There is a very familiar way of describing exploitation of the vulnerable: It's like taking candy from a baby. Can a society that coined this phrase come to accept that the greater exploitation may be handing the candy to the baby in the first place?
Maybe so.
Amidst the tumult of this week's midterm elections was an advance for public health that may or may not have come to your attention. The city of San Francisco, following an example set some months back by Santa Clara County to its south- passed a law that prevents fast-food companies from including toys with meals that don't meet some reasonable nutrition standards related to calories, fat, sugar, and salt. McDonald's 'Happy Meals,' the inspiration for the law, don't meet those criteria.
So, in essence, this law takes the toy out of the Happy Meal until or unless McDonald's can improve its nutritional quality. In this case, nutritional quality is determined by some relevant guidelines developed at the Institute of Medicine. For what it's worth, I consider the nutrition standards imposed loose if anything. McDonald's has plenty of room in which to wiggle.
But for now, public statements certainly suggest the San Francisco vote was an unhappy one for the fast food giant.
I can think of some others who will be unhappy about the removal of toys from Happy Meals, too. The kids, I suppose, who like the toys. And along with them, adults who see this move as the heavy hand of government. Government is reaching into a child's lunch, and taking the toy- if not the candy- from the baby.
That is the basis for opposition to a law such as this, which might otherwise be the prevailing law of the land, rather than the law of San Francisco. But the objection doesn't stand up to the meanest scrutiny.
Let's assume that you see the removal of the toy from the Happy Meal as a case of Big Brother telling you what to do. How, then, did you view the placement of the toy in the Happy Meal in the first place?
McDonald's did not consult you to find out if you wanted a toy encouraging your child to prefer a meal of lamentable nutritional quality. They did not consult any parent. They may have done consumer testing showing that kids- and thus their parents- are apt to choose such meals, but that's to find out what's best for them, not for you.
They did not consult me about the nutritional standards I would recommend for a meal including a toy. To my knowledge, they did not consult any of my colleagues, either. And while McDonald's does have scientists on advisory panels, they are in no way obligated to listen to them- and probably don't when their advice does not redound to the bottom line.
The toy may seem like a freebie. But there's no such thing as a free lunch, and the corollary is, there's no such thing as a free toy with your lunch either. McDonald's put toys in Happy Meals for one reason: to sell more Happy Meals.
And, of course, it's not just any toy that goes into a Happy Meal. Generally, it's a genuinely 'hot' toy. A toy directly linked to the current Hollywood blockbuster. You know the usual suspects: Shrek, Woodie, Buzz. Coming soon: toys linked to the imminent Dreamwork's movie, "MegaMind".
You can bet there is proprietary research in a vault somewhere that shows that kids prefer meals with toys. You can bet that research also shows the toy in question is more influential when tied in to a popular movie. You can bet there's also research to show what percentage of the time parents give in to the wheedling of their child who wants such a meal.
The reason to take up this topic is not because of Happy Meals in San Francisco, but because the principles here are important, and generalizable.
I do understand the resistance: opposition to heavy-handed government. Those opposed to the toy-free Happy Meal are our defenders against tyranny!
Or are you?
The government in San Francisco, unlike McDonald's, is accountable to voters. The government actually needs the support of a majority of citizens to get elected, and thus have the authority to take the toy out of the Happy Meal. McDonald's only needed the passive assent of its share holders to put it in.
We are all prone, whether or not we care to admit it, to manipulation by multinational corporations with fortunes to spend on the best thinking Madison Avenue can provide. Thinking designed to figure out what it takes to get us to buy what they're selling. Being manipulated into a lunch choice by McDonald's and Dreamworks is not exactly the epitome of personal liberty.
I understand that some see tyranny in the removal of the toy from the Happy Meal. But I think they are missing the point in a rush to judgment.
Removing the toy is the will of parents. The toy was the tyranny.
Dr. David L. Katz; www.davidkatzmd.com
www.turnthetidefoundation.org
Follow David Katz, M.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DrDavidKatz
Besides it is the parent's job to control what their kids eat, not the governments.
The government then took away discipline of the children from our schools. Now the government builds "special alternative schools" for those with discipline problems which cost the tax payer even more money. We can't discipline our child in public, or even say no to them or some one calls the police. Yet people complain profusely if they are undisciplined and tell us to discipline our child..
Now the government says "we are going to ban any thing "we " deem unhealthy for you", but we expect you to discipline your children and to take responsibility for them.
Which way does the government want it? Take responsibility for the raising of our children or not? Can't have it both ways by the looks of it. Are we supposed to raise our children or "the village" (aka the government).
Way to sensationalize HP!
Let's look at this from an options standpoint - we can either 1 - Not Eat at McDonald's; 2 - Get the same meal without a toy; 3 - Get the same meal with a toy. Currently, McDonald's offers us all three options - the San Francisco government offers us only 2. Therefore, the government is limiting our options, and our freedom.
This is not to mention several other fallacies within your analogy (like that market actions isn't just people voting with their wallets).
Should kids be eating happy meals all the time? No. Should the government step in and stop it? Not the point of my comment OR your article. In this situation is the government the one acting like big brother? Yes, yes it is.
These are token gestures that won't do anything.
Peace,
Shannon
I would be railing. What next then? The Gubermint in our pantries?
Are the priorities just a little mixed up here SF??
This is just absolutely ridiculous and I hope the stupid ban is dropped very soon (I'm sure the powers that be with the McDonald's corporation feel the same way).
Government needs to remove the ban that prevents kids under 18 from buying Cigarettes.
Leave this up to the Parents .....
I hope McDonalds leaves SF
http://queÂry.nytimesÂ.com/gst/fÂullpage.htÂml?sec=heaÂlth&res=99Â07E2DA1F30ÂF93AA35752ÂC0A9609C8BÂ63&&scp=4&Âsq=diabeteÂs%20amputaÂtion&st=csÂe
Big city mayors are passing anti-soda and anti-happy meal laws because the expenses for obesity related diseases are enormous. It's why NY Mayor Bloomberg has been campaigning against soda sales to school kids and the use of trans-fat in city eateries.
"''I will go out on a limb,'' said Dr. Frieden, [NYC] health commissioner, ''and say, 20 years from now people will look back and say: 'What were they thinking? They're in the middle of an epidemic and kids are watching 20,000 hours of commercials for junk food.' ''
What you are speaking of is a band-aid on a wound which requires surgery.
Currently, nobody's even applying the BAND AID!
Some traditional childhood games are disappearing from school playgrounds because educators say they're dangerous.
Elementary schools in Cheyenne, Wyo., and Spokane, Wash., banned tag at recess this year. Others, including a suburban Charleston, S.C., school, dumped contact sports such as soccer and touch football.
In other cities, including Wichita; San Jose, Calif.; Beaverton, Ore.; and Rancho Santa Fe., Calif., schools took similar actions earlier.
The bans were passed in the name of safety, but some children's health advocates say limiting exercise and free play can inhibit a child's development.
Joe Frost, emeritus professor of early childhood education at the University of Texas-Austin, sees playground restrictions as harmful.
"You're taking away the physical development of the children," he says. "Having time for play is essential for children to keep their weight under control." http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-06-26-recess-bans_x.htm
Now how about putting some preasure on the local school boards and bring back play time and get big brother out of our lives.