http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103,0,5438230.story


Basically, they banned giving away toys with meals that contain an excess of calories. What do you guys think?

I can understand why they would do it, but I think it should really come down to the parents just learning to say no to the kids

I read this last night. I think this is a stupid decision. The way people eat isn't up to the government. They can suggest healthier lifestyles, but enforcing them like this is ridiculous.

EDIT: This may get a bit political, though...

It wouldn't be a problem if parents didn't feed their children cancer. Kinda like banning smoking in public places. Thing is that most children eat whatever their parents give them that is sweet. Sweet sweet cancer.

I would agree, if it wasn't dealing with children. Just because your child shares your genes doesn't give you the right to ruin his/her health. Children are not capable of making nutritional decisions themselves, and many parent's aren't capable of doing it for themselves either, let alone their child. Regulation is just fine in my eyes.

Like I said, I can see why the law could be helpful, however I think the government is overstepping their bounds a bit

Banning smoking in public areas is completely different. It's up to the smoker to know the risks and decide whether or not they want to smoke. However, it's not fair that their decision will affect other people negatively that don't like smoke.

Eating unhealthy, while obviously still a poor choice, doesn't effect anyone but the one eating the food. While most kids won't have the sense or discipline to eat healthy if the choice is left up to them, it's the parent's job to help them with this, not the government's.

EDIT: @iGuess, like I said, I realize most children won't make the right choice when it comes to healthy eating. But I still don't think it's the government's place to make decisions like this, at least to this extent. In cases of bad parents, then I fully support the government stepping in. But something like this is just cruel, in my eyes. Besides, it's not like parents can't still buy their kids the food. Taking toys away from kids just because they aren't eating right isn't right.

I don't like that restaurants like McDonald's include toys. We only get fast food three or four times a year but that's enough to make an impression on a young kid. On one noteworthy occasion my (very hungry) five-year-old had an absolute meltdown when we started discussing restaurants in the car as we happened to dry by a McDonald's - we didn't give in but that's a meltdown I could have done without.

This being said I don't like the idea of legislating something like this. I can see the rational, it's not dissimilar to cartoon characters selling cigarettes, but I don't think it's an appropriate thing to ban like this.

I think the only people effected by this ban are the ones that give their children unhealthy kid's meals. So their input in moot.

This'll be locked soon, but before it is I'll just say this - The issue is a lot more complicated than just saying "Rawr freedom! Fat people are lazy!".

The human body is conditioned to seek out fatty and sugary foods, because they are normally rare things.



The problem is that your eating habits and metabolism are pretty much determined by your childhood, and that carries on later into life and is extremely difficult to shake, its a vicious cycle.

Well, yes, but how many times have you seen a parent walk into a McDonalds and buy their kid a double Big-Mac meal? Obviously they're going to buy the meal proportioned for younger people, and the toy makes it that much better for them.

EDIT: I do agree with what you said, Solid_moose.

If they actually care enough, McDonalds will find a way around the calorie and fat limit. They will probably reduce the size of happy meals to such a degree that parents are forced to buy another meal for their child because the happy meal doesn't make them full. Or something else sinister like that. I don't expect McDonalds to just ignore this, they need their delicious monies.

But considering this is only San Francisco, and McDonalds is a global fast food chain, they may not even care. I live in the city and whenever I go into a McDonalds there's a big display case for the available toys right next to where the line forms, so kids will still see and want the toys, it's just that the parents will have to pay for them separately now.

Well lets look at the nutrition facts provided by McDonald for a Happy Meal with Chicken McNuggets.
Chicken McNuggets (4pc)
Small French Fries
1% Low Fat White Milk Jug (8 fl oz)
Oh and a toy for the kid. It is shiny and makes noise.

Calories: 520
Fat: 25g
Sodium: 690g
Carbohydrates: 52g
Sugars: 12g

Now lets looks the nutrition facts of a single big mac.
Calories: 540
Fat: 29g
Sodium: 1040g
Carbohydrates: 45g
Sugars: 9g

This discussion is getting a bit heated and a bit contentious, let's please try and keep things a bit cooler in here. Let's also remember that everyone has a right to their opinion and this covers general groups as well as specific members.

Also discussions of legislature are very tricky because they are always edging along politics. No one has crossed that line yet but let's make sure it stays that way.


This isn't an attempt to prevent kids from eating unhealthy food, it's cracking down on how unhealthy food is advertised. If these restaurants weren't using toys to entice kids it would be much easier for parents to explain that chicken nuggets are OK as a treat but shouldn't be eaten regularly. At the moment most kids are too captivated by the toys to listen.

This marketing attacks those families who do not have strong parental figures and, thus , failed in this instance. However, in most circumstances, the marketing wins because they reach a family unit with weak parental units. Unfortunately, to enforce anti-parental marketing, we would have to legislate parenting. Either way, the children lose. Either you're raised by Mother_Goose, LLC or you're raise by the state-approved graduates of Mother_Goose.edu/deans_list.

The old saying, "It takes a village to raise a child" doesn't mean that the village raises the child, but that it takes all of the members of that village to raise the child.

As my father said, "Any job worth doing, is a job worth doing right".

Ooh, like in '98 when they came out with the collectible Beanie Babies. The fact that they were collectible make them worse. I had my first Happy Meal when I was eight because of that, but I didn't go crazy about it 'cause I found the food to be sub-par. I think we only got Happy Meals like twice or thrice during that time, and it was like the only time I had ever gotten any.

This is excellent news. I am in dire need of more control over my life. These pesky decisions I'm forced to make for myself and my family are really quite daunting. I mean, I have to do this, like, every day. Soon, though, and God willing, I no longer will.

We might as well get it over with and include carbs and fat grams within the so called 'sin tax' umbrella.

:nod:

Oh well, kids are too fat as it is these days. They should put McDonalds restaurants on the tops of mountains so people have to work hard to get there.

Eh, can't say I'm thrilled. Leans too far into lifestyle regulation for my tastes while also being of questionable benefit; its intentions are noble and all but I don't see this doing much to accomplish them. People eating at McDonald's tend to do so for financial and convenience reasons, not because it happens to include toys. Not to mention how easily the McDonald's stores could just sell the toys separately.

Then you'll be saddened to hear this law only affects San Francisco. I'm sorry.

I know! Damn shame we're both chaos cultists. Stupid anarchy.

Oh yes, yes, I read the article. In fact, I've been waiting patiently since I heard about McD's toys being banned (by a competitor's shareholder, no less) in the summer. But it's really comforting that the movement has started, and it's more satisfying to know that insanity spreads much quicker than sanity. Rest assured, this kind of blatant censorship will not only escalate in your neck of the woods, the rest of us will soon be able to live our lives safely and peaceably in a world without McDonalds toys as well.


Shh!! You're blowing my cover!

I don't see how stopping McDonalds from telling kids "Free toys!* (*with every 700 calories of food)" is such a bad thing. I don't normally agree with censorship but I can't see what's wrong with it other than the fact that it's censorship. :shrug:

Can the rest of us have all the toys then?

"Give me your plush, your poor Ronald Clown,

Your huddled banned toys yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming store."

You know, if people actually lived out of the grocery store and not in the fast food chain, this wouldn't be an issue. This is the most [censored] way of thinking I have ever imagined.. Stupid, stupid, stupid.. This [censored] just pisses me the hell off..