San Francisco Bans The Happy Meal

San Francisco has banned the Happy Meal, on the day of the return of the McRib no less. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors earlier today passed an ordinance requiring meals that included toys with their purchase to meet specific nutritional guidelines. The vote, achieved with a Gavin Newsom veto-proof majority of 8-3, effectively bans the Happy Meal.

Joe Eskenazi at the San Francisco Weekly reports:

​It seems the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has accomplished what the Hamburglar never could. They've made off with McDonald's fare.

The supes today passed an ordinance that will require meals to meet nutritional guidelines if restaurants wish to include a toy with the food purchase.

More importantly, the supes passed the so-called "Happy Meal Ban" by an 8-3 vote -- meaning it can survive a promised veto from Mayor Gavin Newsom. That's right: San Francisco done banned the Happy Meal. Robble robble.

The AP reports:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- For some veggies-hating children, Happy Meals won't be so happy anymore.

San Francisco lawmakers approved legislation Tuesday that would limit toy giveaways in children's meals that have excessive calories, sodium and fat. It also requires servings of fruits or vegetables with each meal.

The city's Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to approve the ordinance, which they hope will force fast-food chains such as McDonald's to make their children's meals healthier or stop selling them with toys.

The measure drew enough support to overcome an expected veto by Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Supervisors say the law would make San Francisco the first major city to take this action to combat childhood obesity.

McDonald's has said the law threatens business and restricts parents' ability to make choices for their children.

UPDATE, 11/3/10:

McDonald's could, theoretically, reformulate the Happy Meal for San Francisco to allow it to be sold. Here are the ordinance's specific requirements for a packaged fast food meal targeted at children:

• Calories: Less than 600
• Sodium: Less than 640 milligram.
• Fat: Less than 35 percent of calories from fat; Less than 10 percent from saturated fat (with exception for nuts, seeds, eggs or low-fat cheese).
• Fruits & Vegetables: At least half a cup of fruit or three-quarters of a cup of vegetables

Comments

[2farleft]

07:04 PM on 11/15/2010

........................'THROWS THE BOOK' ; at ; THE HAMBURGLAR !!!

2farleft

[2farleft]

07:40 PM on 11/16/2010

................Hamburger ; then the Fries ; Milkshake qualifies Hamburglar for maximum sentencing ........

Junior Whopper enters witness protection ..................

2farleft





.

[2farleft]

01:48 PM on 11/17/2010

Jumbo Jack Orders 'Hit' on Ronnie "The Clown" McDonald as Gangland Violence Erupts in San Francisco.......

2farleft

[willclower]

11:39 AM on 11/13/2010

I'm talking about this on my radio program today. No one should kid themselves: corporations have not, and will never be about anything other than staying alive.

That doesn't make them bad, just don't be surprised to learn that they're trying to increase profits by getting more people to buy more of their products. When you write that we need "protection from Corporations whose only interest is profit", I think ... "well, duh, what ELSE would their motivation be??"

Do we need to regulate to make sure they're getting their profits while we're being protected? Sure. But I don't think we need to ban toys in Crappy Meals because kids like them (and parents somehow don't have the personal responsibility and will power to muster a simple NO to their children). If we ban toys because they're attractive to kids, we also need to ban Ronald McDonald for the same reason, and the fact that McD's uses primary colors, and the fact that stupid cereal makers place their nasty cereals lower on the shelves so kids can see them ... and on and on.

Sorry. I rant. If you want to hear me blather about this more, the feed is here (noon today EST). http://www.wmnyradio.com/business_of_health.aspx

[Jadelyn]

10:55 AM on 11/12/2010

People, take a look at the list of ingredients in fast food. Then take a look at the Material Safety Data Sheets for some of these addivitves.

Consumers need protection from Corporations whose only interest is profit, with no regard to the health of their customers. If the FDA really worked for the people, none of these artificial toxins and carcinogens would be allowed to be sold at all.

[Charlene Dutka]

08:36 PM on 11/10/2010

Disturbing, this is not the decision of government, but of parents. My children, nieces, and nephews and I have enjoyed are shared experiences at McDonalds, occasionally. None of these children are overweight, or unhealthy. Most of the children are now adults, and do not even eat fast food, but the memories remain.
Government has to stay out of these decisions. Oh, I have a backache, and I will be smoking pot legally, and my children will be getting high with me. But no Happy Meals. What am I missing.

[Montaignelover]

06:20 AM on 11/11/2010

what you're missing is that pot is a good thing, and garbage, fake-mcfood is not.

I hope that helps.

[LittleCardsDad]

01:28 PM on 11/11/2010

Then why didn't they show a little bit of spine and ban the food? Because all they did was put McD's in the market of selling toys for $2.99 and giving away a free happy meal. LOL@liberals.

[Charlene Dutka]

04:09 PM on 11/11/2010

Are you serious?

[Rhancheck]

10:05 AM on 11/15/2010

Fanned... What part of parental responcibility to persons not get.. does little bobby get in the car and drive himself down to mcdonalds and buy happy meals? (using the money he makes from his lemonade stand to buy it of course) Why is it that so many ppl just can;t call the parents out for not parenting ? Why would so many wantt he gov to wipe our noses and powder out tails?

I rememebr all the other attempted bans from the 80s and such.. lets try to ban Heavy metal and rap... amazingly sells went thru the roof, once the little stickers went on. Banning things is not a solution for anything, its thru public awareness and allowing persons to make thier own informed decisions is what we need

[YouDontWantMeHere]

11:16 AM on 11/10/2010

here's my question: how many McDonalds are in San Francisco cause actually it's pretty small in area & yep kinda snobby

[Montaignelover]

06:22 AM on 11/11/2010

by snobby do you mean people who demand actual FOOD rather than processed Mcgarbage?

[LittleCardsDad]

01:21 PM on 11/11/2010

If people really demanded such they wouldn't be passing stupid laws like this, would they?

[YouDontWantMeHere]

11:37 AM on 11/12/2010

nope ones that drink white wine with their Big Macs

[scottfunkhouser]

10:02 AM on 11/10/2010

While I agree Happy Meals should be banned, we cannot tolerate acts like this from the government. Read my article here to find out why: http://30-somethingundergrad.blogspot.com/2010/11/mcdonalds-ban-step-towards-socialism.html

[Alicia Johns]

07:27 PM on 11/09/2010

San Francisco sure likes to tell everyone what or what not to eat, I hope McDonalds sues them.

[JetJagger]

07:36 AM on 11/09/2010

Liberals. {rolling eyes}

-

[Montaignelover]

06:24 AM on 11/11/2010

well, how should a society counter billion dollar advertisement campaigns aimed at selling processed mcgarbage to small children? I don't necessarily want big government stepping in here, but do you have another way for citizens to be protected from corporate malfeasance and just plain old despicable action all in the name of increasing this quarter's profit margin, health and morality be damned?

[LittleCardsDad]

01:22 PM on 11/11/2010

It's called parenting. Normal people not confined to San Fransicko do it all the time.

[cpsc1]

12:47 PM on 11/08/2010

A great libertarian analysis of this really, really, ridiculous ban (http://www.pculpa.com/index.php/libertarian/38-blog-entry/128-the-health-tyrants-cometh-for-your-happy-meals.html).

what do you all think?

[SECT Dem]

11:20 AM on 11/08/2010

Have Crackerjacks been outlawed too?

[Jadelyn]

10:44 AM on 11/12/2010

Yeah, I see you guys all over the place, you really are paid to do this aren't you.

[shakabra]

09:31 AM on 11/08/2010

How is this considered food? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/05/mcdonalds-happy-meal-photos-6-months_n_761364.html#s155972

[RedSquirrel]

09:52 PM on 11/07/2010

Hey Mcdonalds, just start selling the toys and give the food away free

[mick e]

11:10 AM on 11/07/2010

If the rest the country would take a cue from San Francisco, we (as a nation) would be so much better for it. Poisoning children with grease, chemicals, and questionable food, is reprehensible. Good on you San Francisco !

[blogger521]

04:54 PM on 11/06/2010

If they ban Happy Meals, how will children learn to love lard, grease, salt, and preservatives? I believe Happy Meals should be force fed to children. It's the responsibility of the parents to make sure they burn off the calories and that in turn will build character. If you doubt the ability of marketing to successfully raise our children, try to remember the last time you saw the inside of one of our schools. Pass the fries, please.

[justwanttruth]

02:07 AM on 11/06/2010

People posting STILL think this is about banning a food item. IT ISN'T. This is a much bigger issue than unhealthy food. This is about the marketing of products to children, an unethical practice. All marketing to children under the age of 12 should be banned, period. Corporate America wants to influence your decisions as parents through your children, and it works often enough to justify the millions of dollars they spend doing it. They are using your kids and getting everyone to call you lazy if you complain about their tactics...brilliant and disgusting.

[rjmt12]

02:15 AM on 11/06/2010

It's the parent's responsibility to say NO, not the government's, to toys, junk food, etc. Parents need to develop a backbone and stop giving into the whining. Seems to me many parents give in to their kids' tantrums and whining because they are too lazy to discipline and teach self control.

[justwanttruth]

02:41 AM on 11/06/2010

I don't disagree with that point, but why shouldn't we reign in the marketing of products to children? We already require safety seats for children when riding in vehicles, and helmets for riding a bike. They aren't allowed to smoke or be sold pornography either. If we could prove that marketing to children is unhealthy for them (and we can), would you agree that it should be regulated to some degree?

[Montaignelover]

06:26 AM on 11/11/2010

I agree with the OP; marketing to children should be banned! period.