elsewhere, which could be equally as bad for their children.
I'm not sure what going to come of this, but it'll be interesting to look back in a couple of years and see the whole picture of effects.
** By the way, this is Alice Liu. I realized I never distinguished myself from the Alice Bebbington, so I'm taking the opportunity to do so.
I think this is a good idea taken towards a healthier America. I definitely think that if kids start to eat healthier Happy Meals that include protein and calcium, then the percentage of obese kids in this nation would decrease dramatically, but only if kids actually eat the protein and calcium included in their Happy Meals along with their toys. I know that this process towards a healthier nation will take quite sometime, but I truly think it's possible. We tend to say that we want a healthier nation, but if we want that, then we need to take action and not just speak and hope for something to happen. I really hope that this is the right decision taken towards a better future for present generations and generations to come. :)
When I was a kid, aside from curing my hunger pangs, I would buy Happy Meals for one thing--the toy. However, this ban ruins many things for kids, in my opinion. Now in all honesty, I'm all for healthy people, and I know that for a couple of fruits and vegetables with every meal, one's health can benefit greatly in the long run. However, I just think it's the wrong approach.
If McDonalds chose to oblige to the ordinance, I do not believe it would be helpful for people in general. Limiting calories could mean limiting the portions of foods served in the Happy Meal, making it less filling for people to eat. Since people go to McDonalds of course, to eat, people be less inclined to buy the meal as it does not fill them up. Plus, most seven year olds don't even eat want to eat their fruits and vegetables (unless they are forced by their parents, or are really concerned with eating healthy), so these healthy foods may just be in vain.
If the ban was passed, and no toy was added into the Happy Meal, McDonalds would lose the sale of many of the Happy Meal because the toy is one of the main attractions of the meal. Without the toy, meals will be just like any other combination of food on the menu. Kids may choose to pick less healthier foods and or foods with more calories in them because they don't see point in buying a Happy Meal if they're no different than any other combination. In addition, the toy is a source of entertainment for younger kids--without it, kids will not want to buy Happy Meals since there is nothing really special about them.
I don't mean to encourage bad eating habits for kids. Rather, I just think it's a bit unfair that McDonald's is being forced to change its way of business for something so small. How much will a couple of carrot sticks really help a kid? What if, as disobedient as kids are these days, they choose just to throw them away? Just because you change one meal in a person's life doesn't mean you'll change their eating habits permanently.
thank you for your posting,really good
There are definitely positive and negative aspects to this issue. On an economic level, one must keep in mind that there are some families who cannot afford anything more than a Happy Meal for their children. Fast food is cheap and filling, and though it may not be healthy, it gets the job done as far as covering one or two meals of the day goes.
Also, like Alice has said, taking McDonalds Happy Meals out of the picture may have an impact on families, but there are other fast food restaurants out there. This may just shift the attention onto those fast food chains instead.
But of course, yes, I do agree that this will encourage children to break free from their unhealthy eating habits, which is especially good if they start young (I know I didn't but wish that I did). However, there ARE other things on the McDonalds menu that kids can eat (basically everything, actually) and this may just increase the sale of other fatty foods on the menu. The toy is, to a child, an important aspect of the meal, but I don't think that kids should rely on the toys so much. As they get older, they might adopt the habit of doing things only to get rewards. Thorndike's law of effect states that people act according to whether or not they are rewarded by their decisions, and by keeping the toy in the Happy Meal deal, this may just increase the law of effect and cause the kids to become more greedy.
I'm not sure how I feel about this in all its entirety, though. I want kids to eat healthier, but I know that they can get junk food elsewhere. I want kids to hold onto their childhood, but I don't want them to rely on plastic toys to keep them happy. Overall, I'm just interested to see how this will pan out.
I think that this ban on the happy meals is a bad thing. kids often do not eat healthy foods unless their parents force them to, and i am sure that a child does not really care about toys anymore with all types of new technology and better toys that they can get at talbots or toys'r'us. I feel that Mcdonalds would only be wasting food due to not being able to sell it all off.
Being healthy is a choice. People, not the city government, should be the ones making that choice. Especially since McDonald's is a business, not a government-run institution like public schools are.
Now of course we should make every effort to encourage healthy eating, and that should include things like requiring McDonald's to report nutrition facts and include healthy items on their menu (perhaps including healthier Happy Meal variants). But restricting other things is not really the way to go.
I disagree with this. Are you really going to think taking away toys from kids is going to make them eat healthier? I believe the ultimate cause for the bad habits is the parents who buy it for them. Who else is to blame?
I don't think it helps that the McRib came back. Yum!
I think this is the right idea. While I do see the validity behind the point that be healthy should be the choice of individuals rather than the government, I also know there is an obesity epidemic in children. If we are trying to teach kids that eating healthily is better, why are we still allowing fast food companies to entice children with toys of their favorite cartoon characters? I think if McDonald's ever becomes a place of healthy eating, then it should be allowed to give kids rewards for choosing them, but right now, we are encouraging kids to eat poorly.
I agree with Ariana, and I think that if we want to take action against childhood obesity, we should take a stand and make the sacrifice that children won't get the cheaply made McDonald's toys anymore. By allowing fast food companies to get children to associate toys with unhealthy eating, we are just promoting unhealthy habits. Therefore, I think this ban is a good idea.
-Alice Bebbington
I like it. I think we all know that we do a pretty poor job of weighing our enjoyable wants (or vices) versus our less than entertaining needs. Take alcohol itself, for example. A lot of people are comfortable with owning and consuming alcohol, despite the debilitating health problems it can cause. It's essentially that very idea, along with the promotion of sedentary life styles in recent years that contributes to childhood obesity in the United States.
The Happy Meal was never good to begin with. First of all, it attracted many kids not only because of the food, but the toys. Also, there are many videos on Youtube showing that the Happy Meal foods do not grow old, they stay the same! Barely anything changes. Like Ariana said, a step towards a healthier America is to get rid of the cause of obesity and bad eating habits, and that's exactly what the Happy Meal Ban does. If only this could spread throughout the country or even the whole world, it would benefit so many people.
Post a Comment