Officials of Santa Clara County “vote to ban toys and other promotions that restaurants offer with high-calorie children’s meals.” [L.A. Times] More: Alkon (“There is a solution to this sort of thing. It’s called parents.”), Cavanaugh/Reason.
Officials of Santa Clara County “vote to ban toys and other promotions that restaurants offer with high-calorie children’s meals.” [L.A. Times] More: Alkon (“There is a solution to this sort of thing. It’s called parents.”), Cavanaugh/Reason.
4 Comments
Did I misunderstand the linked article? I think it’s only the toy enticement that’s banned, and not the meal. The title could be interpreted otherwise. I do agree that the decision should be up to the parents, and not the government.
No toy unless the caloric amount is below a certain point. The point is so low that 4 piece chicken McNuggets, a part of an apple cut up to look like French Fries, and some watered-down(lowfat) milk has too many calories (485) to allow a toy.
“I think it’s only the toy enticement that’s banned, and not the meal. ”
The toy(s) are what make a Happy Meal a Happy Meal as well as a happy meal.
To me this is mere grandstanding. As noted, it is not the high-calorie etc. meal that is banned, The children of Santa Clara county may eat all the fats, sugars, salts and chemical additives they or their parents can afford. They just will not be occupied with a toy while doing so (which pre-occupation might in fact cause them to eat less and therefore be healthier for them).
I only read the LA Times piece. Wouldn’t it be at least partially useful to include something in this article that supported the alleged connection between toy-inclusion and health? Pretend there was, “in a study conducted by XYZ University, children were X-times more likely to…” Somewhere in this bizarre ordinance is a money-trail. I’m surprise Henry Waxman’s name doesn’t creep in, either.