County officials vote to ban toys and other promotions that restaurants offer with high-calorie children’s meals.


It’s a sad day for Happy Meals in Santa Clara County


Happy Meal toys and other promotions that come with high-calorie children's meals will soon be banned in parts of Santa Clara County unless the restaurants meet nutritional guidelines approved Tuesday by the county Board of Supervisors.

"This ordinance prevents restaurants from preying on children's' love of toys" to sell high-calorie, unhealthful toys, said Supervisor Ken Yeager, who sponsored the measure. "This ordinance breaks the link between unhealthy food and prizes."

Voting against the measure was Supervisor Donald Gage, who said parents should be responsible for their children.

"If you can't control a 3-year-old child for a toy, God save you when they get to be teenagers," he said. Gage, who is overweight, said he was a living example of how obese children can become obese adults.

But he questioned the role of fast-food toys. "When I was growing up in Gilroy 65 years ago, there were no fast-food restaurants," Gage said.

The board, whose jurisdiction extends only to the unincorporated parts of the county, including much of Silicon Valley, voted 3 to 2 in favor of the ban after a contentious meeting that included more than an hour of testimony on both sides.

In favor of the item were public health administrators, parents and doctors; opposed were fast-food franchisees, other parents, and fans of fast-food toys who said the promotions are often used to provide Christmas presents for poor children.

Dr. Dan Delgado, director of a county program that targets childhood obesity, said the toys are a powerful lure for children, encouraging them to eat unhealthy food, which then helps cause obesity.

Delgado told the supervisors that parents who come into his clinic say they often buy Happy Meals and other fast food for their children because of the toys that are included. Delgado said that the obese children coming into his clinic include a 5-year-old with Type-2 diabetes.

But Steve Peat, who owns seven McDonald's franchises in Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties, said he and his wife work hard to promote healthy lifestyles for children through their restaurants. Peat said that they have donated funds for children's sports and other activities, and recently won an award for community service from the McDonald's Corp.

The toys won't disappear right away.

As a compromise to win majority support, the five-member board agreed to put off implementing the measure for 90 days, to give the fast-food industry time to come up with a voluntary program for improving the nutritional value of children's meals.

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) - County officials in Silicon Valley trying to curb childhood obesity voted Tuesday to ban restaurants from giving away toys and other freebies that often come with high-calorie meals aimed at kids.

The ordinance is largely symbolic as it would only cover unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County, meaning only about a dozen fast-food outlets and several other family-owned restaurants would be affected.

But its chief sponsor says it's still important because it paves the way for other areas to act, may spur action by fast-food chains to offer healthier choices and can help parents by taking away a child's incentive for wanting less healthy food.

"This ordinance does not attack toys. Obviously, toys, in and of themselves, do not make children obese," said county Supervisor Ken Yeager, who pushed for the ban. "But it is unfair to parents and children to use toys to capture the tastes of children when they are young to get them hooked on eating high-sugar, high-fat foods early in life."

The ban, which faces a final vote next month, would prohibit restaurants from giving away an incentive item, like a toy, with a meal that contains more than 485 calories, more than 600 milligrams of sodium and excessive amounts of fat and sugars.

Efforts to trim high calorie food from children's plates have been made all over the nation, most recently in a campaign led by first lady Michelle Obama. One in three American children is overweight or obese.

County supervisors said restaurants encourage children to choose specific menu items by linking them with free toys and other incentives. The Federal Trade Commission estimated that about $360 million was spent in 2006 on toys that were included in kids' meals.

A 2008 study by the Center for Science in the Public Interest showed that 10 out of 12 meals that came with toys exceeded the recommended caloric limits for children, Yeager said.

The California Restaurant Association lobbied against the ordinance saying it was misguided and another example of government overreaching. The organization placed ads in local newspapers against the ordinance and conducted a poll they said showed that an overwhelmingly number of county residents opposed such a measure.

"The people of Santa Clara County believe they are in a better position to make decisions about what to feed their kids than politicians are," said Daniel Conway, a spokesman for the organization that represents 22,000 restaurants in California.

Conway said fast-food chains already offer healthy options for children, including milk, carrot sticks, apple slices and whole grains. He said the ordinance looked like a simplistic attention-grabbing move rather than a comprehensive, thoughtful effort to curb a serious problem.

He also worried that such an ordinance would create safety issues in restaurants where children want a toy but can't have one because the combination of food items they've chosen doesn't meet the regulations.

"We don't want to have incidents in restaurants where an employee has to enforce these laws and parents get mad and children get upset," he said.

A spokesman for McDonald's Corp. said the company was disappointed in the ordinance but it does not affect any of its stores in Santa Clara County.

"Concerning this ordinance, parents tell us they want to have the right to make their own decisions. Our customers are smart, and they will continue to make choices that are right for them," said Walt Riker, a McDonald's spokesman.

Miguel Piedra, a spokesman for Burger King, referred all questions to the restaurant association and said he believed the company did not have any stores in the affected area but wasn't sure. According to a list from the county, there is one Burger King in the unincorporated area that would be affected.

The county public health department would be responsible for enforcing the ordinance. A restaurant would face fines of $250 for a first offense, $500 for a second and up to $1,000 for subsequent violations.

Yeager said the aim is to help direct parents to more healthy choices. He said the government has a responsibility to keep kids safe, and cited rules on car seats, cribs and other baby items as examples where the policymakers step in to regulate products.

If passed on the second reading May 11, it would take effect 90 days later. Restaurants can still modify the proposal by suggesting alternatives that would need supervisor approval.

Yeah blame the toys, heaven forbid they hold parents accountable :rolleyes:

It's not like Mickey D's force feeds these kids the food :rolleyes: If they can't get it there, the parents will go elsewhere.

Here come the Nanny States, dictating how much fat, sugar and salt is in our food. What's next, no drinking or alcohol for adults, or tax them so much that your average adult can't afford it?

I wish people would stop blaming resturn and start blameing the parents . it not kid fault they get fat . . is mcdonels the only place kids eat at? i think i be sick of it after a while. ibeen fat all might life. why nottake them to subway they got toys in theier kids meals. i mine as well sue krytles or candy maker for making me fat .the parnest are dumb. they don't got any good toys in kids meal today any way. their peace of junk.

Uhh, excuse me, good, kind, sensible Overlords of Santa Clara County: Kids are taken to McDonald's by their parents, relatives, or guardians for a treat.
Most of the time it's on a weekend or a special time. They don't go there EVERY SINGLE DAY. 99 times out of 100 the PARENTS OR GUARDIANS are the ones footing the bill for the fun foods and the toys. The kids do not generally have the financial means to support their cheeseburger and Shamrock Shake fix. An older person is buying it for them as a treat, a reward, or quick meal. Toys are a nice little way to enjoy a happy event.
The forces of political correctness are on a total rampage, and must have Supersize Fries crammed down their tofu-encrusted throats.


The Santa Clara County Overlords are EVIL. :mad:

What gets me about this is that I don't judge the people who don't take their children to McDonalds, but these idiots have apparently made it their goal in life to judge those of us who do (even if we do it only once in a while). It's not their business-- never has been. :mad: :wallbang :sarah:

Yeah blame the toys, heaven forbid they hold parents accountable :rolleyes:

It's not like Mickey D's force feeds these kids the food :rolleyes: If they can't get it there, the parents will go elsewhere.

This.

It just dawned on me -- they're fighting this in one county.

No problem -- the parents will just take their kids to another county, provided it's not too far to go.

If that happens, how long before the McDonalds in that county begin lobbying to roll back the law?

This whole thing is so frickin' ridiculous.:rolleyes:

Yeah, I think there's a McDonald's every 50 feets. :lol: Just cross the county line! :D

Here come the Nanny States, dictating how much fat, sugar and salt is in our food. What's next, no drinking or alcohol for adults, or tax them so much that your average adult can't afford it?
SHHHH!! Janice, don't give them any more ideas!!! :eek: :crazy: :mad:

They tried prohibition in the twenties. It didn't work.

There's too much money to be made from booze. Besides, we are edging closer to becoming a country that will legalize pot.

And you know who's against that? The drug dealers, because all their profits will go right out the window.

I've never tried it, but I don't think pot is any worse than alcohol. Alcohol to me is far worse is because it's legal and still socially acceptable and people still get behind the wheel after a few drinks.

But getting back to Happy Meals -- yeah, taking toys out of them will eradicate the problem.:rolleyes:

They wouldn't be Happy Meals without toys!!! Boo hiss to the PC Police!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

They wouldn't be Happy Meals without toys!!! Boo hiss to the PC Police!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Amen, sistah Monika!!

Banning them bec. of the calories is ridiculous. Now if it were a choking hazard issue maybe then - but I don't think the items are anymore (step in and correct me if I'm wrong)

Re the calories, parents have to be responsible for their kids. And McDonalds' coultd put together Happy Meal pckgs that aren't a lot of calories (they may be offering this as options). Carrot sticks instead of french fries, maybe create a lower calorie bun etc...)

Maybe if these people at McDonald's they wouldn't be so f&*king miserable and ruin it for everybody.

This somehow has to be unconstititutional.

There's too much of a big brother thing in cases like this. First, New York bans trans fats, now they're trying to ban salt (or limit its use). Or, I think it's NY that's doing the salt thing.

We're all old enough to know what's good and bad for us. If we eat fatty foods or too much salt or drink too much, you know whose fault it is?

OURS!!

And that's the way it should be.

This somehow has to be unconstititutional.
Totally!!! :yeahthat :nod:

We all have the right to violate our constitutions with fast food if we so desire.

There's too much of a big brother thing in cases like this. First, New York bans trans fats, now they're trying to ban salt (or limit its use). Or, I think it's NY that's doing the salt thing.

We're all old enough to know what's good and bad for us. If we eat fatty foods or too much salt or drink too much, you know whose fault it is?

OURS!!

And that's the way it should be.
I agree. Also, it seems to me that New York is into banning. I'm surprised because New Yorkers seem very independent to me.

Yeah, parents should be held responsible for their child's diet. Not some silly, plastic toy. However, I do see the opposing point of view. Those cheap toys are very alluring to young children.

Those cheap toys are very alluring to young children.

And to adults who collect or sell them on eBay. :)

Okay, that does it!

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING OBESE!

Take me, for instance. I am 5'5" and weigh 260. I will turn 50 this October. I am NOT diabetic by ANY stretch (according to my doctor's last 2 years worth of blood tests).

Being as "big" as I am has never stopped me from enjoying life. I go to work five days a week, I am presently working on a novel, I go out and shop, go to parties and other activities, I enjoy walking, meeting people, taking my husband to work on the weekends and, yes, I DO clean house!

The point of all of this is that being "obese" has never stopped me from either living life or enjoying life. If the government is worried about me adding to the health care burden, they shouldn't - there are people are thinner (and younger) than me who can and do suffer more.

The only two physical things that are wrong with me are that I have high blood pressure and two bad knees. Runners, professional athletes, and others can (and do) get bad knees as well by the time they hit their 50's too - should the government stop runners from running or playing professional sports?

The bottom line here is that the government is getting way out of hand when it comes to regulating food based upon caloric intake. This is no exception.

Oh - and I have NEVER heard of ANY CHILD who eats fast food from McDonald's or anyplace else die from so-called "obesity related illnesses" before theey hit 21. Not even my generation.

Okay. Niow I will get off of my :soapbox:

If you are happy with your weight and height and your health is good, more power to ya.

I am 5'8" and am about 230. I am trying to lose some weight because I am not happy with my weight. I'm in decent health, but was told I could be looking at diabetes a few years down the road if I don't get my weight down.

To each his/her own.

We should be deciding what we eat...or don't.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/company-news/mcdonalds-happy-meal-toys-lawsuit/19526740/