Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

California's Santa Clara County Bans Happy Meal Toys

Posted by timothy on from the when-self-righteousness-attacks dept.

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."

24 of 756 comments (clear)

  1. I swear.... by Em+Emalb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    California may as well be a whole 'nother country.

    I know, let's not bother with that thing known as personal responsibility, let's legislate EVERYTHING!

    Hey parents, your kids wouldn't be so fat if you didn't feed them crap food and let them sit on their butts in front of the t.v. all day and night.

    --
    Sent from your iPad.
    1. Re:I swear.... by ArcherB · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know, let's not bother with that thing known as personal responsibility, let's legislate EVERYTHING!

      Whole heartedly agree!

      I don't even know if it's so much personal responsibility, as that means responsibility for one's self. This is about parental responsibility. Which makes me laugh when I read, "This ordinance prevents restaurants from preying on children's love of toys' to sell high-calorie, unhealthful toys..." Kids shouldn't have a say. If the parents are doing their jobs, it won't matter who the restaurants prey upon.

      Besides, it not so much the toys that bring 'em in. It's parent's being too lazy/busy to make dinner for their child. As a parent, I can understand this as my wife and I work three jobs between us and go to school. Sometimes, it's kinda nice to eat out on the cheap. (We do Chick-fil-A. Does that count as crap food?) The toy is just a bonus to keep our child busy long enough so we can finish our meals with some level of peace. (Besides, I like to play with them too)

      What's next? Are they going to ban the playgrounds, clown mascotts and kid's clubs?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:I swear.... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hey parents, your kids wouldn't be so fat if you didn't feed them crap food and let them sit on their butts in front of the t.v. all day and night.

      The kids are just doing what the parents are doing.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:I swear.... by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, preventing corporations from taking advantage is a bad thing.

      Seriously, sometimes it's about personal responsibility, but other times it's about other things - and this is one of those times. Give the 'personal responsibility' kneejerk a rest and think sometimes.

    4. Re:I swear.... by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well this is what happens when you revive Feudalism. The commoners are too stupid to run their own lives, so we need the Lords to decide what they can and can not have.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    5. Re:I swear.... by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, preventing corporations from taking advantage is a bad thing.

      I wasn't aware that including a toy with a meal was "taking advantage"

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:I swear.... by Moryath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I still stop by McDonald's/Burger King when they have nifty toys. Usually they'll sell you just the toy for around a buck or so. They're good for having around when friends bring their kids along to board game night.

      As for the Granola State (land of fruits, nuts, and flakes), yeah. Must be something in the water out there that makes them all insane.

      Honestly, what are they going to do next? Ban Cracker Jack boxes? The crap coming in those barely qualifies as a "toy" these days.

    7. Re:I swear.... by jd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So if you want a nation worth living in, and the adults won't fix their own (or their children's) self-destructive cycles, who do you suggest does fix it? The choice is rather limited. Ideally, education would solve this problem, but the British chef Jamie Oliver was kicked around when he suggested US schools educate kids on better food. So clearly the schools don't give a crap. If nobody is willing to actually OWN their responsibility, to the point where the nation suffers (loss of productivity = loss of revenue and loss of GDP, loss of mental function = loss of progress and loss of investment), then surely since the Government is for the people and doing nothing is against the people, the Government must step in.

      I believe that it may be too late to avoid some Government intervention, but it should be as limited as possible and to target the root causes. Those root causes include crappy education and parental malpractrice. The former is going to be hard to fix, as Governments routinely treat education as something of a dirty word. The latter is next-to-impossible, as parents generally reserve the right to abuse their kids and resent any restrictions on the kind of abuse they can inflict. Even if these issues could be solved, the existing attitudes at high levels of authority are so perverted and degenerate that they're rarely capable of actually "fixing" anything without making it worse. However, if the options are death-by-fat for an entire nation vs. videogame-lifesupport, the lifesupport makes better sense.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    8. Re:I swear.... by citylivin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Responsible parenting isn't all that hard."

      This isn't about freedom or liberty, companies should NOT get a free ride on any marketing, much less marketing to children. Mcdonalds is one of the worst in regards to marketting. They specifically target children most of the time. No self respecting adult would ever consume mcdonalds products voluntarily, it makes the healthy sick. So what do they do? they target children by giving away "free" toys, having cartoony animals on their boxes and showing adverts of kids subverting their parents wishes and having over the top emotional experiences.

      Its not hard to say 'no' to your kids, but why should i have to catch all the flack, animosity and blowback that mcdonalds is creating? why is it my responsibility to clean up the mess they are making after the fact? If a company tries to brainwash your kids, how is it "bad parenting" to legislate that certain over the line brainwashing techniques be banned?

      Your attitude seems to be that mcdonalds can spit on my kids (advertising) and that "good parenting" would be telling them not to eat the spit and cleaning them up. I say good parenting is going after the root cause of the problem in the first place. Instead of making band-aid solutions that as most parents are aware, will just be eroded away again, leading to another fight in a few weeks or a months time, when macdonalds comes out with an even more insidious ad.

      Perosnally i try and teach my kids to be aware of advertisements and that they are all lies. Many people just don't have the time or the intelligence to teach their kids that. That is why particularly manipulative marketing needs a swift ban. I mean you are basically talking about the freedom to sell products and saying that the rights of the corporations to sell products trumps the rights of impressionable children not to be manipulated.

      I dont know how any parent can make that claim. They should really just ban all product marketing to children under the age of 16. I cant imagine a downside to that.

       

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    9. Re:I swear.... by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No. This is EXACTLY about personal and parental responsibility. Where the fuck does the government get off telling any parent they can't buy their kid a happy meal with a toy in it. Fuck Santa Clara. Just another entry on my list of places to avoid.

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    10. Re:I swear.... by Kamokazi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was about to flame you for being a moron, but I thought about it again. This is like comparing a fast food meal to a pack of cigarettes. So at least there is precedent for such restrictions.

      However, there are key differences. For starters, cigarettes are illegal for anyone under 18. Also, while both are quite unhealthy, cigarettes are far more so, and they provide zero benefit.

      Now, that's not necessarily enough to consider it unjustified, but I think this is a slippery slope. What's next? Restrictions on video games to inhibit unhealthy playtime lengths?

      We can't have the government protect us from everything...moreover the government shouldn't protect us from everything. We need to learn to be responsible for our actions and to resist the temptation of short term perks with long-term consequences.

      So where should the line be drawn? Well, I think food is over the line. Most restricted things, like alcohol, gambling, and tobacco offer little or no benefit, where food at least offers nourishment and is necessary for you to live.

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
    11. Re:I swear.... by Burning1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I always like how posts like this start out with 'Parents should' instead of 'My kids...'

      I'm not a parent myself, but I've spent years working with them, teaching children. The reality of raising a child isn't nearly as simple as you make it out to be.

    12. Re:I swear.... by kosanovich · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "*To those of you who are going to whine or mod me down for saying that, take a look at yourself before you open your mouth (or type the words). Do you not go to some place(s) because of their corporate policies, working conditions, charities they give to, etc? If so, one word describes you: hypocrite."

      I could care less what businesses you do or don't frequent and your reasons for doing so. I also wouldn't have thought twice about responding to you except that you seem to be saying that not buying something from Nike because they exploit children is just as valid as not eating at the locale spaghetti restaurant because the owner believes in the flying spaghetti monster.

      Now if that restaurant put a picture of the flying spaghetti monster on every menu, and had a prayer before serving your meal then fine, but discriminating who you will do business with based purely on the beliefs of the person(s) at the top (again where those beliefs aren't aimed at directly harming you or anyone else) is just silly prejudice.

      If you go to any chick-fil-a restaurant you will not see any mention of God, there will be several employees who have their own (dis)beliefs that differ from those of the owners, and the only way you would know that there is any mention of God on a corporate level is if you do as you did and go searching for their mission statement. Do you really believe it's such a terrible thing that they want to run their business in such a way that it matches the moral values laid out by their religion? I don't hold the same beliefs as they do but i can respect what they are doing.

      Again you are totally free to do as you wish, but don't act so high and mighty and treat your close minded prejudice as being the same as a peaceful protest against people/corporations that are practicing harmful and exploitative practices.

    13. Re:I swear.... by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      belief in supernatural powers has caused more wars, more death, more tortures, more abuses of human rights than child labour ever has.

      Yay, this canard. No, belief in supernatural powers has been used as an excuse for sociopaths (mostly kings) to cause wars, death, torture, and abuses of human rights. In fact, other things have been used as excuses for sociopaths to cause wars, death, torture, and abuses of human rights too. Seems like the common theme there is sociopaths tend toward war, death, torture, and abuse.

  2. Ban Cracker Jack, too. by GungaDan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And Christmas while they're at it. Dumbasses. This stupidity will not likely have any negative repercussions, aside from McDonalds franchises in the area having to come up with procedures to de-toy their happy meals. But what I suspect will happen is that the kids won't really want the happy meal without the toy, so the parent will take the cheaper route and get them a burger and fries from the dollar menu. With more calories than what they would have gotten in the happy meal. And no toy.

    --
    Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
  3. Power is its own end. by bmajik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Queue up the Dr. Ferris speech about the real purpose of the law.

    Controlling people. Not even for their own good, but merely for the sake of weilding control.

    That is politics in America today.

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
  4. Double Nuggets with Idiocracy by cosm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While this may work from a pure operant conditioning standpoint, but they fail to realize the problem. THE PARENTS. The kid screams and moans for McDonalds, so the give him McDonalds. The fatty foods lipids are the real addictive, so once hooked, Micky D's has got their childish love. It is the parents that are the problem. Who is the government to say that a piece of plastic in a bag can't be given away with a meal? Its the damn bad parents that allow their lardsacks children to accumulate mass that should be punished. So now when little Johnny screams for a happy meal and a toy, what are the parents going to do, "sorry johnny, but the county officials have made it illegal, no toys for you". So instead they still go get the happy meal (since there aren't any ramifications for that, yet) and then just buy the kid a damn toy elsewhere, completely sidestepping the actual problem.

    And California wonders why their state is ready to self-implode. Treating the symptoms, not the problems. And really, is this a problem? If the parents choose to give their kids fast food, then its their choice! GTFOML. But there are a 1000 better things they could do with the taxpayers time to curb obesity other than just straight banning stuff. Reminds me of the salt ban that could be coming.

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
  5. Liberty by Danathar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I really HATE the fact that people actually believe that it's OK to mandate things as long as they or their proxy's are in charge.

  6. Re:As a parent of two children... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How did you manage that before it was a law?

  7. Re:As a parent of two children... by Pojut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So if you figured out a system that worked by yourself...how does this legislation help you in any way?

    --
    Living With a Nerd
  8. Re:As a parent of two children... by SecurityGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not a great idea.

    As a parent myself, I just tell my kids that fast food is unhealthy in that it has a lot of calories and fat in it. I think we need to be aware of what lesson we're teaching. The point I want them to learn is not that $PARENT won't let them buy a toy with their lunch, it's that some foods eaten more than sparingly will do bad things to you. They naturally ask, so I just tell them the truth. You'll get fat. You'll feel lethargic. You'll develop diseases later in life like diabetes. Your arteries will clog with crap.

    Sadly, it's all too easy to just ask them to look around the school. The consequences of bad food choices and a sedentary lifestyle are all over the place.

  9. Re:As a parent of two children... by SmackTheIgnorant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As a parent of a 7 year old daughter, I can safely say that she wants McDonalds to JUST get the toy - McDonalds tends to get all the Disney / Dreamworks / ____ movie toys, and it's a huge draw for her. I tell her no toy, and she'll want to eat elsewhere. If I had points, I'd mod you up. As is, I can only knowingly nod and smile in agreement.

  10. Re:As a parent of two children... by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Some parents they it's their job to parent OUR children too, and they use government to make it happen:

    i.e. banning our free choice to get happy meals with toys. I find these parents annoying, because they are basically insulting my intelligence, by presuming they know better than I do, how to be a parent.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  11. About time... by GiMP · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm completely for this. I see no difference between this and "Joe Camel", I hope this becomes a trend across the nation.

    I was recently at a drive through, looking at the (empty) playground of a local Burger King. I thought how terrible it is that these fast food companies have tried to attract children to their unhealthy foods. Playgrounds, playful characters such as Ronald McDonald, Grimace, and the Hamburglar, happy meals, and movies such as Mac & Me, really show how terribly affected my generation was by this advertising. I remember wanting to go to McDonalds as a child so I could see a cloud and receive a toy. I highly suspect that these companies only scaled back their tactics as a defensive tactic after seeing how the cigarette companies were treated.

    Yes, we can argue that parents should be more responsible, but parents cannot shield their children completely from outside influences, while -- to a certain extent -- government can. Parents were generally not giving their children cigarettes, but Camel advertising was shown to have produced an effect on children. Fast food restaurants giving "educational field trips" to elementary schools, as I recall from my own childhood, wasn't an altruistic act of these companies, they were in it for the long-tail. Lets not get started on birthday parties... These companies have been worse than the cigarette companies, showing no shame in their actions. As far as I know, I might be wrong, Camel never gave away children's toys, provided playgrounds, gave tours as elementry-school field-trips, nor had "Joe Camel" themed birthday parties. I doubt Camel ever had a man dress up as Joe Camel, blowing balloons (or smoke rings!) at birthday parties.