California's Santa Clara County Bans Happy Meal Toys 756
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."
I swear.... (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.
Same fate as Joe Camel (Score:1, Insightful)
Parents doing their job?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Ban Cracker Jack, too. (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.
Re:Same fate as Joe Camel (Score:3, Insightful)
Joe Camel isn't the happy meal, Joe Camel is Ronald McDonald, Grimace, and Mayor McCheese. And the playgrounds on the facility.
Power is its own end. (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.
Re:Same fate as Joe Camel (Score:2, Insightful)
Double Nuggets with Idiocracy (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [guardian.co.uk] that could be coming.
Liberty (Score:4, 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.
Re:As a parent of two children... (Score:5, Insightful)
How did you manage that before it was a law?
Re:I swear.... (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?
Re:As a parent of two children... (Score:5, Insightful)
So if you figured out a system that worked by yourself...how does this legislation help you in any way?
Re:I swear.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The kids are just doing what the parents are doing.
Re:Same fate as Joe Camel (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:As a parent of two children... (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.
Re:As a parent of two children... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I swear.... (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.
Re:I swear.... (Score:5, 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.
Re:Parents doing their job?? (Score:3, Insightful)
I usually get some small temporary enjoyment out of whatever piece of crap toy they give me...
Re:Welcome to Obamanation (Score:3, Insightful)
I 100% agree that the President (be it Republican or Democrat) receives way too much credit and blame for everything that happens in a country. This is a clear case of an individual county making a decision, not Obama. However, it does match Obama's philosophy of regulating everything, massive govnernment control, etc.
Re:I swear.... (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"
Re:As a parent of two children... (Score:3, Insightful)
...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.
As a parent, that's your right. But it doesn't seem that as a government, that right belongs with the county. This is no different from laws banning any "immoral" behavior -- it's the government meddling where it has no business doing so.
Re:As a parent of two children... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, no you're missing the point. GPP's seen the light, and has found the ONLY GOOD WAY to deal with the issue. And now we can "encourage" everyone to do THE ONLY GOOD THING. After all, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
The best of all worlds: smug self-righteousness enforced with State Power. It's a popular and time-tested combination.
Re:I swear.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Subway kid's meals come with toys.
Natalie Portman feels left out of your signature.
Re:As a parent of two children... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Well, it worked for me, so everybody else should be forced by law to do the same thing!"
Re:I swear.... (Score:3, 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.
Well, the sad truth is, we're all being so fucking stupid that it actually makes *sense* for them to do this. Parents *should* take care of their kids, but they're not and our whole country is getting fucking fat. We keep trying fitness promotion and all kinds of shit, but everyone just keeps getting fatter.
I'm not sure if its better to legislate us when we're being this fucking stupid, or let us all just kill ourselves. I don't approve of unnecessary legislation like this, but you sure have to wonder how the hell we're going to solve our fat fucking problem!
-Taylor
Re:As a parent of two children... (Score:4, 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.
Re:I swear.... (Score:4, 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.
Re:Power is its own end. (Score:3, 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.
No, i really disagree. You may want to complain about every piece of legislation being just so "the man" can "keep us down", but however misguided or stupid this legislation may be, I can at least understand that the people making it weren't just trying to control us, they actually believe this is helpful. You ought to be able to see that.
When you claim the government has evil intent when they're obviously just being stupid, no one is going to listen to you.
-Taylor
The Other One (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I swear.... (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.
Re:Same fate as Joe Camel (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder how much the liability insurance of a liquor store would increase if people were encouraged to drink at the store then go hit the climbing wall.
Probably not too much. They've already got parking lots...I'll take a drunk on a wall over a drunk in a '84 Diplomat any day of the week.
About time... (Score:5, 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.
Re:I swear.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I prefer to take my kids to Chick-Fil-A too, even though I myself don't eat meat & I don't particularly agree with their corporate mission ("glorify god"). The chicken seems to be better, and the "toys" are often books or educational CDs; most of the McDonalds or Burger King toys get discarded quickly because they're not very adaptable. We might hit one of those places once a month, though, so we don't get through many of them.
Re:I swear.... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:As a parent of two children... (Score:1, Insightful)
As someone who is also a parent of a young daughter, I find that the fact that I have a driver's license and money and my daughter lacks both to be a very effective means of preventing her from eating at restaurants I do not want her to eat at.
Just sayin'...
Re:I swear.... (Score:1, Insightful)
"I am sorry sir, your calorie card has been declined due to NSF." - Duyane, 15
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a salad being crammed into a human face - forever.
Re:I swear.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't understand the appeal in pineapple on pizza either. The citrus juices completely overpower the pizza flavor. I'm a bit of a pizza snob though -- growing up surrounded by Italian-Americans will do that to you -- others may disagree.
Of course I'd take a real pizzeria pizza with pineapples on it over anything from Pizza Hut, Little Caesars, etc.
State of Dependency (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I swear.... (Score:1, Insightful)
then surely since the Government is for the people and doing nothing is against the people, the Government must step in.
Spoken in the finest tradition of totalitarian dictators everywhere.
Hey jd...Chavez is calling!
Preposterous! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I swear.... (Score:3, Insightful)
What about Krispy Creme? Any other donut shop?
No one puts a gun to the head of anyone and makes them go to McDonalds or any other place.
No one makes anyone buy a Happy Meal or any other meal there.
CA is pretty much a failed state, from the Govenator on down. Get out while you can!
Re:I swear.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I swear.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I swear.... (Score:5, 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.
Re:I swear.... (Score:4, 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.
Re:I swear.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I swear.... (Score:5, 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.
Re:I swear.... (Score:3, Insightful)
More like he failed because:
1. The garbage food is cheap and the fresh food is pricey. Both to buy and prepare. You can buy a few thousand chicken nuggets (now with 10% actual chicken!) and toss them in an oven for a few minutes or you can carve up actual raw chicken (buy knives), season it (don't forget to buy seasoning), and bake it (watch to make sure it doesn't burn).
2. USDA guidelines are completely FUBAR-ed. Jamie served a dish with 3 different veggies in it and was criticized for not having enough veggies according to USDA guidelines. Meanwhile, the "normal school food" line was ok because French Fries counted as 2 veggies. Yes, fresh cut up veggies aren't enough but fry up a few things that used to be potatoes and you're good to go. Also, they were letting kids drink chocolate and strawberry milk with a ton of sugar in it and justifying that by saying "all that extra sugar makes them drink the milk so they get calcium." I guess they'll need those strong bones when they get diabetic.
In some ways, his approach was doomed to fail. It's a chicken and egg scenario. You need support from the schools to change the rules, but the schools need to follow the rules which are set up to prevent them from being changed. Also, you need more money to flow into the schools but people will vote down any tax increase to fund the increase. So the schools wind up serving junk, the kids wind up fat and with tons of health problems (costing us all money via health care costs), the politicians make a few "purely for show" changes that do nothing in the end and parents wonder why things are getting worse.
Incidentally, this is one reason why my son brings in his lunch every day to school. He might not eat 100% healthy food at all times, but I can steer him towards healthier alternatives instead of making his options "pizza or chicken nuggets" every day.
Re:I swear.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I will always remember my mother telling me after she grounded me for doing something stupid as a kid, "not because I ground you it means that I don't love you, I do it exactly because of that". That is something parents nowdays have forgotten. They don't want the child to cry so they give them everything s/he wants. But crying is good. Learning how to cope with frustration is KEY for when they grow up.
But it's ok to send them to Catholic School (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Power is its own end. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I swear.... (Score:1, Insightful)
I think your story would be a lot more persuasive if you didn't bring political labels into it...
Re:I swear.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I wasn't aware that Bristol was a big happy meal fan. If you think that your kids aren't going to have sex before marriage just because you said no to happy meals, I think you may be the one with the bigger problem when they become teenagers.
Re:I swear.... (Score:4, 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.
Re:I swear.... (Score:3, Insightful)
If that's true, then that child is an unimaginative potato head.
Of course, I don't mental sequester my child out of conversations. as a good parent I teach them to be involved, think and ask the appropriate questions.
My kids do not sit quietly, the are involved and learning.
Re:You CAN control a 3 year old, NOT a 6 year old (Score:3, Insightful)
Smart six year olds do not do that.
If your six year old does, then clearly you fucked up as a parent and thank your lucky stars they chose that route instead of just murdering you in your sleep just to watch the life drain out of you.