The city's board of supervisors votes to forbid restaurants from giving away toys with meals that have high levels of calories, sugar and fat.

Link (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103,0,5438230.story?track=rss)


The San Francisco board of supervisors voted by veto-proof margin to forbid restaurants from offering a free toy with meals that contain more than set levels of calories, sugar and fat. (Karen Bleir / AFP / Getty Images)


San Francisco's board of supervisors has voted, by a veto-proof margin, to ban most of McDonald's Happy Meals as they are now served in the restaurants.

The measure will make San Francisco the first major city in the country to forbid restaurants from offering a free toy with meals that contain more than set levels of calories, sugar and fat.

The ordinance would also require restaurants to provide fruits and vegetables with all meals for children that come with toys.

Get a daily snapshot of market numbers and trends, delivered right to your mobile phone. Text BUSINESS to 52669.

"We're part of a movement that is moving forward an agenda of food justice," said Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure. "From San Francisco to New York City, the epidemic of childhood obesity in this country is making our kids sick, particularly kids from low income neighborhoods, at an alarming rate. It's a survival issue and a day-to-day issue."

Just after the vote, McDonald's spokeswoman Danya Proud said, "We are extremely disappointed with today's decision. It's not what our customers want, nor is it something they asked for."

The ban, already enacted in a similar measure by Santa Clara County, was opposed by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who was vying to be lieutenant governor in Tuesday's election. But because the measure was passed by eight votes — one more than needed to override a veto — his opposition doesn't matter unless one of the supervisors changes his or her mind after the promised veto.

Under the ordinance, scheduled to take effect in December 2011, restaurants may include a toy with a meal if the food and drink combined contain fewer than 600 calories, and if less than 35% of the calories come from fat.

Over the last few weeks, the proposed ban caused a stir online and on cable television, with supporters arguing that it would help protect children from obesity, and opponents seeing it as the latest example of the nanny state gone wild.

Supervisor Bevan Dufty, whose swing vote provided the veto-proof majority, said critics should not dismiss the legislation as a nutty effort by San Franciscans. "I do believe the industry is going to take note of this. I don't care how much they say, 'It's San Francisco, they're wacked out there.' "

Proud, the McDonald's spokeswoman, said the city was out of step with the mainstream on the issue.

"Public opinion continues to be overwhelmingly against this misguided legislation," she said. "Parents tell us it's their right and responsibility — not the government's — to make their own decisions and to choose what's right for their children."

McDonald's is not the only fast-food chain to offer toys with children's meals, but because it is so prominent the company has become a key face of opposition to the ban.

Daniel Conway, spokesman for the California Restaurant Assn., bemoaned the ordinance's passage and contrasted it with San Franciscans' exuberant feelings after the Giants won the world series on Monday night.

"One day you're world champions, and the next day, no toys for you," Conway said.

He said the industry could respond in a number of ways to the ordinance. Some might continue to include toys but charge separately for them. Others might reformulate their meals so that they comply with the law. Restaurants might also simply stop offering children's meals altogether, he said.

Proud said the company does offer more healthful menu options, including apple slices that can be ordered with kids' meals instead of French fries.

The vote was held the same day that McDonald's reintroduced nationwide its McRib sandwich, a pressed pork patty that gets half its calories from fat and has a cult-like legion of fans.

Mar said it would lead the fast-food giant and other restaurants to provide more healthful food for kids. The ban, he said, was crucial to the fight against childhood obesity and the illnesses that go along with it, including diabetes and the risk of heart problems and stroke. The cost of fighting those diseases, he said, will be in the billions.

"It's astronomical how much it's going to cost if we don't address it," Mar said. "It's incredible the crisis that's going to hit us."

What are they going to ban next??? Santa Claus???

This is ridicules.Next thing you know the Easter bunny will be outlawed.

Apparently there are no real issues or problems to be tackled in San Francisco or the United States.

I am relieved.

Proceed with the petty causes.

Apparently there are no real issues or problems to be tackled in San Francisco or the United States.

I am relieved.

Proceed with the petty causes.

Trying to legislate good nutritional eating sounds like a poor way to go to me too. My concern with these meals is more that the toys may be a choking hazard.

BUT I do think that places like McD's would be smart to start introducing a second option - a more healthier version of their "happy meals" - it might have to cost more to a customer but perhaps there may be enough of a market for it. Creating healthier versions of fast food standards can be done - I know of many Weight Watchers/similar products that taste close to the real deal but are much lower in calories, carbs, sodium etc.)

Ultimately, people should have the choice. If someone wants to eat, or let their kids eat, food that is high in calories, carbs, sodium, fat etc. they should have the right to make that choice - even though I think that choice is a BAD one.

(It really is a shame so many folks seem to be fogetting that healthy alternatives like carrot sticks, apple, bananas, peanut butter, high fiber breads are quite tasty - and good for you.)

Thats plain dumb


Why dont they ban ice cream while their at it.

I'm so glad I don't live in SF.

I'm so glad I don't live in SF.

That makes two of us!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

That makes two of us!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Make it three...

If I want a San Francisco experience...I'll just walk a few blocks to Lakewood (They have the 2nd highest Gay/Bi Population next to the Golden Gate City)!

Next, SF won't have a McDonald's in their city!

I'm so glad I don't live in SF.
Make it four!

5 here. Think about all the people that are underweight and people that need to stay thick like football players and wrestlers. Theirs 2 sides to every story. Plus, just because it's the only thing their, doesn't mean kids will eat it. Kids hate some veggies. End of story.

there IS a simple solution; just drop a rutabaga into every Happy Meal - Problem Solved.

Ew!!! Not rutabagas!!!

Once again, personal responsibility. Where is it and why don't liberals want people to practice it?

Think about it.

5 here. Think about all the people that are underweight and people that need to stay thick like football players and wrestlers. Theirs 2 sides to every story. Plus, just because it's the only thing their, doesn't mean kids will eat it. Kids hate some veggies. End of story.

I totally agree there are two sides to every story. Some people have great metabolisms, not prone to diabetes, high blood pressure etc.

And this kind of food is tasty - & is OK if eaten on occassion by most. But for many, usually middle aged folks like me, its not a GOOD choice. But I'm no Carrie Nation - just like anything else in life, go in with your eyes open and as long as you make an informed choice.

But for me, and this is MY FLAW, I don't practice moderation in places like this so I stay away. I know from my own experience, when you eat unprocessed, wholesome foods it takes a long time to reach 1,000 calories. I eat quite a bit during the day and I'm usually right up to 1,000 cals at the beg. of dinner.
A McD sandwhich, french fries, and reg soft drink pretty much clocks in around 1,000 cals - and thats just one meal.

As for SF in general, imo its a great place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there (prone to earthquakes and a yuccky job market even before all of this. The legislation doesn't add to the allure of SF either as many of you have pointed out)

Thats plain dumb


Why dont they ban ice cream while their at it.the city of carmel by the sea did at one point actully did have a ban on ice cream for a number of years until clint eastwood became mayor and lifted the ban

My nieces grew up with Happy Meals and neither (both now high school age) ever had the slightest encounter with obesity. Let's remember that in earlier decades, people were consuming lots of calories in the forms of malteds, ice cream sodas, banana splits, the list goes on -- BUT they were doing things like mowing the lawn with a push mower, walking to destinations, lifting garage doors by hand... We've become a push-button, automated, and motorized society. I realize that it's not practical for kids to walk many places anymore, and there are more safety concerns in today's world, but concerned people need to focus on the exercise aspect moreso than trying to tell people they can't have the same good old burgers and fries -- more or less the same type of decent food that's been served up for about a century or more in the U.S.

At IMDb, someone on the Ozzie & Harriet board stated that the Nelson family would have been fat if they actually ate all the ice cream, etc. as seen on their show. This young person failed to realize that daily activity back then tended to be far less sedentary than it tends to be in today's society. Too many people have forgotten that many, many dieticians and their plans have failed to curb the problem of obesity in the U.S. A lot of it falls under the scam category: Invent a diet, make money off of books, etc., cash in while people never benefit over the long term. The child's way of life needs to change, not just calorie counting and deprivation. Cravings will just lead to secret binging if the child is placed on too strict a diet.

I had a friend in grade school whose parents forbid him to eat things like candy and chips. He had a newspaper route and secretly used some of the money to buy the stuff for himself. Parents want to control these things, but enough is enough -- let kids be kids to some extent. A big deal was made years ago about the strict diet for Todd Marinovich, a football player, and how he had never eaten a Big Mac. It's funny how people want total freedom for themselves yet can be so restrictive to their children -- even when the son or daughter is old enough to make sound decisions on their own.

As much as I more than ever committed to proper nutrition, I think the decision by the San Francisco Food Gestapo to ban toys from Happy Meals is messed up. I've said it before, but parents, not kids, are the ones who have the purchasing power over fun meals. Kids don't have the money to buy them, the parents do. They're the ones who make the decisions as to what to buy and if. Hopefully most parents and kids realize that meals at McDonald's are just treats and not to be counted as proper meals. It can be a reward or something to have while travelling on the road. Not something
to have every day. Parents and kids should learn proper nutrition from Day 1, but I don't trust the goons at City Hall in San Francisco to make it for us.

Also...growing up as a kid in the 80's was FAR more different than growing up as a kid now!

Granted...there was Nintendo and Sega, but many kids would go out and play outside too because we were one thing...DISCIPLINED!

Today...you can't discipline a child so they now have no boundaries toward eating, playing video games, and doing whatever and not have responsibility!

I grew up in the 80's and 90's and getting a Happy Meal was a treat. In the 90's, I saved my dough to get a Sega rather than have my parents run and buy it for me, I was disciplined...so when there was a limit...I would try to stay there.

We've spoiled our kids sooooo much...we might as well send them into the wild!

We were talking about this in my Sociology class on Monday. Its the parents fault for buying the kids McDonald's, not McDonald's fault for putting it out there

Just another Nanny State telling people what to eat, what not to eat, how to parent, do this, do this. Drop dead, idiots.

Way to foist blame off parents. They're the ones who buy the Happy Meals, not the kids :rolleyes:

That makes 5.I'm glad I don't live in San Francisco.I live in Michigan.

Make it 6...Maybe I'll boycott the city and not visit there anymore, haven't been there in 2yrs as it is.

As much as I more than ever committed to proper nutrition, I think the decision by the San Francisco Food Gestapo to ban toys from Happy Meals is messed up. I've said it before, but parents, not kids, are the ones who have the purchasing power over fun meals. Kids don't have the money to buy them, the parents do. They're the ones who make the decisions as to what to buy and if. Hopefully most parents and kids realize that meals at McDonald's are just treats and not to be counted as proper meals. It can be a reward or something to have while travelling on the road. Not something
to have every day. Parents and kids should learn proper nutrition from Day 1, but I don't trust the goons at City Hall in San Francisco to make it for us.

Totally agree legislating against "un-nutritious" food is a poor way to go. The real culprits are the parents who fail to teach or discipline their kids in good nutrition. When you're young (or healthy) McD's once in a while is OK. But like I said earlier, whatever happened to snacking or eating healthy foods? Also, as others have suggested, I too think we are far more sedentary than previous generations.

IMO the best way to effect change is thru power of the purse. Let McD's sales drop significantly due to unresponsiveness and see how fast they change their marketing and options.

I'm glad I have to watch what I eat now, wished I had done it earlier...cause...frankly...I'm finding healthy food is tastier than the crap once you've been eating it for while--I find that it has a much nicer subtle, clean, fresh and nuanced taste (I also like the fact that I don't feel listless or bloated after eating now - like I used to when I scarfed down junk 1,000 cals at a clip)

Next up...San Francisco will ban McDonald's...period!

I thought Cleveland was bad because they have a One-Party City....

Totally agree legislating against "un-nutritious" food is a poor way to go. The real culprits are the parents who fail to teach or discipline their kids in good nutrition. When you're young (or healthy) McD's once in a while is OK. But like I said earlier, whatever happened to snacking or eating healthy foods? Also, as others have suggested, I too think we are far more sedentary than previous generations.

IMO the best way to effect change is thru power of the purse. Let McD's sales drop significantly due to unresponsiveness and see how fast they change their marketing and options.

I'm glad I have to watch what I eat now, wished I had done it earlier...cause...frankly...I'm finding healthy food is tastier than the crap once you've been eating it for while--I find that it has a much nicer subtle, clean, fresh and nuanced taste (I also like the fact that I don't feel listless or bloated after eating now - like I used to when I scarfed down junk 1,000 cals at a clip)
Healthy food IS much better tasting, and makes you feel better. :liplick:
I'm eating healthier than I ever have in years.

Healthy food IS much better tasting, and makes you feel better. :liplick:
I'm eating healthier than I ever have in years.

and...you will likely see some very nice health results on your next round of tests! As far as I'm concerned "hasta la vista" to all the processed and fast food crap (well....at least 97-98% of the time anyways)

IMO the best way to effect change is thru power of the purse. Let McD's sales drop significantly due to unresponsiveness and see how fast they change their marketing and options. McChange means McSalads with more calories than a McCheeseburger.

I read a couple local best tasting franchise burger polls throughout the years, and McOuthouse is always dead last, yet they're still the world's biggest fast food restaurant moneymaker.

Never underestimate their marketing machine.

That said, I support the SF Food Nazis' goosestepping on the McToys as well as the FCC TV Nazis' iron grip on children's programming. Heil fiber!

Basically, I say let people eat whatever they want. Not every obese person out there will become diabetic or get a heart attack or get a stroke.

I guess San Francisco's city council never thought about that.

McChange means McSalads with more calories than a McCheeseburger.

I read a couple local best tasting franchise burger polls throughout the years, and McOuthouse is always dead last, yet they're still the world's biggest fast food restaurant moneymaker.

Never underestimate their marketing machine.

That said, I support the SF Food Nazis' goosestepping on the McToys as well as the FCC TV Nazis' iron grip on children's programming. Heil fiber!

Sometimes salads can be a lot of calories - but usually - its the mounds of salad dressings that are the culprits. Before I'd buy a salad at a McD's I'd check out the nutritional info for it. If some are sky hi in cals gotta be honest - wouldn't shock me. Franky, getting a salad at a McDonald's does seem like going to a hardware store to buy oranges. I was in a McD's about 3 weeks ago (first time in 6 months) and I got a grilled chicken wrap (260 cals). Not planning to go near one anytime soon.

But I don't think the stuff s/b banned. If people want to shovel junk into their bodies that's their right. Some people aren't too affected by it are young, healthy, great metabolisms etc.) - but I am. For me, a McD's diet would like riding the express train to Diabetes Land and the food is just not worth that. Rather have my health. McD marketing ploys do nothing for me.

Basically, I say let people eat whatever they want. Not every obese person out there will become diabetic or get a heart attack or get a stroke.

I guess San Francisco's city council never thought about that.

True, but generally, if you're very overweight you often have health problems, esp. as you advance in years. Like I've said before, I think this kind of food is bad for most follks, but its their free choice to eat it. I think legislating against it just won't work.

Sometimes salads can be a lot of calories - but usually - its the mounds of salad dressings that are the culprits. Before I'd buy a salad at a McD's I'd check out the nutritional info for it. If some are sky hi in cals gotta be honest - wouldn't shock me. Franky, getting a salad at a McDonald's does seem like going to a hardware store to buy oranges. I was in a McD's about 3 weeks ago (first time in 6 months) and I got a grilled chicken wrap (260 cals). Not planning to go near one anytime soon.

But I don't think the stuff s/b banned. If people want to shovel junk into their bodies that's their right. Some people aren't too affected by it 9 young, healthy, great metabolisms etc. )but I am. For me, a McD's diet would like riding the express train to Diabetes Land and the food is just not worth that. Rather have my health. McD marketing ploys do nothing for me.
260 calories doesn't really sound that bad, but that depends on what your weight loss goals are. I do like McDonald's grilled chicken salads, but I'd be careful about the amount of sodium and such in the dressings, in particular the vinaigrette (sp?). But like my doctor's staff told me, you can only eat stuff at McDonald's every so often, feel free to eat it every once in a while, you just can't do it every day.

260 calories doesn't really sound that bad, but that depends on what your weight loss goals are. I do like McDonald's grilled chicken salads, but I'd be careful about the amount of sodium and such in the dressings, in particular the vinaigrette (sp?). But like my doctor's staff told me, you can only eat stuff at McDonald's every so often, feel free to eat it every once in a while, you just can't do it every day.

Actually it wasn't too bad health wise, had a good amt of protein and really hit the spot. Almost all the other restaurants were closed. In general, McDonald's and their ilk are way to triggering for me - the LAST I need is one of their milkshakes (yet they taste so good.) And you're right - sodium lurks everywhere - beware esp. canned soups and non-diet TV dinners if you have to watch sodium (luckily I don't - just glucose - and sigh - just abt everything seems to have carbs - even skim milk). However, since my only vice is canned soup, I can take the sodium since most of what I eat these days is unprocessed stuff - generally low sodium or sodium free. (Also: processed meats like regular bologna and hot dogs -are sky high in sodium )