Slashdot Mirror
California's Santa Clara County Bans Happy Meal Toys
WrongSizeGlass writes "The L.A. Times is reporting that Santa Clara County officials have voted to ban toys and other promotions that restaurants offer with high-calorie children's meals. 'This ordinance prevents restaurants from preying on children's love of toys' to sell high-calorie, unhealthful food, said Supervisor Ken Yeager, who sponsored the measure. 'This ordinance breaks the link between unhealthy food and prizes.' Supervisor Donald Gage, who voted against the measure, said, 'If you can't control a 3-year-old child for a toy, God save you when they get to be teenagers.' The vote was 3 - 2 in favor of the ban."
What the article says:
"This ordinance prevents restaurants from preying on children's love of toys" to sell high-calorie, unhealthful food, said Supervisor Ken Yeager, who sponsored the measure.
What the summary says:
'This ordinance prevents restaurants from preying on children's love of toys' to sell high-calorie, unhealthful toys, said Supervisor Ken Yeager, who sponsored the measure.
The San Jose Mercury News (warning: pop-under ad) has more details. The ordinance does not ban Happy Meal toys per se, but rather bans toys distributed with meals that exceed nutritional limits (485 Calories, 600 mg sodium). Furthermore, it only applies to unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. (There are no McDonald's locations in unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County.)
This seems like a good idea to me. Obviously, fast food restaurants give toys away only as a perverse incentive to attract kids. This ordinance, while largely symbolic, nullifies that marketing ploy. You want a toy? You can only get it if you forego the soda and the salt on the fries.
My daughter quickly learned that Burger King and McDonalds had toys. That didn't mean I had to take her there. If she really wants to go to a fast food place and get a toy, I take her to Subway and get her a turkey sandwich.
Responsible parenting isn't all that hard.
It really gets me that people who scream so loudly about freedom and liberty and usually the ones who want to take it away piece by piece with legislation.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
As a parental rule, it is good.
As legislation, it is terible.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
the reason the chicken tastes better is 2 things
1 the chicken is shipped in as Raw fillets they then thaw out pans and then prep them and cook them
2 They use peanut oil and a pressure cooker (note this is why if you are very allergic to peanuts you can't eat chik-fil-a food or be in the kitchen end of the restaurant for very long)
oh and i love the fact that corporation wide NOBODY works on sunday
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
I thought that Jamie Oliver failed because he cooked up food the kids hated and he was a pretentious jerk while doing it.
That's pretty much the reaction the media reported when he changed the food in some schools here in Britain. Then there were pictures of obese women handing fast food over a fence to their children at lunchtime, and opinion seemed to change.
The children got used to it, health improved, academic results improved and (an unexpected bonus) illness reduced.
(It seems appropriate to cite The Sun -- it calls the women "sinner ladies", which is pretty much opposite to what you'd expect (think Fox News, kinda). Note that in the UK "poor" children get free school meals; buying their own is daft.)
(We do Chick-fil-A. Does that count as crap food?)
Word to the wise: NEVER mention a chain by name on the internet. There will ALWAYS be a group that jumps all over you for it being crap food. If baked angel poop (which costs $1, extends life by 5 years per ounce and tastes just like cinnamon) was sold by a national chain people would ridicule you for buying it.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain