McDonald's will charge for Happy Meal toys in SF

[alp227]

Source: SF Chronicle

McDonald's announced today that it would comply with San Francisco's ban on toy giveaways in kids' meals high in fat, salt and sugar by charging customers for the plastic trinkets.

The Heathy Food Incentives Ordinance, which was passed by the Board of Supervisors and withstood a veto by then-Mayor Gavin Newsom last fall, goes into effect Thursday.

Chain restaurants in San Francisco no longer will be able to give away toys with Happy Meals and other children's meals that don't meet the city's strict nutritional standards.

The city drew scrutiny nationwide for passing the ban, with some calling it a good move to combat childhood obesity, while others mocked it as nanny state politics.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/29/BAUR1M5NCE.DTL

[slackmaster]

1. Heckuva job, esteemed Supervisors! You helped sustain corporate profits...

...And hurt children and working-class families in one fell swoop!

[IamK]

2. Ronald McDonald 1 SF 0...... nice move my red haired, big footed friend...

:toast:

[truthisfreedom]

3. So they'll charge what, a penny? And we're right back where we started.

Would you like a toy with that for a penny?

[Imajika]

5. 10 cents actually - the Happy Meal will just cost 10 cents more...

This law accomplished absolutely nothing.

"Instead of reducing fat, salt and sugar in children's meals and offering more fruits and vegetables, Rodrick's stores will adhere to the law Thursday by making customers pay an extra 10 cents for a Happy Meal toy. Customers who buy Happy Meals outside San Francisco, including just across the border in Daly City, will continue to get the toy gratis."

Nothing will change, parents will buy the Happy Meal and just pay a dime extra for the toy. Exactly how much time did the San Francisco city supervisors waste on this? Can the tax payers get a refund for the time they wasted?

[quakerboy]

9. So Can I go to MCD's and just buy the toy?

[blueclown]

4. Parents need to make the right choices and resist the demands of their children.

The fact that many won't does not make San Francisco's decision to pass this legislation last year wrong.

[Imajika]

6. It makes it a waste of time...

This will have accomplished nothing.

[slackmaster]

10. Government spending time and resources on a futile endeavor is inherently wrong

:argh:

[blueclown]

12. Are you the final arbiter on what a "futile endeavor" is?

The San Francisco legislature responded to the demands of their constituents, many of whom expressed concerns about the packaging of toys in meals of dubious nutritional value. Yet, we have slackmaster at the Democratic Underground, in his or her infinite wisdom, to tell the citizens of San Francisco that banning this unethical practice is a futile endeavor. Thanks for clearing this up for everybody.

Is providing health care for all a "futile endeavor"? If it isn't to you, then it may be to others. Where do we draw the line?

[slackmaster]

14. It's unfortunate that you are not able to discuss this topic without stooping to personal attacks

:nuke:

[blueclown]

16. I never made a personal attack.

Can you please address my question?

[AllyCat]

11. I resist the demands of my kids to eat at McDonald's every time

Awful food, poor quality, expensive, and full of chemicals. Not only that, there is not one vegetarian thing on the menu except the salad without the meat for which the non-meat eater will pay full price. I can make a breakfast sandwich at home, one for each member of the family for the price of one 4-6 bite sandwich of dubious quality and no flavor at Smicks.

[slackmaster]

15. It's been more than 15 years since I've eaten anything from McD's

I got sick from it one time too many.

[wordpix]

17. i think i took my daughter to McD's about 4x her entire childhood

a real treat for her when driving the NJ Tpk - I hate fast food except McD's soft i. cream

[apocalypsehow]

20. It sure worked, didn't it?

:eyes:

[christx30]

7. People will find

a way around stupid, intrusive laws. Might as well not pass them. Waste of the city's time, waste of the taxpayer's money. And it accomplishes nothing.
Ok SF. What scourge on humanity do you want to try to tackle next? My guess is that it's going to be like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown. You are just going to end up flat on your back. Huzzah!

[No Elephants]

8. The RW is a hoot.

[hughee99]

13. At the time, I failed to see in any way how it "combatted childhood obesity".

The toy is a marketing gimmick to be sure, but it's not really designed to get children who would normally eat healthy to eat unhealthy, it's designed for children who were going to eat unhealthy (for that meal) to eat THEIR unhealthy food instead of someone else's.

As far as the "fee" goes, if a parent is already willing to give in and take the child to McDonalds on a REGULAR BASIS (children who only go to McDonalds once in a while aren't fat because of McDonalds), are they really expecting them to draw the line at the extra 10 cent toy?

If they're going to go "nanny state" anyway, don't try to outlaw the Happy Meal on some technicality, go all out and try to mandate specific nutritional parameters for happy meals (under X calories, X servings of fruits/vegetables, etc...). If the revamped happy meal was relatively healthy, who cares about the free toy?

[KamaAina]

18. They did

Mickey D's feeble attempt at a healthy* Happy Meal didn't make the cut nutritionally. Hence, this end run around the ordinance.

[hughee99]

22. If I recall correctly, their attempt basically amounted to them

requiring McD's to serve fruit (which they offer anyway) and keep the calories below a certain level. I think the problem was that they mis-diagnosed the root cause though, and therefore came up with an unworkable solution. It sounds like they believe the children were eating unhealthy because they went to McD's for the toy. If you take away the toy, or change the meal that comes with it, these same children will all the sudden become healthy eaters. As I've said, children don't eat unhealthy just to get the toy, these children eat unhealthy ANYWAY and do it at McD's instead of other establishments to get the toy.

If the choice is always left to the children (which it shouldn't be), many will eat unhealthy. If you take the toy away at fast food places, those children will still eat unhealthy, and just not get a toy with it. If you make McD's substitute apple slices for fries, then kids who want fries will get a happy meal (with apple slices) and an addition order of fries. You can't effectively address this issue from the "supply side" (the fast food menu), unless you want to treat unhealthy food like alcohol or tobacco and require a minimum age. Parents need to take a larger role in their children's nutrition, and both parents and children need to be better educated on it. That's they only way to fix the problem.

[lynne]

19. The good news is that the toy fee will go to charity -

- from the article:

"Proceeds from the toy sales will be used to help build a new Ronald McDonald House to temporarily house families with sick children at the new UCSF Hospital under construction at the Mission Bay campus."

The Nanny-Staters got a swift kick to the groin and the charity will get the funds. Sounds like a win-win to me.

[apocalypsehow]

21. I know: I was, for the first time in my life, cheering McDonalds on. Glad this silly SF law is being

flouted with near impunity.