Santa Clara Bans Happy Meal Toys

4-28-2010 @11:48AM Alice said... McDonalds doesn't qualify as food, therefore can't qualify as a treat. There's nothing special about over salted, over processed, frankenfood.

4-28-2010 @11:57AM Lisa said... Governments don't need to regulate toys in meals. I know they think they know best for everyone but it simply isn't true. We can make decisions for our children believe it or not. Do you think for a minute that the parents that don't cook or care are going to stop buying food for their children that isn't good for them because of a toy. Don't think so!

4-28-2010 @2:11PM Will Butler said... @ Alice:

By using an ignorant, fearmongering term like "Frankenfood" you've shown how valueless your opinion is. McDonald's is terrible and should generally be avoided, but everyone knows that. The responsibility for feeding children lies solely with their parents.

5-15-2010 @12:29PM Raiders757 said... Great point. Not only do these toys pollute, they suck up resources to transport and make. I like the small ice cream cone idea. These places should put puzzles on the boxes or in the bags, and if the kid solves them, reward them with a treat instead of a toy that will be tossed aside within hours of receiving it.

4-28-2010 @7:11PM A.D. said... This should be an interesting test case to see how parent's opinions compare to real-world outcomes.

Parent's may not feel that government should be regulating toys in fast-food restaurants, but most people have an aversion to any kind of regulation. Just because we don't always like regulation, doesn't mean it's not good for us (e.g. water quality standards, building fire codes, speed limits, etc.). The way the second poll results are stated would seem to imply that all the participants polled were qualified to make a statement such as: "Removing toys have no affect on childhood obesity rates". I highly doubt that the small handful of parents polled for this survey were all behavioral psychologists, economists, or otherwise so qualified. It may seem intuitive that a toy would not affect obesity rates, but that incentive encourages children to ask their parents to go to fast-food restaurants whenever they have the opportunity. I'd like to see the poll numbers for the question: "How often do you refuse your child's request to eat at a fast-food restaurant?" I'd also like to point out that MediaCurves is run by a private marketing/advertising company and should not be considered unbiased.

Opinion polling aside, I see nothing wrong with ensuring that restaurants giving toys to children also meet a minimum food quality standard. Off the top of my head, I can think of two potential outcomes: the restaurant raises the quality of the food it serves to the benefit of the community's health, or the restaurant's revenue falls--keeping more money in the community to the benefit of their economic health (most fast-food restaurants are multinational chains/franchises that send the bulk of their profits out of state).

4-28-2010 @8:17PM A.D said... This response is directed towards the comments of Stephanie, Maribel, and Erica.

All three of these comments are focused on the parents who may bring their child to a fast-food restaurant. That childhood obesity is the fault of the parent. That society at large, and in particular, the food industry should not be held accountable. Most parents probably are less discerning--shall we say--in regards to their family's diets than they probably should be. I will agree there, but does that mean that the outside world has no affect? Do the plees of hungry children crying out in the back seat have no influence on where a parent stops for lunch? To place all blame solely on one party is rarely appropriate. In fact one comment even notes that though her children don't particularly care for the food, "the only highlight for them is the toy". Would not removing this incentive help her children make a more responsible choice? Should we not encourage more responsible choices with an incentive system that reinforces them or at least does not enforce poor ones?

These comments also seem to interpret the decision of Santa Clara as one that restricts consumer choices. Does removing a bonus toy from a child's meal have any restrictive affects on a consumer's choice? You still have the option of eating there with your family. You still have the option of eating whatever you want on the menu. In fact, the new regulation may cause fast-food restaurants to add healthier alternative kids meals to the menu. Then you'd have even more choices than you had before.

I would also like to offer some praise for Erica's mentioning of New York's requirement that fast-food restaurants disclose what's in their food. This is a point that I agree with. It is my feeling that fast-food should be subject to the same food labeling requirements that packaged food in the grocery store does. If a consumer saw that the sandwich they ordered contains three fourths their daily recommended Calorie intake, it may go a long way towards reducing obesity rates in America.

5-15-2010 @12:37PM Raiders757 said... I really wish the government would go after the food industry. The FDA allows a lot of preservatives and chemicals in our foods that are banned in a lot of other countries. Processed foods need to be better regulated.