|
|
|
Uploaded: Tuesday, April 27, 2010, 5:58 PM
Toys banned for 'unhealthy' fast-food meals
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors acts to encourage healthier meal options for kids
|
|
by Carol Blitzer
Palo Alto Online Staff
Tuesday was a sad day for the McDonald's Happy Meal.
The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors voted to ban toys and other prizes from "unhealthy" children's meals served at restaurants in unincorporated areas of the county.
"We're doing it now because the rates of childhood obesity continue to skyrocket," said Ken Yeager, board president, who introduced the law.
A typical child's meal at a fast-food restaurant can contain 650 calories, more than half a child's daily nutritional need, he said. The ordinance limits meals to 485 calories before "incentive items" can be linked to purchase. (At McDonald's, that means the burger or Chicken McNuggets with apple slices and either 1 percent milk, apple juice or Sprite is OK, but the cheeseburger meals are out.)
"Fast-food industries spend hundreds of millions of dollars on toy giveaways. They know it works; it gets kids to pester their parents," Yeager said.
But fast-food restaurants aren't footing the bill for childhood obesity leading to adult obesity, a key factor in developing diabetes or heart disease, he added.
"Many have called and said this isn't a role government should play, but government has to pay the costs of problems created," Yeager said.
Still, not all parents are supportive of the supervisors' new law. Some accused the board at its meeting Tuesday of "nannyism," Supervisor Liz Kniss said.
"Parents think it's outrageous that someone is telling them how to raise their children. My pushback to that is someone tells you to wear a seatbelt, or a helmet, or not smoke in public places," she added.
"It's one of the boldest things we've done to fight obesity. It calls out you're really going to do something about one of the worst problems in the county, and in the country as well," Kniss said.
Yeager pointed out that this is the first ordinance of its kind in the country, but "we hope it's not the last.
"This isn't a cure-all, but it's a start. What was unconscionable was to do nothing," Yeager said.
"Hats off to any restaurants that do better. ... It would be a great victory if we could get restaurants to reduce calories in kids' meals. They're welcome to give away as many toys as they want," he said.
A second reading of the ordinance, which passed Tuesday on a 3-2 vote with Supervisors Yeager, Kniss and Dave Cortese for it and Donald Gage, George Shirakawa opposed, is scheduled for May 11. The ordinance would go into effect 90 days later.
In addition to the calorie count, the ordinance specifically limits children's meals to 600 mg of salt, 35 percent fat, 10 percent saturated fat, 0.5 grams of trans fat and 10 percent of calories from added sweeteners.Jocelyn Dong contributed to this story. Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by prevention, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Apr 27, 2010 at 7:36 pm Improving public health is the easiest way to reduce health care costs.
|
|
Posted by Unanswered Questions, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 27, 2010 at 8:41 pm What are "unincorporated areas of the county"?
And what is a "second reading of the ordinance"? They vote again or it has passed for sure?
|
|
Posted by answers, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Apr 27, 2010 at 8:56 pm Areas in the county which are not part of cities or towns are unincorporated. The ordnance must pass its second reading to become law.
|
|
Posted by Katie, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 27, 2010 at 9:36 pm This sounds like a very good idea; but, I do think it would be so much nicer if we all got to take a vote on things as impactive as this.
|
|
Posted by qq, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Apr 27, 2010 at 10:18 pm I recommend that anyone that is supportive of this nanny state type legislation read and watch "Free to Choose."
Web Link
It is even more powerful now then it was when it came out.
qq
|
|
Posted by prevention, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Apr 27, 2010 at 10:25 pm Health and life insurance companies should be able to base their rates on the subject's body weight. That will give people a financial reason to stay healthy. No need for junk food nanny laws when raw capitalism will work just as well.
|
|
Posted by Unanswered Questions, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 27, 2010 at 11:04 pm @prevention: Great idea but the obese people (often less educated, thus poorer) will end up with no insurance because they can't afford it. Then they run into the ERs with issues and who pays? People know they won't be left to die in America. They know that if they don't have health insurance, someone will bail them out.
|
|
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 2:28 am
Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online When Ronald sues, there will be clowns on both sides.
|
|
Posted by D.Duck, a resident of the St. Claire Gardens neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 7:36 am I don't know how many calories the toys have but I still don't think you're supposed to eat them? I'm all against eating toys wherever they originate from. Note to Liz and her counterparts, if you really think toys are the reason people eat at fast food joints, then how come grown-ups don't get toys in their meals? Note to those applauding the supervisors actions, check out the Santa Clara County budget deficit and ask yourselfs, are these really the issues we're paying the supervisors to spend our valuable time and money on? Please don't give us smokescreens to divert our attention away from you're inability to control costs. quack.
|
|
Posted by Please leave me alone, a resident of another community, on Apr 28, 2010 at 8:45 am Oh my oh my another do good goober thinking it's for the children.
How's about you figure out how to create better business conditions in SANTA CLARA COUNTY - PEOPLE HAVE TO HAVE JOBS TO CARE FOR THEIR FAMILIES.
THE VERY LAST THING WE NEED IS THIS NANNY TELLING US HOW TO LIVE.
When is the next election for this person?
|
|
Posted by Beth, a resident of Menlo Park, on Apr 28, 2010 at 9:21 am Was McDonald's, or any other fast-food chain, invited to comment on this story? If so, why isn't it mentioned? If not, why not?
|
|
Posted by palo alto mom, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 9:37 am Encouraging healthy eating is great, but there is nothing to prevent a parent from ordering the healthy meal and a side of fries, a burger, etc. on the side. And definitely nothing to prevent a parent from driving to the incorporated parts of the county to avoid this all together. Or the restaurant from charging a nominal amount for the toy instead of giving it away and avoiding the issue. I think all this law will do is penalize a restaurant from being in an unincorporated area.
|
|
Posted by prevention, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 9:42 am Note that the law does not ban toys at fast food restaurants. It only applies to giving away toys with unhealthy high-fat high-sodium meals. Restaurants are welcome to give away toys with average-fat meals.
|
|
Posted by Gethin, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 10:30 am Does anyone really think that banning toys will so change people's buying behavior that child obesity will decrease? Do we really need a law to address this? Maybe we should put a limit on the number of french fries you can have with an order.
|
|
Posted by prevention, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 10:35 am Why don't fast food restaurants give you the option of a salad or fruit instead of french fries with children's meals?
|
|
Posted by SAHM, a member of the Palo Alto High School community, on Apr 28, 2010 at 11:00 am McDonald's does give the option to order sliced apples/caramel instead of fries at no extra charge. But let's be real, the kids who should be skipping the fries will not. Obesity is the result of the home life and education in elementary school is the answer. Banning toys will do nothing to help those who really need the help.
|
|
Posted by Jimmy, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 11:08 am Was a study ever commissioned that definitively correlates the giving of toys as the incentive to eat the food that causes obesity? Is it only those meals that caused the obesity? Get real! The main cuplrit are the parents of the obese children. Unless the County Supervisors are willing to go into the parent's homes and police the meals at home as well as at McDonald's, all the law is going to do is chase business out of Santa Clara County, reduce sales tax revenues, reduce employments, and then our brilliant County Supervisors will be forced to raise taxes to overcome their silly and pet project laws. There are bigger issues than a Happy Meal!
|
|
Posted by prevention, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 11:08 am McDonalds is not stupid. They would not be offering "free" toys with their fatty meals if they didn't think that advertising to children really worked.
|
|
Posted by Trying to Be Healthy Eater, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 11:17 am There are myriad problems with this ban, but folks, the problem is not the calories or fat. That is 1980s, very old school thinking. The biggest problem with mcdonald's and the way most americans eat are the practically nutrient-free carbs (fries, bun, drinks), which lead to overeating since we are a population that is simultaneously stuffed with calories yet starved for nutrients.
Once trans fats were finally removed from studies on ill health effects of fat, it was found that saturated fat does not cause heart disease or stroke - here is a link. Web Link
The other problems with Mickey Ds are: too much GMO corn, factory farmed meats and poultry, heating carbs to high temperatures (creates cancer-causing acrylamides), the high fructose corn syrup in the sodas that leads to diabetes and obesity, and the excitoxin in diet sodas known as aspartame/nutrasweet which causes people to overeat and causes neurological problems.
With the intelligence in our community, I can't believe McDonald's is even still in business locally. If you know anything, you wouldn't eat there.
Any kid who wants a toy will just order the hamburger or nuggets, or beg his/her parents to go to a nearby Mickey Ds, so the council has really just banned happy meal cheeseburgers at certain locations?
|
|
Posted by JustMe, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 11:26 am Has anyone here ever tried to order a child a healthier meal when that child has his/her heart set on the toy that only comes with the unhealthy happy meal? It is a good way to provoke a fight with the child in a public place, and possible even provoke a refusal to eat. Who here appreciates being placed in that position?
My daughter FAR prefers McDonald's chicken selects to the yucko chicken nuggets, and I don't blame her. (I think they taste better in addition to being ever so slightly better for you.) But the toy is not offered with the selects. If they are going to offer a toy, why do they HAVE to couple it to the least healthy items on their menu? Is it because the more toxic food is cheaper and offsets the cost of the toy? Is it their way of getting kids to eat the worse food that would not get bought otherwise?
I also have a problem with the choices for toys that are offered with kids meals. I know that the toys are subsidized by other companies as a way to market their products like movies and stuff. But why on earth would you pair a toy from a PG13 movie with violent, sexual, and profane content to the VERY young children the happy meals usually go to? Those movies are not appropriate for those children, so why push the message that the kids should see them?
Keep in mind that many parents do NOT properly filter what their kids are exposed to, but the kids then take the hit for having stupid or uncaring parents. I don't think the kids should take the hit for that. We sould be instead encouraging parents to take their kids to age-appropriate movies and NOT take 4-year-olds to see "Starship Troopers", which I have seen done.
|
|
Posted by Big Al, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 11:33 am How dare anybody try to do something to get multinational coorporations from marketing there garbage to our children.
This is un-American behavior. Everybody know the we have a
right to over indulge while the world goes up in flames.
|
|
Posted by RT, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 11:55 am So, now we are legislating parental-control?
Parents can't say "no", so now we have to have government say "no"?
Our children are faced with all kinds of temptations every day. It is up to PARENTS to guide them through those tempations, not the government.
|
|
Posted by RT, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 12:02 pm For JustME
"Has anyone here ever tried to order a child a healthier meal when that child has his/her heart set on the toy that only comes with the unhealthy happy meal? It is a good way to provoke a fight with the child in a public place, and possible even provoke a refusal to eat. Who here appreciates being placed in that position?"
Yes, I have been in that position. And do you know what I did? I took my child and left the restaurant - child screaming in tow. Was is pleasant? No. But it's called parenting. Just because we go somewhere, is the child entitled to anything that he/she wants?
Again, there are LOTS of things my child wants that are unhealthly for my child. But I believe that I am in the best position to make those decisions for my family, NOT the government.
|
|
Posted by G-M, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 12:42 pm Well, I guess its a little late for me to contact the board of supervisors. The problem with this nanny-state ideology is that it only encourages more and more reliance on the state to solve problems rather than people growing up and taking care of themselves. Has government sustainably solved any social problems? Seriously - have they?
The obesity problem takes individuals waking up and making healthy nutrition and exercise choices, and responsibly raising your children. You can't legislate that. Oh, I'm sure they'll keep trying, and they'll keep failing. Meanwhile they are wasting our time and money.
I'm sure the board of supervisors is well meaning, but they are certainly naive. This will have no impact.'
My blood pressure is returning to high-normal now that I see this won't affect the Rengstorff McDonalds.
Hey - here's an idea...why don't you cut one of the myriad of useless things you spend OUR money on, and have P.E. in schools more than once per week.
|
|
Posted by JustMe, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 1:13 pm The problem is that while you are trying to be a good parent, there are millions of dollars being spent by companies to find ways to circumvent your control of what your kids are exposed to. Thankfully joe Camel has been shot and buried, but there are more and more assaults on "parental controls" being launched all the time. If you really want to protect your children, you have to virtually wall in your house, cut off TV and internet access, and turn your home into a prison. Companies will provide "educational" materials to our schools that promote their products. Toys and sugar tempt our kids away from healthy foods and are being actively promoted by many companies. We put ratings on movies to help parents filter out inappropriate stuff but they are still being promoted to our kids through advertising on TV and toys aimed at kids (in theory) too young to see the movie. We put a rating system on video games that is effectively a joke because any 7-year-old can buy GTA with his birthday money and have virtual sex with a prostitute before murdering her with a baseball bat, or he can just go over to a friend's house to do it because (it turns out) the parents exercise less controls than you do.
I was watching my kids watching a Disney animated movie at their grandparents house one Christmas and a commercial came on depicting a guy playing strip poker with a bunch of girls who lost the hand and stood to take off their blouses. This is the crap that is being shoved at your kids when you think it is safe to turn your back for a moment. As a parent you are pretty much on your own against armies of well-paid marketing scum determined that thier ability to push their product trumps your need to protect your kids. How do we counter that? We asked the video gaming industry to self-police and it is a joke. We are TRYING to be good parents, but we are under constant attack, and then you blame us for not properly protecting our kids? how about you give us a few weapons (laws) to counter their weapons. I am getting tired of wagging my finger at a machine gun.
|
|
Posted by Tom, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 1:23 pm As I read the comments here, I'm astounded at the level of ranting against the government and against parents, as opposed to the reaction toward corporate behavior (McDonalds) that is clearly not in the public interest. The reaction to the latter is equivalent to "boys will be boys" -- "corporations will do what corporations do". We as a society finally got the [fill in the blank] to make it harder for tobacco companies to stop killing us, especially our kids. If corporations cannot stop themselves from contributing to one of the worst health issues in our country, then government may have to put some constraints on them. Please tell me that you don't think deregulating Wall Street was a good thing.
|
|
Posted by Denes, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 2:40 pm Becarefull, I can see eating disorders back on the rise. What is suppose to be healthy? Paper thin. Not all cultures are ment to look like a run way model. It is up to the parent of a child to decide what that child is to eat. If it is a life or death situation (not just because the child is not a size 2)leave them a lone. Requireing that a child's meal be limited to a possilbe 485 calories is crazy.
Push exercise. Stop team sports from charging an arm and a leg so more families can afford to have their child participate.
None, unincorporated.... what area is unincorporated? Is this the lower economic areas.
I think the $5.00 pizza joints are going to really start raking in the doe.
Wow! What next?
|
|
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 3:02 pm Our kids never watched commercial tv when they were young, only pbs and videos. On the few occasions they were taken to MacDonalds (for fast food on long car trips) they didn't know about the toys as they had never seen the advertising and we could buy them what we wanted them to eat. Never a problem.
|
|
Posted by RT, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 3:08 pm As I read the comments here, I'm astounded that people do not feel empowered enough to take control/teach their own children about what is right and what is wrong - but instead expect the government to protect them from the world. Has it ever occurred to you that it's the parents that take their kids into McDonalds in the first place? Ok, so there isn't a toy with the Happy Meal - do think the kid will then say "oh, ok, I'll have a salad."? No, the kid is just going to a cheeseburger, fries and a sugary drink anyway. The toy is just McDonalds way of trying to get the kid to come back to McDonalds, period - they don't care what the kid orders - they just want the kid to want to come back. If McDonalds changed their policy to give out a toy for every kid that spent more than $3 - would you legislate against that? What if an ice cream store gave away a toy - would you legislate against that?
There is no hope for a country whose citizens relinquish their own judgment to the judgment of their government.
|
|
Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 3:12 pm I was in my car and heard the very last of Liz Kniss on the Ronn Owens show on KGO radio. I was stunned at the hostile tone of Ms. Kniss, she really came across as offensive as a man (caller to the radio show) attempted to make some valid points. I think, like most things, this is debatable, but politicians need to temper their tones and not talk down to citizens since they are supposedly working on behalf of the public.
|
|
Posted by Banning-Plastic-Will-Save-The-Earth?, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 3:55 pm > but politicians need to temper their tones and not talk down to
> citizens since they are supposedly working on behalf of the public
Not Liz Kniss .. she has decided she knows more about living our lives than we do. When she was on the Palo Alto City Council she helped to ban smoking in certain public places. At some point, she made the claim: "I wish we could ban smoking in all of Palo Alto." (Which means people's homes.)
It would be interesting to see how many different activities Liz Kniss has had a hand in--smoking, fire places, toys with "happy meals", gun sellers permits in Palo Alto, plastic bags .. (and who knows how many more?)
|
|
Posted by SteveU, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 4:15 pm
SteveU is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online Another Nanny state waste of public officials time.
Parents: "No" is your job.
Why am I paying for someone to do your job?
|
|
Posted by Bill, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 4:31 pm The parents who are incapable of stopping their children from ordering what they consider to be unhealthy options at a McDonalds have an easy option-- DON'T TAKE YOUR KIDS TO MCDONALDS! If it is such an evil company and has so many issues just don't go there. How hard is that?
McDonalds is a company out to make a buck. They have created variations of the kids meals to include apples and milk. Do you all think you have the right to force McD's to start selling beef and to only carry gardenburgers???
I am pretty liberal, but all of this talk of things that are good for you just get me steamed.
If you have kids and are concerned, grow a spine and parent them. If you are concerned about other kids, mind your own business!
|
|
Posted by Bill, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 4:31 pm The parents who are incapable of stopping their children from ordering what they consider to be unhealthy options at a McDonalds have an easy option-- DON'T TAKE YOUR KIDS TO MCDONALDS! If it is such an evil company and has so many issues just don't go there. How hard is that?
McDonalds is a company out to make a buck. They have created variations of the kids meals to include apples and milk. Do you all think you have the right to force McD's to start selling beef and to only carry gardenburgers???
I am pretty liberal, but all of this talk of things that are good for you just get me steamed.
If you have kids and are concerned, grow a spine and parent them. If you are concerned about other kids, mind your own business!
|
|
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online Just the other day I was driving along, turn signal flashing away, when a clownmobile herded me into the entry to a McDs. As everybody knows you have to buy your way out of there. I left with a lap full of McEggs, McBurgers, McScotchfries and a McCoffee [non-dairy creamer and sugar sub, of course]. God and Liz [or is it the other way around?] protect me.
|
|
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Just put a heavy "sin tax" on HF corn syrup and trans fats and the obesity and related health problems will decline.
Also treat the obese as we now do smokers
It has worked with smoking, how many smokers do you see in Palo Alto compared with 20 years ago?
On Stanford Campus around 3% are smokers.
|
|
Posted by Maggie, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 5:17 pm This law wasn't created to control what parents feed their kids or to make the world a size two. It was created to keep corporations from tricking kids into wanting unhealthy food simply because the meal in question comes with a Spongebob toy. It's about time someone made this move.
|
|
Posted by Toady, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 5:26 pm "It was created to keep corporations from tricking kids into wanting unhealthy food simply because the meal in question comes with a Spongebob toy"
If you let corporations "trick" your kid, something is wrong with your lazy parenting.
|
|
Posted by Maria, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Apr 28, 2010 at 10:47 pm MCDONALDS (and all it's variants) SHOULD BE OUTLAWED!
|
|
Posted by If you need yet one more example of Big Brother..., a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2010 at 6:03 am Bureacrats try to control and tax everything we do now..they tell us what toilets to buy, what lightbulbs to buy that don't work with the dimmers they tell us we have to buy, what cars to buy, ..they want to tell us how much oil we can use, how much electricity we can use, how much salt we can use, ..and now, whether or not we, as parents, are smart enough to know how to raise our kids ...
why is that kids were THINNER before Govt became so intrusive 40 years ago? Look at class pictures then..no welfare kids, and amazingly enough, virtually no fat kids.
Why are the "poor" kids ( I use quotes because the "poor" kids now have a hell of a lot more than I had growing up "middle class")..the fat kids?
Now that 30% of most school districts have "free lunch" programs for the poor, who are on welfare and food stamps...our kids are fat?
So, the more government rules and "compassion" we have, the worse off the kids.
There is a lesson here, folks. We are killing our society with "kindness". Codependence is NOT good for anyone, individuals or societies.
Until we learn that, until the folks enslaved by codependent "kindness" wake, get the hell out of my life, government! Stop telling me how to live and how to raise my kids. I am a hell of a lot smarter and more able than anyone in government, and I don't need anyone telling me how to do my job.
And Maria, I invite you to live somewhere that govt does exactly what you wish it would, outlaw businesses. I am sure your life would be much better.
|
|
Posted by res, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2010 at 8:55 am I also heard Liz Kniss on the Ron Owens show and was surprised by her tone. A caller suggested it would make more sense to leave McD's alone and change the menus at the schools. She agreed and said she would like to, but said the supervisors have no authority there. That's when she lost my vote. Even if the super's can't legislate it, they should encourage the schools to provide the healthiest meals possible, not pass legislating private business. If they really care about children, do what will have more impact but maybe take more effort than just passing a law to restrict McD's.
Oh, the irony here, now the pot clubs are springing up all over -- Mountain View just got one -- so your 5 year old can't get a toy at McD's but your 15 year old might find it easier to get pot!
The other telling statement that Liz made was it is the super's duty to protect the county's people's health and welfare. She justified this by saying we all pay for obesity through the health care system. Well, what's next? If the supers have to watch our health and keep costs down, this is just the beginning of more Nannism!
|
|
Posted by jazzman1954, a resident of another community, on Apr 29, 2010 at 10:30 am since the gov't is mandating what we CAN'T eat, how about subsidizing he cost of healthy foods that many families cannot afford to buy (fruits, vegtables, better cuts of meats/poultry)
Gov't is controlling us TOO much, another example is limiting sodium in processed foods, that is a choice someone makes. as for myself since I was diagnosed with HB, I cut back and watched what I ate and also dropped alot of weight, now I am off my HB meds (with my Dr's ok).
it is all about 1) what we can afford and secondly about choices, alot of times cost wins over healthy choices
|
|
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2010 at 10:56 am It isn't just all about cost (although that does have a lot to do with it) but convenience and availability. For many families with busy lives, it is simpler to stop for fast food as it is cheap and everyone will eat it, rather than to shop for groceries then cook at home from scratch.
When I was growing up, eating out was an infrequent and expensive treat. Nowadays, the microwave is the most used appliance in the kitchen and kids learning to cook at home is a bygone art.
Jamie Oliver is leading the movement to eating healthier as a family as well as at school. It is somewhat ironic that a foreigner has to teach Americans how to cook and eat.
|
|
Posted by R Wray, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2010 at 12:03 pm I hope all you progressive big-government people on this forum will find your suitable government manual of celery and carrot sticks for you kids. That may satisfy your quilt of wanting your children to flourish as happy individuals, but I doubt it. Next you will want to force me into everyone of your do-gooder schemes--oops, you already do that.
|
|
Posted by PA mom, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2010 at 3:49 pm I second what JustMe and Tom said.
|
|
Posted by Crescent Park Dad, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2010 at 5:08 pm I appreciate those who are concerned about the corporate money grab via marketing and unhealthy foods. The answer is simple however - don't go to the restaurant. You can't stop the advertising and promotion. But you don't have to get in your car and drive there! If don't go there, you don't have the conflict that so many are complaining about. McD's has never been a destination for us.
I find the supe's resolution akin to tilting at windmills at best. This "ban" will do nothing to suppress the advertising and promotion of the happy meals. Further, parents who are determined to "treat" their children to a HM, will just go to a McD's that is located inside a city limit, not in the unincorp. area of SCCo.
Taxing unhealthy meals (ala New York City) and then using the funds to educate children (and perhaps a subset of parents) on healthier choices would have been a much more thoughtful program.
There is still an economics (both financial and mental) problem - it is far easier, faster and less expensive to do a McD's meal for a family of 4 than it is to buy "quality" produce, meat/fowl/fish, etc. - plus the prep, shopping and cooking time.
Until parents and families understand the real costs of high-fat and/or sugar content meals - diabetes, heart disease, obesity, etc. - they will not "pay more" to eat right. If you attempt to limit their choice at a fast food place in the county, they'll just go to the next place in a city.
Education of the mind and body, not by force of the 2x4 to my happy meal if when I want one...
Besides, In-n-Out is far superior to McD's!!! ;-)
|
|
Posted by Toy Collector, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2010 at 6:09 pm I disagree totally with Justme and Tom. As a matter of fact when the story first broke, I quickly checked to see what toys I had missed out on with McDonald's Happy Meals and discovered the Alvin and the Chipmunks Squeakquel set were something I had missed. No problems, I just ordered the whole set from E-Bay. Thanks for bringing much needed publicity to Happy Meal toys. I haven't been to McDonalds for many months now.
I have read in several articles about the Happy Meal Toy Ban, that parents were desperately eating out at McDonalds every day or week to collect a particular set of toys.
Look, you don't have to buy a meal there to get the toy. You can simply buy the toy from McDonalds. Or the complete set on E-bay for less than all those Happy Meals. I don't like the food at McDonalds and I think its unhealthy for my kids. If they want a Happy Meal toy, I go in there and buy them one, if I feel they deserve it, and we go eat elsewhere.
I don't think we have too many 5 or 6 year olds going into McDonalds by themselves to get a Happy Meal. I also don't see older kids and teenagers buying Happy Meals. So this is an issue of parents that lack self control or smarts. If your kids are fat due to Happy Meals, that isn't McDonald's problem, that's your problem. How often are you eating there with the kids? Stop already. Lets pass a law mandating sterilization for people that take their kids to McDonalds so often they get fat.
If you let your kids hang out with kids that have porno, violent video games that you don't approve of, liquor or drugs, it seems to me your parenting skills need some refreshing. Additional laws are not going to solve your problem, if you habitually blame everyone else for you and your kids consumption problems.
No toys in the Happy Meal! You have got to be kidding me. Once again this area is the punch line to a joke. The Nazis have won, we must do everything we can to overthrow this regime.
|
|
Posted by Toy Collector, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2010 at 6:22 pm I repeat again, to make very clear to the many many Palo Altans here that know NOTHING about McDonalds. You do not have to buy a Happy Meal to get the toy. You can buy the toy by itself for a nominal price at McDonalds. You don't even have to buy anything else, to buy the toy. So there is NO EXCUSE for feeling compelled to buy a Happy Meal to get the toy when you can buy the toy alone. Except maybe ignorance. We all know the cure for ignorance, a little education, heh.
|
|
Posted by Parent, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2010 at 10:34 pm Fast food restaurants are not the cause of obesity. We can load our carts up with thousands of unhealthful items at Safeway every week. Maybe they should be prohibited from selling any toys in their stores.
|
|
Posted by R Wray, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 30, 2010 at 9:59 am I wonder how JustMe and Tom would react if they lived in parts of the world where there is no capitalism and no corporations. As they watch their children scratch in the dirt for a few seeds to eat, would they direct the local witch doctor to ban the type of beetles that may also picked up? After all, the fat beetles provide too many choices and too much nutrition.
BTW, free markets are good, even on Wall Street.
|
|
Posted by Maggie, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Apr 30, 2010 at 10:07 pm "If you let corporations "trick" your kid, something is wrong with your lazy parenting."
Subliminal advertising (and sometimes not so subliminal advertising) is everywhere. It isn't the fault of the kids or the parents or the government or even the corporations. Everyone shares a little bit of blame, and we all need to work together to decide what kind of society we want to live in and what we think is responsible behavior on the part of big business.
And just for the record, Toady, I'm 17.
|
|
Posted by If you need yet one more example of Big Brother..., a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on May 1, 2010 at 4:06 am Well, obviously if we want a govt strong enough and smart enough to forbid parents from buying food that has toys with it, we would agree with a govt strong enough and smart enough to forbid us from buying more than one apartment...
Read this link to Bejing limiting the number of apartments anyone can buy to "one"...you know, to protect folks from their foolish decisions..geez. ( The same govt that was strong enough and smart enough to limit kids to one per family...you know, for their own good and the good of the society)
Web Link
|
|
|
| |
Best Website
First Place
2009-2012
|
Send this story
Print this story
