Posted on April 27, 2010 by duo
By Bruce McQuain

Image courtesy of http://plasticless.com/
Convinced that Happy Meals and other food promotions aimed at children could make kids fat as well as happy, county officials in Silicon Valley are poised to outlaw the little toys that often come with high-calorie offerings.
The proposed ban is the latest in a growing string of efforts to change the types of foods aimed at youngsters and the way they are cooked and sold. Across the nation, cities, states and school boards have taken aim at excessive sugar, salt and certain types of fats.
Believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, the proposal would forbid the inclusion of a toy in any restaurant meal that has more than 485 calories, more than 600 mg of salt or high amounts of sugar or fat. In the case of McDonald’s, the limits would include all of the chain’s Happy Meals — even those that include apple sticks instead of French fries.
Because Nanny knows best, one size fits all, and besides you parents out there are just incompetent.
Supporters say the ban would encourage restaurants to offer more-nutritious foods to kids and would make unhealthful items less appealing. But opponents believe it amounts to government meddling in parental decisions. The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors will consider the proposal Tuesday.
Anyone – do you really believe that taking a toy out of a meal will make the meal “less appealing”, or do you suppose the taste of the meal has more to do with the appeal and the toy is just a bonus. Or ask another way, if you take the kids to McD’s and toys are no longer available, will they order or want something other than what is normally found in a Happy Meal.
My four grandson survey says “no”. But the nanny’s will not be denied:
Ken Yeager, the Santa Clara County supervisor who is behind the effort, says the toys in kids’ meals are contributing to America’s obesity epidemic by encouraging children to eat unhealthful, fattening foods.
“People ask why I want to take toys out of the hands of children,” said Yeager, who is president of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. “But we now know that 70% of the kids that are overweight or obese will be overweight or obese as adults. Why would we want to burden anybody with a lifetime of chronic illness?”
Who is “we” Mr. Yeager and by what right do you reach down into a retail establishment and decide what it can or can’t offer to its customers? Just as importantly, since when is it the role of government to decide what is or isn’t appropriate for someone to eat?
This is just the beginning of what you can expect to see from the food nazis (the FDA and salt?) now that government health care reform is law.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by longhawl. longhawl said: They’re Taking the ‘Happy’ Out of Happy Meals For Your Own Good http://is.gd/bK62Q #tcot #hhrs #sgp #rs #pwa #fda [...]
“…by what right do you reach down into a retail establishment and decide what it can or can’t offer to its customers?”
When kids toys ship to the US with lead paint in them, I want government to regulate that and tell stores they can’t sell it. Government also already regulates conditionally-legal products like drugs and guns. So if they’re citing 70% overweight/obese kids, 70% of parents aren’t doing their job as well as they should. Not to blame the parents, because kids are hard, stressful, manipulative, and it’s easy to lets the weight thing slide. But if that 70% was the cancer rate in kids instead of the obesity rate, wouldn’t you want someone to step in if there was someone marketing cigarettes or lead-painted toys to kids? Heart disease kills as much people as cancer in the US, so it’s clearly a health issue, not just a parenting issue.
Telling stores they can’t sell toys with lead paint in them is quite another thing than telling stores that they can’t sell toys because they may make your kid overweight because he/she isn’t outside running and playing… ~hmmmm