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."

27 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 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
    4. 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.
    5. Re:I swear.... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      I just love playing with those Subway turkey sandwiches. The best part is that when you're done you don't have to put away your new toy ... you just eat it! Mmmm, funlicious!

    6. 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)
    7. 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
    8. Re:I swear.... by RobertLTux · · Score: 4, Informative

      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
    9. 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.
    10. Re:I swear.... by jemenake · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      And Supervisor Donald Gage agrees with you. The problem is, we've tried that for decades and it isn't working. The "personal responsibility" people stamp their feet and complain "It's the parents' responsibility! It's the parents' responsibility! (stamp, stamp, stamp...)". Hey, why don't you stamp your feet a little harder? Maybe, then, all of those parents will suddenly take up an interest in pediatric nutrition.

      Kids shouldn't have a say. If the parents are doing their jobs, it won't matter who the restaurants prey upon.

      "(stamp, stamp, stamp!) Kids shouldn't... they shouldn't. Shouldn't, shouldn't, shouldn't!". Yeah, but you know what? They do. In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice but, in practice, there is. You can yell and complain about responsibility and the nanny state and all that jazz, but, ultimately, it fails to actually fix the problem. So, the county supervisors have decided to try this. And I think you have to admit that, regardless of whether you think that the county should have passed this ordinance, the restaurants are throwing the toys in there to help peddle a product which should probably be peddled on their merits of its nutrition.

      This issue reminds me of the Simpsons episiode with "Mt. Splashmore", where a commercial for the water park teaches the kids the "Take me to Mt. Splashmore" song and then instructs the kids to go sing it to their parents over and over again. Or, in "The Corporation", I think it was, where the market research lady interviewed parents about their nagging children. The parents thought it was research into how to get kids to nag less but it was really studying how to get the kids to nag their parents more effectively so that the parents would cave in and buy more often. I think you're naive if you don't think these companies aren't pouring millions of dollars into ways of getting around this "personal responsibility" firewall, and the toys are just one part of their arsenal.

      For example, even when kids don't really have a say, they do. You even admit "The toy is just a bonus to keep our child busy long enough so we can finish our meals with some level of peace.". So, the toy does help bring you in to that particular restaurant chain. Besides, I can use the "parental responsibility" argument on you. I know a couple that actually takes parenting seriously. When we all go out to dinner with their kid, their kid finishes first, and then knows to sit there, quietly, while we all chat a while. She knows that, if she starts getting fidgety or rambunctious, things are going to turn out worse for her in the long run. So, we can always finish our meals in peace... toy or no toy. But then, that's because they feel that they should be responsible parents.

    11. 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.

  2. So wait... by Pojut · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...they ban the toys, but keep the crap food? Don't get me wrong, I think it's the responsability of parents to keep track of what their kids ingest, not the governement's...but I still can't help but be reminded of our good friend George Carlin:

    "...now they're banning toy guns, AND THEY'RE GONNA KEEP THE FUCKIN' REAL ONES!"

  3. 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!
  4. That sucks by JoeWalsh · · Score: 5, Funny

    If we can't bribe our children to eat poison, the terrorists have won!

  5. Ban bad copypasta by richdun · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  6. 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.
  7. As a parent of two children... by pnuema · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...this is a great idea. I had to institute a rule in my house that no toys were allowed with food. I found that when I forbid the kids from having the toys, when I gave them a choice of restaurants for dinner, they were much more likely to chose one with better food. It seems that the toys were a large part of the draw...take that away, and they were much more likely to eat something healthy.

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

      How did you manage that before it was a law?

    2. 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?

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. Re:As a parent of two children... by Enderandrew · · Score: 5, Informative

      As a parental rule, it is good.

      As legislation, it is terible.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  8. Re:Crazy by natehoy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First, let me say this. I'm totally on board with Jamie Oliver, love what the guy is trying to do, etc etc. I think his "revolution" show is only vaguely based on the reality of the people he's covering, but he's gotta sell ads for his network so he can keep buying food for his family, and it doesn't detract from the good that such a revolution could do.

    Having said all that... Here's a tip: If the kid never learns that McDonald's meals come with toys, the toys cannot be used to sell the food.

    But the shitty plastic toys are as bad for brain development as the shitty fatty food is for body development. And the shitty mind pablum TV that the shitty food and the shitty toys are advertised on is even worse.

    Stay away from the King, the Clown, and the young girl with the red pigtails. There is absolutely nothing inside those four walls that your kid needs, or that is in any way good for your kid.

    We don't need laws against using plastic crap to sell crap food. We need to make good healthy food as affordable as crap food, and show people how easy it is to feed it to their kids. We need to get rid of the plastic crap and go back to durable toys that last and foster imagination and free play. We don't need our congresscritters to pass "Save the Children" laws to do this for us, because those almost always backfire.

    (Example from the show: like making Jamie take his pasta-and-vegetables off the food line because it didn't have enough vegetables, then stating that french fries DO count as a full vegetable when it was replaced with prepared crap).

    --
    "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  9. Clarification by 200_success · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  10. Suckering in kids isn't the problem. by BlueKitties · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When I used to get my Happy Meal as a child, I was more entertained by the toy than my food. I began to have weight problems as I grew older because I saw food as an event, a fun thing, a highlight of my day, instead of something to keep me fueled. High calorie foods aren't healthy, but they don't cause fat kids. Children with normal, healthy eating habits will take two bites of their burger and then run along to play with their new toy. When parents use food as a reward ("You did good on your report card, lets order pizza!") you have a problem. When I got to my mid to later teens, most of my friends had normal eating habits -- they didn't get excited by food like me. I picked up on that, and changed my eating habits to view food as fuel, not fun. It took about three years, but I've lost over 50 pounds and have a proper build complete with muscle tone. Bottom line: unhealthy food itself isn't the problem, it's how we view food in our daily lives. If you snack to pass the time, even when you're not hungry, if you go back for seconds after your pains are gone, you have unhealthy eating habits. Eat to live, don't live to eat. It's a habit our culture in America breeds -- food for fun. Unhealthy food isn't the root cause though (even if it contributes.)

    --
    "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
  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.