The Golden Gate City has successfully stood up to Ronald McDonald and his alluring Golden Arches, being the first metropolis ever to ban the McDonalds Happy Meal. On November 3rd, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a regulation requiring that meals including a children’s toy with purchase meet specific nutritional guidelines. Mickey D’s 510 calorie, 22 grams of sugar, and 23 grams of fat children’s feast didn’t quite make the cut.
At present, the fast food industry functions on the premise of self-regulation. Ironically, the focus of such self-regulation appears to overlook public health. Happy Meals and the like are perfect illustrations. Even though companies are well aware of FDA health standards, amongst a possible 3,000 kids meal combinations at “major [fast food] chains, only 12 meet the nutritional guidelines for pre-schoolers.” Clearly, due to industry wide disregard for civic well being, government intervention is necessary.
Companies like McDonalds are focused on amplifying revenue as opposed to augmenting health benefits. In 2009, the fast food industry spent over 4.2 billion dollars on advertising alone. Throwing a free toy into a bag is just another savvy sales tactic. In fact, it is arguably the dirtiest ploy of them all, targeting the youngest, most naïve, and most malleable of consumers and getting them hooked on fast food from day one.
How is a two year old to know that their Happy Meal can bring them a lot of unhappy health problems?
Whether due to the success of advertising or the mere fact that technological advancements negate physical movement, obesity has become a nation-wide epidemic. America’s weight gain is clinically linked to hypertension, heart disease, and an upsurge in diabetes throughout our country. Shockingly, these illnesses and others related, account for seven out of every ten deaths each year. Evidently, obesity is no joke.
Yet, our leadership wags a disapproving finger at the public. Complaining that, “obesity accounts for nearly ten percent of what the U.S. spends annually on health care.” Not to mention, it is a huge expense factored into Medicaid and Medicare. This means, even if you and your loved ones aren’t contributing to the obesity epidemic, you’re still paying for it. Angry?
The government cannot place the sole blame upon us and then simply sit back and watch the public fall victim to clever advertizing gimmicks and the delicious scent of French fries. Especially when the targets are innocent little children.
Remember, these little one’s will grow up soon enough to become big adults with a fast food fetish and a health record to prove it.
Yes, I recognized such authoritative intervention frustrates many individuals, after all this is the land of the free. Americans pride themselves on the freedom of choice, including the right to choose what they want to eat and when they want to eat it. However, what happens when other individuals “unhealthy” choices start affecting the expenditures of your hard-earned tax dollars?
Of course, parents have a responsibility to re-enforce proper nutrition within the home and as grown adults, we should have the ability to practice a little bit of willpower. After all, most Americans know a hamburger a day does NOT keep the doctor away.
But let us remember, self-restraint is a virtue.
As Martin Miller of the Los Angeles Times put it, “Willpower is one thing, but when sodas are in schools, restaurants are serving ever larger meals and vending machines are everywhere, even the strongest constitutions can gradually succumb.” Evidently, our dietary choices are being affected on a subliminal level.
Not to mention fast food is cheap, tasty, and true to its name, fast. With all that the industry has in its favor, who wouldn’t want some positive governmental re-enforcement?
Realize, San Francisco is not banishing all McDonalds establishments. The Board of Supervisors merely wants to work with the company to create a Happy Meal below 600 calories, with less than 35% of those calories from fat and including at least a half a cup of either fruits or vegetables. This is a perfectly levelheaded request, especially if this may be the continuous lunch or dinner option for children of busy parents or families on a budget.
By no means should our government determine what we consume on a daily basis. Regulation to that extent will never happen, simply because American’s won’t let it. Food is one of life’s biggest pleasures, enough said.
It is, however, the responsibility of our leadership to help make the “healthy” choice the easiest choice, whatever that may be. This might mean providing more individuals greater access to fresh fruits and vegetables. Or it might mean substituting apple juice for soda. But it does not mean doing away with soda all together.
San Francisco is attempting to make the healthier option the first option for its youth. Parents are not forbidden from ordering their child a milkshake on the side. Such government interference is by no means a drastic measure but rather, an act of constructive support. Clearly, there is no need for fast food fanatics to panic. After all, it’s still legal to ask the age old question, would you like fries with that?
Eskenazi, Joe. "San Francisco Bans the happy meal." Huffington Post 03 NOV 2010: n. pag. Web. 13 Nov 2010. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/02/san-francisco-happy-meal-ban-mcdonalds_n_777939.html>.
Miller, Martin. "Feeding our diet obsession." Los Angeles Times 05 MAY 2003: n.
pag. Web. 30 Oct 2010. <http://articles.latimes.com/2003/may/05/health/he-diet5>.
"We Have the Power to Change Our Weight." Newsweek 10 SEP 2009: n. pag. Web.
30 Oct 2010. <http://www.newsweek.com/2009/09/09/we-have-the-power-to-change-our-weight.html>.
First of all, the ban has been vetoed by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome. Thankfully, someone has some sense and can envision where this is headed.
ReplyDelete“How is a two year old to know that their Happy Meal can bring them a lot of unhappy health problems?”
A two-year old is not supposed to understand that such a meal is unhealthy for them. That is the parents’ decision and responsibility. If one if unable to figure this out for a child, they obviously should have taken that into consideration before having the child.
Your argument concerning how these “unhealthy” choices affect others in terms of tax dollars is the one argument you make that I can comprehend. However, using such logic, shouldn’t cigarettes, alcohol, salt, Coca-Cola, etc… all be forbidden? After all, these are not healthy choices, and I am more than positive that tax dollars are spent in order to solve problems created by the consumption of the other items listed.
You claim that the Board of Supervisors is “work[ing] with the company.” If that was the case, why did McDonald’s come out and claim that this is not what their consumers want? McDonald’s certainly isn’t pleased with the decision.
“By no means should our government determine what we consume on a daily basis. Regulation to that extent will never happen.”
Incremental Behavior, the title of my blog post on November 5, 2010. Incrementalism is where a change is implemented in small steps to eventually reach a larger goal. It is obvious to me that this is where this policy is headed. Once it gains social acceptance, then the fries are banned. Then the salt is limited. With such a policy, it becomes a perpetual system where there is no end in sight.
The issue with this Ban on Happy Meals is not simply that kids can't get a toy with their meal anymore. Like Jarod mentioned in his comment, the real problem with this ban is that it sets a precedent that will lead down a slippery slope of more government regulation of our food, drink (FourLoko), and many of aspects of our day to day life.
ReplyDeleteWe all need to show a discretion in the things that we eat. It is a pretty well established fact that McDonalds is not very healthy for you and parents who are buying their children this food should do it in moderation.
Bottom Line: Keep the Happy Meal and Toys, everything is fine in moderation.
I agree with the other comment writers in their shared position that the government has no place in making these decisions on behalf of the individual or business owner. I would like to remind you of the argumentative perils of hiding behind child welfare in arguing for the ban; after all, like Jared points out, the decision-makers here are the parents. Let's focus on them.
ReplyDeleteAssuming that we're dealing with adults, the issue here boils down to two consenting adults wishing to engage in voluntary exchange. Whether one party ends up better or worse off is up to the adult to decide. As long as the vendor is not misleading the patron by making specious health claims, there's really not much moral grounds to have a third party come in with guns blazing to break up the party. Government's place is to ensure that exchanges can happen smoothly and that people can't screw around with the rules of the contract; beyond that, government has no place in telling one person what he or she can or can't do.
What makes this position harder to swallow for some people is the fact that we are dealing with a product that is positioned as wholesome. Now, I know that McDonald's isn't telling anyone their food is healthy, but it is certainly making the claim that the food is comforting, satisfying, and convenient - all of which are more or less true for most fast food patrons. It's up to truly concerned citizens to educate one another that, though the food might be delicious and available, that there are all kinds of other reasons to avoid it.
Finally, no one wants to pay through the nose for health-care welfare plans that go toward subsidizing fatties. Even so, perhaps this is a reason to look into reforming Medicare, or to better educate the fatties. After all, are we sure that outlawing Happy Meals won't just drive the unhealthy masses toward other unhealthy alternatives? There are more effective, and less coercive, ways to teach that lesson.