Toys in Fast Food Kids Meals Made Illegal

[hitoshura0]

Also how many parents do you know that are willing to crunch out all these numbers for their children, especially when Mom is in a hurry to get John to soccer practice? Especially when these calorie counts are not listed in the restaurant itself (will change soon).

It doesn't need number crunching though. Most people I know reasonably assume that what you're eating at Mc Donalds is not healthy, so you should do it sparingly. I also know that even before "Supersize Me" was popular, people knew it was junk, I don't think people knew how grave it was. Sure, the soccer mom might be rushed, but she should at least be able to cook for her kids almost every night, or at least find something stupid to make that's reasonably healthy other than Mc Donalds all the time. I can go to a grocery store and find premade sandwiches, a salad bar, or some kind of soup that's premade. Another thing, calories are a horrible indication of health in a food. Those soccer practice kids actually need more calories than normal due to the increased activity. Your more primary factors for health is sodium, saturated vs unsaturated fats, carbs, sugars, protiens, and vitamins. A high caorie food like pasta is good for you, especially in the soccer case because all those calories are carbohydrates. Also, the courts "proved" that it isn't McDonald's fault for making us fat by throwing out a law suit in 2003.

Is it partially the fast food companies' faults? Yes. Are they completely at fault? No. Are "overrushed" parents free from fault? No. In the end, you aren't forced into a Mc Donalds by mind controlling beams, so you or as a parent for their child say, "No, I'm not eating here. Let's go get a salad."

Also, Mc Donalds has been required for years to provide their nutritional facts in stores, and I've seen them on the placemats and posters they've had. They're no bigger than nutrition label's on foods you buy at the store, because that is the required size by the law. If you want, tomorrow I'll take a picture of it and post it here.

 

[foxyman1167]

Removing toys from the kids meal isn't going to do a lot, except maybe save a few kids from choking on the small parts and/or lowering the amount of people who buy a kids meal. Regardless, its certainly not going to stop people permanently, if thats what they were trying to do.

 

[bel9]

It doesn't need number crunching though. Most people I know reasonably assume that what you're eating at Mc Donalds is not healthy, so you should do it sparingly. I also know that even before "Supersize Me" was popular, people knew it was junk, I don't think people knew how grave it was. Sure, the soccer mom might be rushed, but she should at least be able to cook for her kids almost every night, or at least find something stupid to make that's reasonably healthy other than Mc Donalds all the time.

Absolutely true. Nobody ever though McDonald’s was a perfect meal (well maybe back when it started). She (or the father in my case, he was the true chef) should be able to but this is not always the case. That is why it is sad to see unhealthy but convenient foods take precedence over healthy foods. But it can get more difficult when both parents work and different children have different activities going on (the over-booked child syndrome).

Another thing, calories are a horrible indication of health in a food. Those soccer practice kids actually need more calories than normal due to the increased activity. Your more primary factors for health is sodium, saturated vs unsaturated fats, carbs, sugars, protiens, and vitamins. A high calorie food like pasta is good for you, especially in the soccer case because all those calories are carbohydrates.

True. Couldn’t agree more. To simply use calories as a sole indication of a food’s dietary value is not accurate. But then how are kids still getting fat? Even when they do engage in some forms of physical activity. People seem to paint obese children as children who watch television 24/7, play videogames ALL the time and don’t engage in physical activity. But there are plenty of obese children who get enough exercise but still remain obese (slow metabolisms mixed with McDonald’s can be a terrible combination). How many children or parents have a clear indication of their/their child’s metabolism at such a young age?

And in this day and age with “food scientists” as Michael Pollan has described in the book “In Defense of Food” there is no one perfect way to determine how healthy a food is (can’t look solely at one piece of info like sodium, carbs, sugars, etc) because the food industry will work to suppress that number while spiking the others.

The law however also points out that sodium must be kept under 600 mg and the fat calories must be less than 35%.

Also, the courts "proved" that it isn't McDonald's fault for making us fat by throwing out a law suit in 2003.

Yeah those lawsuits are pretty much bullsh*t. And I mean that by it shouldn’t be something everybody can line up to try to sue these corporations for “making them fat.” It is just an indication of consumer’s continuous greed, instead of supporting future efforts against the companies they seek out fast money.
But that doesn’t really seem to be “proof” of anything to me. You may want to rephrase that to something like “found” it was not solely McDonald’s fault.

Is it partially the fast food companies' faults? Yes. Are they completely at fault? No. Are "overrushed" parents free from fault? No.

In the end, you aren't forced into a Mc Donalds by mind controlling beams, so you or as a parent for their child say, "No, I'm not eating here. Let's go get a salad."

This could be argued. Yes everyone deserves their fair share of the blame. Although some people are quick to call this “food facism” they never stop to question the marketing that goes into this. As I stated before it is everywhere. Try to navigate the “child-friendly” internet, watch “child-friendly” television, or go through a walk in places like Times Square. It is this advertising fascism that is bombarding us with images everyday and even night. I have looked up on a late night walk home once to see a giant M/ spotlight in the sky. McDonald’s of course trying to draw attention to itself, disrupting what little serene beauty I can find in the stars at night in suburbia.

So no, not mind control beams but they are doing a damn well good job at getting my attention, making me think about them when I don’t need to. They also pour money into marketing and “breaking through the noise” finding new ways to put their name in front of people- whether those people want to or not.

Also, Mc Donalds has been required for years to provide their nutritional facts in stores, and I've seen them on the placemats and posters they've had. They're no bigger than nutrition label's on foods you buy at the store, because that is the required size by the law. If you want, tomorrow I'll take a picture of it and post it here.

True. I don't doubt you. Look at the overwhelming changes that have shaken their business plan. They went from “supersizing” and “health compromising” to at least allowing different options for a happy meal. But now they will have to show calorie counts on the menus as well. We will have to see how effective they turn out to be.

Listen I am just partially playing devil’s advocate on this issue to respond to people saying “it’s solely the parent’s fault and no one else,” or things like “fatty needs to get some exercise,” or "It will have absolutely no effect." I don’t think it is necessarily addresses the whole issue.
Why not give this law a chance? It is in a county in California- not the entire United States. It is not an end all law that will take effect all over America- nor is it the single solution to our obesity woes. I think it is an overall interesting experiment. And to those who say the toys won't effect anything McDonald's included toys when their business was first going downhill as a way, with many other gimmicks, to boost sales- which they did. Now who knows what the effect on sales will be today without a toy. It will have some kind of effect. We will just have to wait and see how.

Toys in happy meals currently send a message to children, even when they eat at McDonald’s sparingly, that says “good job eating that unhealthy meal- have a toy.”

I guess I also have issues with the idea that now falls behind entitlement to a toy in a happy meal. Have we really been conditioned to believe we are “entitled” to such a thing?

 

[hitoshura0]

I never stated I hated the law, I actually am perfectly fine with it. And I know the "pains" of the over-booked child parent, my Mom was a single parent for the longest time and we did soccer and all those other things. It's do-able, you just have to want it, and they're your kids, of course you'd want to.

Advertising has always worked that way. If it wasn't Mc Donalds, it'd be Home Depot or Coke or something. Unfortuntely, if you wanna see stars, you have to get in the woods. That may or may not be a good thing, though. You also don't want to hear my opinions on "child-friendly" things. Just know that you shouldn't underestimate kids, they know more than they're given credit for and can deal with a lot of garbage in their life.

Another thing I've noticed, there are still parts of the world that have the Super Size available to them! I know for a fact that it's in Jordan. Not that this arguing something, I was pretty amazed by it the first time I saw it.

 

[bel9]

Advertising has always worked that way. If it wasn't Mc Donalds, it'd be Home Depot or Coke or something. Unfortuntely, if you wanna see stars, you have to get in the woods. That may or may not be a good thing, though.

Oh yeah all companies are always turning to advertising agencies to 'break through the noise" as it is described. The problem that I now notice is in the continued effort to "break through the noise" other companies will follow the example- thus creating more noise that needs to be broken through. But when is the noise too much? (Times Square?)

Just know that you shouldn't underestimate kids, they know more than they're given credit for and can deal with a lot of garbage in their life.

Yeah I remember being a kid and feeling that way but when i look back I was a bit more vulnerable and impressionable than I thought I was at the time. Is every kid like I was? No. Are kids capable of being non-impressionable? Yes- at times but not all the time.

Another thing I've noticed, there are still parts of the world that have the Super Size available to them! I know for a fact that it's in Jordan. Not that this arguing something, I was pretty amazed by it the first time I saw it.

Yeah Mcdonald's reinstated it as "Summer Size" in summer of 09'. I am wondering if they will do it for summer of 10' as well. I sure hope not. But there are also other companies with products just as bad- KFC Double Down- as my friend has said "I don't know if I want to eat it or just throw up!"

 

[Skiks]

It's the parent's job to watch what their kids eat really not the companies that provide them. Why would you expect healthy food out of a place that sells burgers fries and soda? Really? Whether they like it or not they should watch a child's diet. At least if you care about your kids anyways.
And honestly banning toys like mentioned wouldn't solve too much. I mean any parent that bends over and allows their child to buy McDonalds more then needed just to get a toy out of it isn't doing a good job in the first place. It's the parents that buy the food not the children they have to go through the parent to buy such things.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

This reminds me of something from my childhood; something unconnected with fast food. My brother used to whack the seed puffs off of dandelions in an effort to keep them from spreading. I remember telling him, "That doesn't stop them from spreading. It causes the seeds to spread!"

This no-toys-in-kids-meals thing isn't quite like that example (it isn't actually spreading the problem it is trying to solve). But I would suggest that banning kids meal toys is not a very good solution. I'd say that unhealthy foods are a real problem. But any law attempting to solve or help solve this problem needs to attack the problem at its roots.

How would this be accomplished? The best idea I can propose is that restaurants (and other packaged foods in grocery stores) should be required to gradually reduce the amounts of sodium, fat, and sugar in foods. Since people have become accustomed to excessive amounts of sugar, fat, and sodium though, any drastic changes would likely result in complaints about the food not tasting good. Thus, changes would likely need to be implemented over the next several decades or so.

My biggest concern is (oddly enough) about the response from people sharing my basic political views. At this point, many conservatives are likely to view such regulations as a step toward government-controlled food. It's a shame, because whatever anyone thinks about the health-care reform, improving nutrition might be one of the best places to start by truly helping to reform health itself.

 

[Bolt the Cat]

Banning toys in kids meals isn't going to do much to deter childhood obesity. Quite a few kids probably go to restaurants simply because the food is good. Therefore, if they want to deter childhood obesity, they should focus on passing laws regulating how foods should be made.

 

[Mrs. Lovett]

Believe it or not, some kids go to Burger King, McDonald's, etc. just for the toys. Taking the toys away will solve a part of the problem, but the kids who like the actual food won't stop eating there.

Last summer, I read a book called Chew on This. For those who don't know, it basically tells you what's really going on in these companies. According to the book, these restaurants specifically design the food to be delicious. They sacrifice taste for health so people will keep coming back. The toys they put in their meals are only a part of the Keep Them Coming Back plan. After all, they want to appeal to a who range of kids - the ones who love burgers and the ones who love trading cards, dolls, etc. By eliminating the toys, the restaurant loses only the kids who love the toys.

If the government really wants to make an impact on fast food, they should prohibit some of the ingredients that go into the food. A toy coming with a perfectly healthy meal won't attract any attention, right? Overall, I don't think this is a complete idiotic move; it just isn't enough.

 

[Bolt the Cat]

Believe it or not, some kids go to Burger King, McDonald's, etc. just for the toys. Taking the toys away will solve a part of the problem, but the kids who like the actual food won't stop eating there.

If the government really wants to make an impact on fast food, they should prohibit some of the ingredients that go into the food. A toy coming with a perfectly healthy meal won't attract any attention, right? Overall, I don't think this is a complete idiotic move; it just isn't enough.

This. If the government thinks they can significantly deter obesity by banning the toys, they must be the biggest idiots on the planet (and they probably are).

Last summer, I read a book called Chew on This. For those who don't know, it basically tells you what's really going on in these companies. According to the book, these restaurants specifically design the food to be delicious. They sacrifice taste for health so people will keep coming back. The toys they put in their meals are only a part of the Keep Them Coming Back plan. After all, they want to appeal to a who range of kids - the ones who love burgers and the ones who love trading cards, dolls, etc. By eliminating the toys, the restaurant loses only the kids who love the toys.

Not surprising. It's all about money, and this is the easiest way for them to earn it.

 

[charizard117]

That's it! I give up on California! One crazy law after another! Poor Californians....

 

[Nidogod]

Last summer, I read a book called Chew on This. For those who don't know, it basically tells you what's really going on in these companies.

I also recommend reading the book Fast Food Nation, if you're interested in the topic. It's insane how powerful McDonald's is. Laws like this show how scary our lack of control is, as a society. It really seems like the well being of children is now completely out of the hands of their parents.

 

[Willow's Tara]

I agrtee with what ForeverFlame said on the first page, kids are going to eat there toys or no toys. And it is the parents fault for not saying no or making sure they don't eat it every single day.

When I was younger sometimes when there were toys I wanted I did have Maccas (Alot until my mid teens, not obese but I stopped eating it anyway. A McDonald debate on this forum drove me away from it lol). I actually haven't eaten McDonalds in years. Occasionally I eat KFC and Red Rooster (I did have KFC yesterday, but it will be a long while before I have anymore unless someone just buys me KFC without asking me if I want any).
Anyways I think it's unnesscary to get rid of the toys, kids are still going to eat there. You want kids to stop eating? Then well get them exercising aleast, if they are eating it but exercising it might be better then just doing nothing.

 

[Zazie]

Believe it or not, some kids go to Burger King, McDonald's, etc. just for the toys. Taking the toys away will solve a part of the problem, but the kids who like the actual food won't stop eating there.

Last summer, I read a book called Chew on This. For those who don't know, it basically tells you what's really going on in these companies. According to the book, these restaurants specifically design the food to be delicious. They sacrifice taste for health so people will keep coming back. The toys they put in their meals are only a part of the Keep Them Coming Back plan. After all, they want to appeal to a who range of kids - the ones who love burgers and the ones who love trading cards, dolls, etc. By eliminating the toys, the restaurant loses only the kids who love the toys.

If the government really wants to make an impact on fast food, they should prohibit some of the ingredients that go into the food. A toy coming with a perfectly healthy meal won't attract any attention, right? Overall, I don't think this is a complete idiotic move; it just isn't enough.

Those awful people. What are they thinking making food that tastes good.

Seriously you are complaining about them making food that tastes good. Just because it tastes good doesn't mean you have to eat it. People know fast food is bad for them, a lot of them just don't care. They want tasty and unhealthy food. Why I have no clue whhy as healthy food can be tasty as well but a lot of people like to only eat junk. For those who want to eat healthy they don't have to eat out and many fast food places are now starting to offer healthier options.

Really, for the most part fast food just seems to be a scapegoat, if people want to be healthy they should take better care of themselves. (Though the no toys law might be on to something as it seems kind of low to manipulatemkids with toys)

 

[Asrialys]

Haven't there been healthy choices for Happy Meals for a while now? I was just at McDonald's yesterday (in Santa Clara lol) and saw that they had a choice of salad with Happy Meals. There was another item, but I can't remember what it was. Didn't check to see if any toys came with the meal though.

 

[7 tyranitars]

here they added things like fruit lol, but like I said before it's their parents fault they need to educate the kids better in that.

 

[GaZsTiC]

At McDonalds in the UK, kids can get fruit, carrots etc with their Happy Meals. It doesn't exactly solve any problems if you are going to eat at a fast food joint but oh well.

 

[BynineB]

God adults are so stupid. Seriously, they are. They have no insight into the minds of children whatsoever. They are still going to fucking eat at fast food restaurants, you retards. This will solve nothing.

The United States can't come up with good solutions to anything. First Arizona legalizes racial profiling, and now California bans toys while leaving the unhealthy food as it is. God.

That's a bit of a generalization, seeing as adults made the clothes you wear, the food you eat, and the computer you're complaining on. Also, this new law could help. Some kids are enticed by the marketing of the new Shrek toys rather than the food itself and would just as happily eat a PBnJ if it came with a small plastic doll. Even if it doesn't, it's not like it's hurting anyone. If anything, it's saving the enviroment from all of this plastic.

 

[Cirvos]

Just so everyone knows, when i was young i always begged for the happy meals for the toys, it does work sense about a year ago i completley quit fast food( im not there yet but ive spaced each time to about three months apart) but it does get you hooked on the food, but the problemb is when they banned the toys they didn't ban the crap they sold them with, honestly the happy meals, There just so horrible for you but the poroblemb is its CHEAP, and the fact is like everything nowadays its filled with addatives, i mean when i can go to a store and buy a bag of grapes for about three bucks or go to mcdonalds and get a bugger and fries for the same price which one would you get, but the main problemb with obesety is the fact that where using so many addatives, or more importantly corn syrup everything is fake and weher or not we admit it but in america most of what we eat is just flled with adadtives or bassically Fakes and the problemb is our bodies dont see it as fake they are fooled by it and so when we eat this our bodies act naturally, that and plus the adatives could mess up or body, such as the steroids or the metals in our meat

 

[Mr. Mudkip]

I just love my home state and how it skirts around the problem, never actually facing it.