Law curbs McDonald's Happy Meal toys

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101103/us_nm/us_mcdonalds_toys

Law curbs McDonald's Happy Meal toys
Buzz up!51 votes ShareretweetEmailPrint Reuters – Two McDonald's Happy Meal with toy watches fashioned after the characters Donkey and Puss in Boots … By Lisa Baertlein Lisa Baertlein – 1 hr 22 mins ago
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – San Francisco has become the first major U.S. city to pass a law that cracks down on the popular practice of giving away free toys with unhealthy restaurant meals for children.

San Francisco's Board of Supervisors passed the law on Tuesday on a veto-proof 8-to-3 vote. It takes effect on December 1.

The law, like an ordinance passed earlier this year in nearby Santa Clara County, would require that restaurant kids' meals meet certain nutritional standards before they could be sold with toys.

Opponents of the law include the National Restaurant Association and McDonald's Corp, which used its now wildly popular Happy Meal to pioneer the use of free toys to market directly to children.

"We are extremely disappointed with today's decision. It's not what our customers want, nor is it something they asked for," McDonald's spokeswoman Danya Proud said in a statement.

"Getting a toy with a kid's meal is just one part of a fun, family experience at McDonald's," Proud said.

The San Francisco law would allow toys to be given away with kids' meals that have less than 600 calories, contain fruits and vegetables, and include beverages without excessive fat or sugar.

Backers of the ordinance say it aims to promote healthy eating habits while combating childhood obesity.

"Our children are sick. Rates of obesity in San Francisco are disturbingly high, especially among children of color," said San Francisco Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure.

"This is a challenge to the restaurant industry to think about children's health first and join the wide range of local restaurants that have already made this commitment," Mar said.

HAPPY MEALS IN THE HOT SEAT

Fifteen percent of American children are overweight or obese -- which puts them at risk of developing heart disease, diabetes and cancer, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In some states, the childhood obesity rate is over 30 percent.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest this summer threatened to sue McDonald's if it did not stop using Happy Meal toys to lure children into its restaurants. A lawyer for that group said it is on track to file the lawsuit in the next several weeks.

McDonald's debuted the Happy Meal in the United States in 1979 with toys like the "McDoodler" stencil and the "McWrist" wallet. Modern offerings have included themed items from popular films like "Shrek" or sought-after toys like Transformers, Legos or miniature Ty Beanie Babies.

In 2006, the latest year for which data is available, fast-food companies led by McDonald's spent more than $520 million on advertising and toys to promote meals for children, according to a U.S. Federal Trade Commission report.

When the efforts of other food and beverage companies were included, promotional spending aimed at children topped $1.6 billion.

(Reporting by Lisa Baertlein; Editing by Richard Chang)

**Ahtman**

Why, this doesn't sound like something San Francisco would do at all.

**Necros**

While I think it's great to make kids eat better, this just seems stupid to me because even the dumbest parent knows that McDonalds is all about machine separated crappy food that goes right to your hips and never leaves. So it's the parents that need their toys taken away, not the kids.

**gorgon**

McDonald's food is lower than crap, but like with the "Supersize me" movie, I think I have to take Ronny's side.

No one's forcing parents to buy their kids Happy Meals. And more importantly, no one's forcing parents to buy their kids Happy Meals with any regularity. One Happy Meal a month isn't going to contribute to childhood obesity. And even if you buy them more often, you can get them apples instead of french fries and milk instead of soda.

I get putting healthy stuff in school cafeterias and vending machines. Kids are held captive with regard to food choice there. Outside of school, parents have the power and that's where it should remain, even if Mickey D is shameless in how it markets to children.

**FITZZ**

gorgon wrote:McDonald's food is lower than crap, but like with the "Supersize me" movie, I think I have to take Ronny's side.

No one's forcing parents to buy their kids Happy Meals. And more importantly, no one's forcing parents to buy their kids Happy Meals with any regularity. One Happy Meal a month isn't going to contribute to childhood obesity. And even if you buy them more often, you can get them apples instead of french fries and milk instead of soda.

I get putting healthy stuff in school cafeterias and vending machines. Kids are held captive with regard to food choice there. Outside of school, parents have the power and that's where it should remain, even if Mickey D is shameless in how it markets to children.

Agreed,while I have no love for the bulls-eyes corporations place on children,as a parent I feel that it's my job to raise my children...not the governments.
Of course my kids would choose to eat happy meals and candy morning,noon and night...they're kids...as their Father it's my place to set boundaries and encourage better habits.

**Ma55ter_fett**

No more greasy cheep plastic toys?

Oh Noes!

Seriously, I don't see this making much a dent in the childhood obesity problem.

**KingCracker**

FITZZ wrote:
gorgon wrote:McDonald's food is lower than crap, but like with the "Supersize me" movie, I think I have to take Ronny's side.

No one's forcing parents to buy their kids Happy Meals. And more importantly, no one's forcing parents to buy their kids Happy Meals with any regularity. One Happy Meal a month isn't going to contribute to childhood obesity. And even if you buy them more often, you can get them apples instead of french fries and milk instead of soda.

I get putting healthy stuff in school cafeterias and vending machines. Kids are held captive with regard to food choice there. Outside of school, parents have the power and that's where it should remain, even if Mickey D is shameless in how it markets to children.

Agreed,while I have no love for the bulls-eyes corporations place on children,as a parent I feel that it's my job to raise my children...not the governments.
Of course my kids would choose to eat happy meals and candy morning,noon and night...they're kids...as their Father it's my place to set boundaries and encourage better habits.

I completely agree with you FITZZ.

**FITZZ**

KingCracker wrote:
FITZZ wrote:
gorgon wrote:McDonald's food is lower than crap, but like with the "Supersize me" movie, I think I have to take Ronny's side.

No one's forcing parents to buy their kids Happy Meals. And more importantly, no one's forcing parents to buy their kids Happy Meals with any regularity. One Happy Meal a month isn't going to contribute to childhood obesity. And even if you buy them more often, you can get them apples instead of french fries and milk instead of soda.

I get putting healthy stuff in school cafeterias and vending machines. Kids are held captive with regard to food choice there. Outside of school, parents have the power and that's where it should remain, even if Mickey D is shameless in how it markets to children.

Agreed,while I have no love for the bulls-eyes corporations place on children,as a parent I feel that it's my job to raise my children...not the governments.
Of course my kids would choose to eat happy meals and candy morning,noon and night...they're kids...as their Father it's my place to set boundaries and encourage better habits.

I completely agree with you FITZZ.

Now..if we could only find a few million people who agreed with both of us...

**Poice**

the problem is that there athe few million people who eat Micky D's. And loves it.

**WarOne**

The biggest problem is the FEDERAL government is not forcing us to eat healthier and is not forcing us into mandatory daily hour exercises to keep our waistlines down and not forcing us to stay out of hobbies that require very little physical activity.

Oh wait...It's AMERICA! Our government doesn't run us like a communist regime!

So wave that AMERICA FLAG in one hand:

and if you want, eat a heart clogger in the other:

And it is the only country capable of spawning a Santa in a sleigh pulled by deer heads:

**Wrexasaur**

That is fething monumental right there.

I'm pretty sure I believe in Santa Claus again.

**sebster**

FITZZ wrote: Now..if we could only find a few million people who agreed with both of us...

I think there's more than a few million people who agree with you, they just don't live in San Francisco.

In other news, I'm all for increasing regulation on junk food stores, but that regulation should be about mandating information given to consumers*, mandating food must be nutritional is unecessary, because consumers and parents, once informed, really should have the right to decide to a treat if they want.

*Corporations supplying unhealthy products will always claim the consumer's right to choose, but then won't actually give consumers the information necessary to let them make their own choice.

**WarOne**

sebster wrote:
FITZZ wrote: Now..if we could only find a few million people who agreed with both of us...

I think there's more than a few million people who agree with you, they just don't live in San Francisco.

In other news, I'm all for increasing regulation on junk food stores, but that regulation should be about mandating information given to consumers*, mandating food must be nutritional is unecessary, because consumers and parents, once informed, really should have the right to decide to a treat if they want.

*Corporations supplying unhealthy products will always claim the consumer's right to choose, but then won't actually give consumers the information necessary to let them make their own choice.

Information is key. Once people have the information, then it is for them to decide what they want to do.

Case in point- Caca Bell began listing calories for their meals. Psychologically, it has made me reconsider what to get there as a lunch meal for future purchases as each item on the menu now has me thinking what is best in terms of following daily caloric intake.

Significant changes like that can get people rethinking about how they should eat.

**snurl**

Crap. I LIKE to order a happy meal now and then. My desk at work has the silver surfer (the coolest happy meal toy ever) and several dragons and dinosaurs that I have collected over the years, all happy meal toys.

Yes, there are better things to eat than happy meals. Don't like 'em? Don't buy them! Children do NOT buy happy meals.They have no money. Their parents buy them. This is another example of the government getting involved in useless headline - grabbing instead of working on issues that are really important.

**Arctik_Firangi**

I ate Happy Meals when I was a kid. I've never been obese. I guess there must be more to it.

Stupid laws for stupid people. If only there was a 'lack of intellectual means' test so that normal people could do normal things.

**Kilkrazy**

If the government is allowed to pass laws on food quality why shouldn't it pass a law on food quality?

**snurl**

Kilkrazy wrote:If the government is allowed to pass laws on food quality why shouldn't it pass a law on food quality?

Well food quality means making sure food is not spoilt or contaminated. Regulating portions is best left to responsible parents. Or concerned Socialists.

**sebster**

Kilkrazy wrote:If the government is allowed to pass laws on food quality why shouldn't it pass a law on food quality?

There's a difference between a food item containing a toxic substance due to poor standards of preparation that person would willingly put in their food, and a food item containing an unhealthy but delicious amount of salt or fat, that a person might choose to consume despite it being generally unhealthy, no?

**Fifty**

I think there is more than one issue here:

From a UK perspective:

We have universal health care. Everybody gets their healthcare paid for by the government/tax payer. On that basis, if everyone has the right to free health care, a case can be made that everyone has a responsibility to look after their health to avoid bankrupting the NHS. It could then follow that te government does have a right to "interfere". Once that right has been established, should they interfere in the choices of individuals, or corporations? It is better to go after the corporations if they encorage the opposite of what the NHS would like to see.

From a US Perspective:

Well, the government/tax payer is not paying for universal health care, so why should it have the right to mandate anything about your health? If you are fat lard-butt and can't get health insurance, feel free to die young. But don't come begging for handouts on the state either, if you have taken no personal responsibility for your own health.

**Kilkrazy**

snurl wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:If the government is allowed to pass laws on food quality why shouldn't it pass a law on food quality?

Well food quality means making sure food is not spoilt or contaminated. Regulating portions is best left to responsible parents. Or concerned Socialists.

That's your definition of the moment.

The USA imposed rationing of a number of foodstuffs during WW2, in other words, regulating portions. Was that wrong, or outside the government's powers?

**snurl**

Kilkrazy wrote:
snurl wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:If the government is allowed to pass laws on food quality why shouldn't it pass a law on food quality?

Well food quality means making sure food is not spoilt or contaminated. Regulating portions is best left to responsible parents. Or concerned Socialists.

That's your definition of the moment.

The USA imposed rationing of a number of foodstuffs during WW2, in other words, regulating portions. Was that wrong, or outside the government's powers?

That was during a war. We are at war now in Afghanistan but it is not an all-out effort to win the thing like WWII was.
Or do you mean the war on obesity?

**sebster**

Kilkrazy wrote:The USA imposed rationing of a number of foodstuffs during WW2, in other words, regulating portions. Was that wrong, or outside the government's powers?

Isn't there a difference between controlling food supplies for the sake of defence of the nation, and because you think it’s in people’s own good for them to live longer, healthier lives?

**Albatross**

There are UK foodstuffs which are illegal in the USA due to health concerns, if I recall correctly....

**Frazzled**

sebster wrote:Corporations supplying unhealthy products will always claim the consumer's right to choose, but then won't actually give consumers the information necessary to let them make their own choice.

Everything's unhealthy. Water poisoning can kill you. Oxygen makes you old. Is that your standard for when government can control your life? Seriously?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
snurl wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:If the government is allowed to pass laws on food quality why shouldn't it pass a law on food quality?

Well food quality means making sure food is not spoilt or contaminated. Regulating portions is best left to responsible parents. Or concerned Socialists.

That's your definition of the moment.

The USA imposed rationing of a number of foodstuffs during WW2, in other words, regulating portions. Was that wrong, or outside the government's powers?

You're forgetting the key part there "during WW2." They also regulated your ability to shine lights that could be seen at night.

**Albatross**

Frazzled wrote:
sebster wrote:Corporations supplying unhealthy products will always claim the consumer's right to choose, but then won't actually give consumers the information necessary to let them make their own choice.

Everything's unhealthy. Water poisoning can kill you. Oxygen makes you old. Is that your standard for when government can control your life? Seriously?

Cool - let's legalise heroin, crack, ecstasy, cannabis, prostitution, remove the age of consent for minors, remove age limits on alcohol and tobacco, repeal public decency laws regarding nudity, allow hardcore pornography to be shown on the news, remove the censorship of swear words on TV, allow pre-school kids to drive cars and own firearms....

...because the government 'controlling your life' is bad, yeah?

Libertarians - as stupid as they are crazy.

**Frazzled**

Albatross wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
sebster wrote:Corporations supplying unhealthy products will always claim the consumer's right to choose, but then won't actually give consumers the information necessary to let them make their own choice.

Everything's unhealthy. Water poisoning can kill you. Oxygen makes you old. Is that your standard for when government can control your life? Seriously?

Cool - let's legalise heroin, crack, ecstasy, cannabis, prostitution, remove the age of consent for minors, remove age limits on alcohol and tobacco, repeal public decency laws regarding nudity, allow hardcore pornography to be shown on the news, remove the censorship of swear words on TV, allow pre-school kids to drive cars and own firearms....

...because the government 'controlling your life' is bad, yeah?

Libertarians - as stupid as they are crazy.

See that won't work. Pre school kids can't reach the pedals.

**The Dreadnote**

After spending about an hour at work yesterday enduring the sound of half a dozen children screaming at a pitch that could probably cause small animals to die, I fully support any measure that will keep children out of mcdonalds.

Although, assembling happy meals does give me something to do apart from cleaning...

**Sanctjud**

Frazzled wrote:See that won't work. Pre school kids can't reach the pedals.

Well, it would be a team effort right?

**Catyrpelius**

Just another instance of the Goverment Sticking their nose where it doesnt belong.

If they ever tell me I can't eat chinese food they will have a war on their hands!

**FITZZ**

Catyrpelius wrote:Just another instance of the Goverment Sticking their nose where it doesnt belong.

If they ever tell me I can't eat chinese food they will have a war on their hands!

Amen to that...try to take away my General Tso Chicken and shrimp fried rice with their Big Brother tactics and the streets will run red.