Top Stories -   

1

McDonald's slams San Francisco Happy Meal ban

A Happy Meal box and toy are shown outside of a McDonald's restaurant in San Francisco. (AP / Jeff Chiu) McDonald's
A Happy Meal box and toy are shown outside of a McDonald's restaurant in San Francisco. (AP / Jeff Chiu)

View Larger Image

A A |  Email ThisEmail  | PrintComments (102) Facebook   

Date: Thursday Nov. 4, 2010 12:17 PM ET

Fast food giant McDonald's says it is "extremely disappointed" by a decision by San Francisco authorities to put the kibosh on Happy Meals and impose a ban on giving away toys with kids' meals that don't meet certain nutritional standards.

San Francisco's Board of Supervisors gave preliminary approval to the ordinance on Tuesday evening, with a vote of 8-to-3. If the law passes a second vote, the city would become the first in the U.S. to impose such a ban.

Under the ruling, scheduled to take effect in December 2011, San Francisco restaurants will be allowed to include a toy with a meal only if the food and drink in the meal contain fewer than 600 calories, less than 640 milligrams of sodium and if less than 35 per cent of the calories are derived from fat (less than 10 per cent from saturated fat), except for fat contained in nuts, seeds, eggs or low-fat cheese.

In addition, the meals must contain a half-cup or more of fruit and three-quarters of a cup or more of vegetables. A breakfast meal must contain at least a half-cup of fruit or vegetables.

Though McDonald's is not the only fast-food chain to offer toys with children's meals, the company has already come out swinging.

"We are extremely disappointed with this decision. It's not what our customers want, nor is it something they asked for," McDonald's spokeswoman Danya Proud said in a statement Wednesday.

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

She added: "We are extremely proud of our Happy Meals which give our youngest guests wholesome food and toys of the highest quality. Getting a toy with a kid's meal is just one part of a fun, family experience at McDonald's."

Scott Rodrick, whose family owns half of the 20 McDonald's franchises in San Francisco, lamented after the vote that "San Francisco supervisors have taken the 'happy' out of Happy Meals."

But the man who sponsored the measure, San Francisco Supervisor Eric Mar, says the aim of the ban is to promote healthy eating habits while combating childhood obesity.

He calls the move "a challenge to the restaurant industry to think about children's health first."

"This is a tremendous victory for our children's health. Our children are sick. Rates of obesity in San Francisco are disturbingly high, especially among children of colour," said Mar.

Mar said he modelled his proposal after a similar law in Santa Clara County, Calif., adopted earlier this year. That ban applies to only a handful of restaurants in the county's unincorporated areas; San Francisco's restrictions would affect dozens of fast-food establishments.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has promised to veto the ban. But the board is scheduled to take a final vote next week and could override that veto.

Comments are now closed for this story

Corrinne
said

How about parents take more responsibility for what there feeding to their children!


B. Kelley, Unabashed Ontario Conservative
said

@Simon, You should be thankful that the righties are here. Otherwise you would all be wearing little grey suits with little grey hats, riding identical little grey bicycles and going to work in the big grey factory making little grey bicycles for the sad grey masses. During your infrequent breaks you would be reading little red books entitled "Thoughts of Chairman Trudeau" and eating a delicious serving of Soylent Grey.


Michel (Ottawa)
said

The best one I read here is about Paul's kid who plays with the toy and doesn't eat the food; smart kid you got there Paul. ;-)


Mar
said

Ken in RH, removing toys from Happy Meals will not drive kids to make better food choices. Kids don't make the food choices, their parents do. Maybe it will remove one reason that kids want to go to McDonalds, but not all. Face it, fries and burgers and chicken nuggets are delicious to kids, its the parents that have to make the better food choices for their kids. This will do nothing. Forcing the fast food companies to offer vegetables does not mean kids will eat them. I have many friends whose kids refuse to eat veggies so they trick them into eating them by grounding them up into a burger, or whatever else the kid will eat. If kids are to be raised on good food the parents will need to start this when they are very young and not compromise when the kid doesn't want to eat it. But removing a toy from a happy meal will do absolutely nothing if the parents don't force their kids to eat healthy from the start. It just means they won't get a toy when their parents take them to McDonalds.


ZacHfx
said

I think this ban is great. I know most responsible parents only let there kids eat fast food once in a while, and there is nothing wrong with that. But hopefully this will discourage others from feeding it to them every day. With any luck this law will make companies think about the junk food that they are marketing to kids for fear of it spreading to other cities/states or countries. To those who say that the government shouldn't be telling them what they can and can't eat, they aren't doing that, they are trying to protect little kids from parent who don’t know better, are to lazy to cook or just don’t care (try reading the nutritional info for these things, it's scary). Remember a kid's meal is the same size an adult portion used to be, it's no wonder you see so many over weight kids these days.


RickC
said

This made me chuckle, what has this world come to?


SK Freedom Lover
said

Big government = communism...


You're missing a big point
said

Look, we have two kids and we KNOW you can't raise them on fast food, OK? All you people who want to legislate what is best for my kids should be with me in the car 15 hours from home when my two little children, exhausted and cooped up and difficult to handle and don't know better because THEY'RE JUST KIDS are acting up. Sometimes you just gotta stop and eat anyhwere you can because you need food, any food, that a kid will eat. A little thing like a new, novel free toy can get a kid that's imobilized in a car seat for umpteen hours through the day and thus get Mom and Dad through it too. But hey, thanks for doing my thinking for me, you clearly know best.


bob Ottawa
said

The government may have a responsibility to provide education so people can make healthy choices and to make sure advertisers can not mislead people into falsely thinking they are making a healthy choice when they are not but people have to have the freedom to choose. With all the steep hills in San Fran, if you just walk anywhere regularly, you won't be obese on almost any diet.


Cynical
said

So the food Nazis strike again. What's next, you can't sell a burger if it contains meat or any animal by-product??? The state is getting its fingers into too many pies, and each time it does, it costs taxpayers MORE. Enough with Big Brother and the Nanny State!!


JP
said

I think this is a great step in the right direction.


Mike in Mississauga
said

I have not eaten anything from a McDonalds for over 30 years because I want to put into my body food that is nutritious. What these legislators are trying to do is to stop corporations from targeting children with unhealthy products in the same way that they now do not allow marketing tobacco products to children. Obviously, anyone is still able to purchase a Happy Meal for their child. The only reason McDonalds offers the toy is because it influences the child to want a Happy Meal. As a corporation, the reason McDonalds is angry is because one of their products is being identified as unhealthy. Note their response. For everyone who is against this legislation, does that mean that anybody should be able to promote their product to children no matter the consequences because they should have the "rights and freedoms" to do whatever they want. Every time I hear the phrase "rights and freedoms" I think about responsibility. Why do we always neglect our responsibilities for each other and for our planet? I look forward to the day when we live in a "WE" society and not just a "ME" society.


Greg
said

The answer to everyone's question about the competence of parents today is no, they are not responsibly making choices for their kids. I currently work in a diagnostic imaging facility, and I cannot convey clearly enough how catatonic most parents are with their children's diet each day; and that's just what I see in our lobby. They prove day after day that they could care less about what their kids are eating when I see cheetos, sodas, candy, and all manner of crap food in the hands of these kids (most of them too young to know what they're eating anyway, just that it tastes good). So the answer to the big question here is yes, when we fail as a society to curb the onset of type II diabetes and other food-related complications, then we need legislation that forces stupid people to deal with it.


Max
said

This kind of food should come with the same warnings as tobacco products. We were finally given the truth in a recent CTV article that alcohol is more harmful than heroin & cocaine. When is the government going to start putting warnings on booze like the do tobacco? Tobacco & poor nutrition are close to tied in the number of deaths they cause, they should be taxed enough to pay for the health care costs. Tax on alcohol doesn't pay for anywhere near the costs it creates. Every substance should be legal, but needs to be taxed to pay for costs associated with it's use. The way it is now I have to pay for the health care cost of the obese, costs associated with a drunk, drug addict, smoker. Health Canada's web site says you'd have to eat or smoke 1500 lbs of marijuana in 15 minutes to die from marijuana. I wounder how many lbs of happy meals it would take to kill a person.


Marcus Ivy
said

No one likes their fries anyway !


Bill
said

This isn't about legislating what anybody can eat or sell, it is about marketing. "Happy Meals" with toys provides all the same visceral connection that good subliminal advertising does.

And to say people have choice? They can choose what we advertisers program them to choose, be it food, clothes, etc.


M.B. Ivy
said

Next they will try to tell us what we can smoke...


simon
said

Prof. Pye Chartt: thank goodness you right wingers make lots of cash to fund the health care system to pay for all the obesity related problems that will plague the health care system in the future.


Mom
said

Wow......Hold on....I know McDonald's isn't the healthiest choice for adults and kids, but it is our choice to either eat it or not. The thing is that EVERYTHING is OK with MODERATION. Don't eat it every day, eat it once every 2-3 weeks. Will it kill you then? No! The important thing is..... MODERATION!!! And if parents don't know by now that fast food isn't all that great for them or their kids, then we live in a very ignorant society.


em
said

McDonald's offers toys with their happy meals purely to hook chidren when they're young to be lifetime cutomers so good riddance to their marketing! And it's not saying what you can and can't put in your mouth it's banning the promotion of crap via toys for CHILDREN. Also it's pretty clear there are parents who shouldn't be solely responsible for what their children eat cause they suck at it. SO enough with this "leftie" nonsense just because someone is looking after the impressionable children when no one else is protecting them from the corporations.


Samual
said

The government didn't more regulations in the fast food industry. Poor nutritional food kills more people than illegal drugs, the population isn't wise enough to make it's own decisions. Yes this is another socialist plot to take away our freedoms, like the many socialist groups that take away our freedoms, the police, military fire department, medical, yes the socialist are responsible for all these nasty socialist groups that take away our freedoms. Many seem to think we'd be better off policing ourselves, Prof Pye would rather run around to see if his neighbors are at home & willing to help if a fire broke out rather than calling a socialist ran organization like the fire department,


Michel (Ottawa)
said

Isn't it amazing at how many of my fellow Canadians feel it's not the government's place to decide what is allowable and healthy and yet they expect the same government to cover most, if not all, the medical costs associated with the end results from years of poor eating habits. I'd rather that my tax dollars go towards finding cures to terminal ailments and not to someone suffering from a self-inflicted weight or obesity problem.


Evolution
said

Unfortunately, I must agree with the government having to interfere in the poor judgment of a good portion of the population. Too many parents, because they are lazy or confused, make the wrong decisions regarding their children's health. It's too easy to feed your child a happy meal from McDonald's versus planing and preparing a healthy home meal. Forcing fast food chains to serve healthier meals makes good universal health sense. A healthier society makes a stronger society and saves everyone money.


Grovy-Don
said

Since San Francisco was the cornerstone of the ‘Free Love’, and better living through pharmaceuticals’ generation, it is no surprise that a lot of the chemically ‘brain burn’ hippies would start to show up in government. What these ‘wing wangs’ want, is for everybody to be living on nutritious vegetable kibble dispensed by the government. What they should get is a trip to Court in a nice Class Action Lawsuit.


Ken in RH
said

@DB in Calgary: What do you mean San Francisco is made up of many other cities? Oakland and San Jose are not part of San Francisco. Oakland is Oakland and SJ is SJ. Yes they are part of the Bay Area but they are highway drive away. Why would they drive 30 minutes away to get a freaking toy?From reading the comments, people just seem to skim the article. They're not banning Happy Meals, they're banning the giveaway of a toy to drive away kids wanting to get a Happy Meal and possibly an alternative instead. I see no problem with that. The biggest reason kids want Happy Meals is the toy and by taking out the toy until they change the Happy Meal menu, it drives kids away from unhealthier food with the possibility of not wanting to go to McDonalds at all and learning that they're food is indeed unhealthy. This is a way of educating although perhaps in a slightly different manner but with this law, they're essentially being taught this food is bad.


Jacqueline
said

impose a ban on giving away toys with kids' meals that DO NOT meet certain nutritional standards.Simple McD's need to try to meet the standard then.


L
said

Ry in Hammer and the rest who think the government should control us: Ry in Hammer, you say that you can't stomach fast food, well that is what is great about North America, you have the freedom to decide not to go there. And I don't think that McDonald's being cheap forces people to go there if they are low income, there are plenty of cheaper, healthier foods. Such as a bag of pasta and a can of sauce is healthier and cheaper, you can feed an entire family on that for the price of one happy meal. For the price of 2 happy meals you can throw in some extra veggies into your pasta sauce, and for the price of 3 happy meals you can add in some ground beef. Government should not be telling us what we can and can't buy, everyone has the choice to say "no" to McDonalds if they want to, no one is forcing you to go there. The government should not dictate what McDonald's can do with their food choices, if people aren't buying it that will change it, and that should be all that changes it. Plus, doesn't McDonald's now allow a choice of fruit to be included in happy meals? If parents chose not to buy that, its their problem, not the government's. People will make bad choices if they want to, whether or not the government allows toys in happy meals. This will make no difference in kids health.


Joel Bain
said

As much as I don't like McDonalds, I am completely against this ruling. No nanny state, please. I don't want the state trying to solve people's social ills with food by trying to act like our parent. This isn't a criminal issue, so I don't feel it is necessary to ban toys.It's San Francisco, we really shouldn't be surprised.


realistic
said

So what does this mean:McDonald's will still have Happy Meals in San Francisco - difference being no toy will be included. McDonald's will now start selling the toy instead of giving them away. And most every parent will spend that 1 cent, 10 cents or what ever price McDonald's sells the toy for. (Doesn't say they are not allowed to sell toys, they are not allowed to give away toys).


PVT
said

To those who are under the impression it's cheaper to eat out at fast food places than it is to buy healthy food and prepare meals at home. What planet are you on?!? Going to McDonalds and feeding a family of 4 will cost at least $25. If I go to Food Basics I can buy $25 worth of groceries and feed my family at least twice. It comes down, basically, to laziness on the parents behalf...


Holly
said

Someone mentioned in their comments that they were glad about the vegetables rule and that McDonalds would have to lift their ban on having fries before 10:30....Fries are not a veg...


Brian
said

First the "Happy Meal" then pizza, then steaks then etc. till all you can eat is tofu and cardboard. It's a slippery slope.It is none of any city's business what people eat and I hope that McDonalds whups their keesters over this one.


Golf Company Grunt
said

San Francisco is becoming so far lopsided left that some day they will fall into the Pacific Ocean. This ridiculous move is a classic example of nanny state mentality.How about the parents taking responsibility for what their children eat. What's next, San Francisco's finest coming to your house to ensure your kids brushed their teeth? 'Pro Patria'I


Cheryl
said

I agree that the parents not the government should be responsible for the foods their children eat. However, we have seen that parent don't care which is why the child is so obese. The child did not ask to be obese, and doesn't even understand calories and such. The physical and psychological effects of obesity on children is cause for change. If the parents don't care enough about their kids to see that they are healthy, then I applaud the government for stepping in. It is a form of child abuse / neglect to allow your children to become so obese. Any other abuse by a parent would not be tolerated and the world would be screaming to have laws in place to prevent it. This is no different. Hooray for San Fransisco, still one of my favourite places.


GHW
said

@ Prof. Pye Chartt… I am with you most of the time and like many aspects of Libertarianism but I don’t believe this particular issue is a battle between lefty inspired big brother government and personal freedom but rather a reflection of the current global power struggle between organized money and publically elected government.
I do not believe that for the most part the masses are as enlightened and founded in common sense as you may be. They are in fact very vulnerable to outside influence like organized big business whose main goal in life is get richer anyway it can with little regard to public interest. I guess I am suggesting that some government oversight and control of our lives is a necessary evil. How would you suggest the largely ignorant masses be protected from organized and incredibly influential big business?

Kate
said

I'm all for any assistance in combating childhood obesity. While my youth didn't involve many trips to McDonald's -- only as a special treat -- too often, these meals with toys or incentives geared to kids are "bait" for food which is NOT wholesome, and, is inexpensive. Eating poorly is less expensive than eating well, unfortunately, and if this legislation helps diminish some of the bait-like attraction to a meal which isn't wholesome, perhaps we should give it a go. All they have to do is make a happy meal based on a better selection -- fruit/yogurt/carrot sticks and a chicken sandwich instead of a cheeseburger and fries. They have the food already from their healthier options. So fix it and sell your damn happy meal! Also, remember, years ago, the tobacco industry was prohibited from using kid-like icons and characters "Joe the Camel" for instance, to appeal to young adults which would encourage them to do something unwholesome. How come no one challenged THAT legislation with the same vigor they are challenging this one?


Erica
said

Dear McDonalds:

Stop being bullied. I say leave your happy meals the same and lower the price by a penny. Then offer to sell the toy to the parents for a penny. No more free toys it is the parents option to buy the toy or not.

As for San Fran.... you people are nuts.


PWebb
said

Has the world gone mad or is it just me. First off let me state that McDonalds does offer healthy alternatives in the meals they provide for kids in fact they have provided healthy choices for everyone. The key word in that statement is CHOICES. Lets not blame Fast food restaurants for the fact that America has gotten obese. Let put the blame where the blame lies in the irresponsibilty of said Americans for being lazy and making bad choices where their dietary needs are concerned. My Children have grown up eating Happy Meals, Mighty Kids Meals, and every other kids meal you can think of and Low and behold not one of my children nor myself or my spouse are obese. IMAGINE THAT. In fact my son choses apples and milk in his Happy meal along with his chicken nuggets. Most of the time he eats his apples, drinks his milk and then runs off to play with the toy... leaving the majority of his chicken nuggets untouched. I am not a lazy parent that carts her kid off to Mcdonalds instead of cooking. My Family eats meals equipped with vegetables, meat, and grains the majority of the week. If we are running behind and are pressed for time a TV dinner is more time saving than the wait time in the drive through and they contain balanced meals.Let's face it people Life is all about choices. Restaurants do not make us obese Bad personal decisions do. Quit putting the blame on others just so you do not have to face the fact that you made bad choices or are just to lazy to make the right ones.


Confused
said

So let me see if I got this right. 1. California came within a hair of making marijuana legal 2. Happy meals, though, are to be banned. OK is this the sign of a seriously messed of society or what?


Vince Davis
said

They want to legalize pot and outlaw Happy Meals?


Hot Button
said

I guess the powers that be are bored with tormenting the smokers. Now they are turning their attention to fat people. This is just the tip of the Iceberg!


Susan
said

Wow, I can easily tell that some of the previous comments were not low income parents, probably not even parents. There's nothing wrong with taking children to McDonald's or other fast food restaurants on the occasion. Yes, it's irresponsible to take them there all the time. Everything in moderation. I use to look down at low income people with a severe weight problem and thought, maybe if they ate less the wouldn't have the financial difficulties. Therein lies the problem, to eat healthy, it cost more than grabbing a quick hamburger & drink. Also, our lives have become far too busy to spend that time in the kitchen that we use to. Yes, we should slow it down, but little "Johnnie" has a football practise a half hour after you get home from work. "Janie" has to pick supplies for her school project and wow, that pile of laundry....Maybe, instead of trying to encourage people to avoid these places, the governments should work on a plan to lower the price of a healthy lifestyle.


Deal With It ...!!
said

Socialism is once again sticking its big fat nose into private enterprise affairs so I'm taking my children to McDonald's for lunch in response. I support free speech, capitalism, and my trust is in God Almighty. Deal with it.


B. Kelley, Ontario
said

Ahh! There's nothing like a government intervention story to bring out the liberal The-End-Always-Justifies-The-Meaners. Obesity is bad so big government is good. Healthy choices are good so no other choice should be allowed. People are stupid so government is smart. I really can't understand why these sheep don't understand that every law, every regulation, every rule that is imposed is another piece of civil liberty gone for good. At one time in our history people governed their own lives within a framework of basic social laws. Apparently, our ancestors were a lot smarter than we are because, by and large, they did that successfully. They were quite adept at choosing what they would eat, how they would light their homes, what they would carry their groceries in and how they would raise their children. Now the liberals among us clamour for more and more "guidance" from our governments on every aspect of our daily life. Somewhere along the way we apparently either lost our smarts or we misplaced our confidence to take responsibility for ourselves and our choices.


joel valdez
said

YES!!! finally this is happening... i hate yelling my daughter to make her finish the food before opening the toy... when it comes to the teenie beanie babies, most people just order the toy without the drink, small fries and burger. i hope this turns into a statewide ban


NWSkeptic
said

While I generally abhor fast food and very rarely eat there, I don't feel it is the government's place to ban something like this. Getting a toy is something the kids love. There is a work-around I suppose, perhaps they can charge a penny more for a meal with a toy, that way it will be a separate purchase, and not included.


Accounting Major
said

I agree with Jen who said "there's something seriously wrong when you can buy a happy meal cheaper than a healthy meal." Has anyone purchased a salad and a medium drink at Wendy's? (Not that it's healthy, but healthier!) The Apple Pecan Salad and a medium drink costs /- $8.25?? (Better for my figure.... not good for my bank account!) And yet I can get a Burger combo cheaper!?? Not good for my figure.... but certainly better for my bank account! Gee what to do, what to do?


Billv
said

Do parents know that they can make nutrious meals at home and that they can eat as a family at home. they will be surprised how much money they will save.


Jo
said

I agree with those slamming the government for sticking their nose where it does not belong. What if parents of healthy kids want to treat their kids. Enough of this crap that you can't let kids have ANYTHING that is not 100% healthy. And what person thinks McDonald's is actually "wholesome" and "healthy"???? And to the person claiming that it's the only option for people on a fixed income because fruits anbd vegetables are too expensive... WHAT?!?!?! Last time I took my kids to McDonald's for a treat , it was 25 bucks for 4 of us. A nutritious meal I can do at home for less than half that!!! Again, let parents decide, not the government. Let the government deal with lowering the cost of fruits and vegetables rather than condemning people/corporations.


Dixie from Alberta
said

Sooo....are fries considered vegetables? Are we now going to see those served for breakfast? Parents....just keep you kids away from the fast junk food and point them in the direction of the good stuff and you would not have the problems of fat kids.


The Big Cee
said

Orwellian, at best. The nanny state government should just butt out of what I want to put in my stomach. So glad I live in a more progressive state. Oh, yeah, I live in Canada. Guess it's just a matter of time before Taliban Jack decides for me what I can eat and can't eat!


Chris
said

People are coming out swinging saying the government can't tell us what to eat or what not to eat. THEY ARE NOT SAYING DON'T EAT IT! They are saying DON'T BRIBE YOUR CHILD WITH A TOY @ McDonald's. They are able to sell the same crap as always they just can't give a toy with it. They'll get around this easy enough by simply discouting the meal by and then offering the option of "Purchasing a toy" seperately.


Robert B
said

And the Americans say they are Not communists, here is the classic example of it. Idiotic politicians wading into an area that they should not be in. To those that say stand up to big corporations, please do stand up and don't walk into their establishment if you're so dead set against them!!!!! In the mean time they pay billions of dollars in wages in America.


DB in Calgary
said

SO this is their answer, banning toys? ya I am sure thats going to help. More grease in KFC and do not see them banning their new sandwich. Ontop of it, San Fran is made up with many other cities, Oakland, San Jose,etc, so really, kids can still get a Happy Meal, just drive across the bridge. This is not going to stop child obesity, educating your kids will.


Chad
said

Did their court system decide that abortions are legal because it is the woman's right to do what she wants with her body?Would this ban not infringe on those rights? They stated they put the ban in place to control what people eat. I think McDonalds has a good case.


Gordo
said

Look around you. People in North America have restricted artierial blood flow, are largely obese, and in general poor health. Fast food is loaded with sodium which is a major contributor to heart disease later in life. The taste we are so used to enjoying in fast food is artificial, even the pleasant smell is artificial. The buns do not mold, the meat does not rot. Bacterial life, molds, bugs won't touch it. On the other hand, rats love. it. Go figure.


Chad
said

Phil said "Are parents in San Fran just that useless they can't figure out that they can just stop going to Mcdonalds if their kid is too fat?"They obivously are that stupid, because they keep voting these socialists into their governments. ie. Nancy Pelosi. I guess they like having the government tell them how to live their lives.


lyle wpg
said

I agree with the whole eating heathy thing, but c'mon this is a law without teeth. Let me see... oh yeah, sell everything individualy and not as a meal and the whole thing is side stepped. You can pick and choose at these restaurants anyway. Here is an idea, tax salt and regular hamburger and use that money to subsidize friut, vegetables, and lean range fed beef.......Oops, I may have given them another idea. Let all be reasonable, everything is a choice, and if people are choosing to eat garbage, they will have to deal with those consequenses.


chel in the Peg
said

Instead of a toy, I'd like to see every Happy Meal come with a free pack of smokes. No mixed messages there!


Steve-O
said

But what will happen if/when California legalizes marijuana? The kids will get the munchies and want their Happy Meals!


jennie
said

SO it's a TOY!! Parents if you made time to cook a healthy meal this wouldn't be an issue. Our society has shy away from accountability!. All issues start at home..The cost of 3 happy meals could provide a 3 course dinner for 4...think about it..and nothing processed incl.Parents need to choose between a busy lifestyle or a healthy lifestyle.


Anne
said

I did not realize the US had Communist states, what happened to freedom of choice or even a parents rights to make decisions for there children.


Pam S
said

The major complaint appears to be of the comments is of government interference and I agree with that. The problem with the government is that they pay for rehab for illegal drug users but refuse to do anything for the overweight, obese and smokers. The chemicals fed to the meat producing animals and fowl cause the weight, hormone treatment meds to stay with the last consumer in the food chain - us the humans. Ask women who have had their reproductive organs removed and given estrogen if they put on weight. With cigarette smoking the governments, fed and prov, collect taxes but do NOT help the smokers with rehab and they have to pay taxes on their meds to help them quit and not have individual assistance for their problem. Talk about a lop-sided government attitude. Take the cigarettes off the market and then they would be illegal and MAYBE smokers could get rehab. This would help all those children who live in smoke filled homes and have to combat withdrawal on a daily basis and go to school at the same time and behave correctly. The same with food if the government made chemicals illegal then we would have a healthier population.


Kevin
said

This is idiotic. San Francisco has bigger problems. Rampant drug use and promiscuity leading to HIV. Recent CDC finding shows that Men having sex with Men (MSM) account for more than half of all people with HIV in U.S. Guess who is paying for the costly treatment? The hard working taxpayers. The problem is not about happy meals in San Francisco. The problem is with "happy times" given in gay bars and rampant drug use in the city.


Paul
said

i stopped going there cause all my kids wanted was the toy, they wouldnt eat the food.


Ken in NB
said

To all the naysayers out there I would like to point out that given the current epidemic of obesity in the USA and Canada it is very apparent that most parents are not able to make the right choices.
Some would blame it on poverty but it really comes down to laziness.
All the fat people in Canada at least will be a onerous burden on the public health care system.
Maybe instead of banning the meals, the city should ban treatment for all those ailments associated with poor eating habits!!


Draco Paldine
said

Wes is just ANOTHER example of People NOT knowing your own laws. The first amendment rights ONLY DEALS with government entities people. It has ZERO to do with private issues.

As for all of you out there that are under the MISGUIDED notion that you can't buy a happy meal any more, you are FLAT OUT WRONG. You can STILL buy your fat Freddie that happy meal, BUT it will no longer have a Reward (toy) inside for making that choice. IT WILL however reward the kid with a toy for making the RIGHT choice.

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!


Happy_meals_make_MY_day
said

Isn't that a bit lopsided? Daddy stuffing his face with his big mac, chocolate shake, and large fry, telling young Billy there to eat up his three-quarters of a cup or more of vegetables? It is implying that it's MacDonalds job to keep children healthy, because when they eat at home, they are pretty much screwed...


Frisco Gal
said

I don't like the government legislating what we can eat. I would be in favor of a bill that required restaurants like McDonalds to offer a healthier item under the title of Happy Meal for the smae price. That way, the choice is still there and no one can blame McDonalds for the poor choice. The child gets the toy either way and the parent pays the same price--healthy or not.


GABRIELA WEAVER
said

Congratulations San Francisco on doing the right thing for the kids regardless of corrporate and even (sadly!) parental pressure. We need to take action to change the epidemic that is sweeping the nation. Yes, kids are getting sick, and so are lots of people! Fast food is DEAD FOOD! I hope your story makes national headlines today! This is the best NEWS story I've heard in a long time!


Tolp
said

Federal governments across the globe should impose a 'Fat Tax' on all fast foods and junk foods. Revenues generated from this tax could go directly to funding healthcare. All the lazy, fat people who insist on eating crap all the time need more health care than the rest of us so they should have to pay in some way.


Draco Paldine
said

WAKE UP PEOPLE... You can STILL buy your child that fatty meal. You can STILL let them eat it. What this ban does is ONLY remove the TOY from inside the fatty meal and only allows a Healthy Meal to provide a toy.

There is NO choices being removed here. You unfit parents that think a 200 pound 10 year old is healthy need to wake up and READ your own laws here. Geez, it is true, most Americans, (Yes I am an American Citizen that CARES for my child) are a bunch of idiots with a ship on their shoulder.


Steveo
said

"We are extremely proud of our Happy Meals which give our youngest guests wholesome food and toys of the highest quality..."
Okay lady, if you think that, then there is really a problem!


carla
said

This is crap. I am a Registered Dietitian working with childhood obesity and the answer is not to limit kids choices or punish the restaurant industry. EDUCATE, EDUCATE, EDUCATE! Spend your time and money in putting together programs and services to educate kids, parents and other patrons on smart choices at these places. I must also give kudos to McDonalds for adding healthier options like apple slices and milk to their kids meals. I appreciate what Mr. Mar's goal is but, wrong tactic.


Tod
said

They need a on tax junk food to make it more expensive than healthy food to discourage people from eating this garbage & pay for the health problems junk food causes.


Tim
said

Sam: Police and military do not exist to protect you from yourself. They exist to protect you from others. Being in the military, my job is not to come to your house, kick in your front door, and take away your rights (or your fast food). My job is to prevent others from doing that to you, so you can continue to do what you want with your life.


PVT
said

I agree with the legislation 100%. It's obvious that many parents either don't care about their children's health or they are just too self centered and lazy to do anything about it. Why else has childhood (and adult) obeisity been touted as 'epidemic' these days? 99% of obeisity is a result of CHOICE - not genetics - especially when it comes to children. It's not the children who make the choice of what they eat - it's the parents and if parents insist on making dietary choices that harm their children (tantamount to abuse IMO) then perhaps those 'choices' should be removed or at least more limited. We are not free to harm our children and the crap that McDonalds and other fast food restaurants puts in their food absolutely, beyond any shadow of doubt, does cause physically cause harm.


Frank D.
said

The momentum has started,.......doughnut shops next!


Lz in Edmonton
said

For those of you who agree with this, does this mean that liquor stores should close? Cigarettes pulled off shelves? Chocolate bars, chips and pop out of stores? Does this mean we should stop eating eggs and milk because of the cholesteral in them? Do we ban everything? Or perhaps, instead, just maybe, we should have physical education in schools and healthier ideas taught? I am so tired of society and lawmakers blaming the companies and businesses for what ends up being stupid choices the parents make? Anyhow, I'm going to McDonalds for lunch.....if I die sooner, at least I am out of this stupid mambepambe society..


West Coast Al
said

This is socialism at it's best. Only the government knows best??? Whats next? Only allowing skim milk to be sold? How do people like this get voted in??You see this in Canadian cities also-banning pop, fries sales in schools etc etc. Do you not think kids/parents/students will find what they are looking for? Should they not have the "right' to buy consume/ buy what they want.Come on!!!


KJ in Kingston Ontario
said

One the best examples of political stupidity I have even seen in days. I hope they won't forget to ban chocolates, cigarettes, cookies, cake, alcohol, rudeness, stupidity, laziness,meanness and carelessness while they are at it.


Gisele LeBlanc, Dieppe
said

I also think this is a good thing. A lot of kids want to go to McDonald's because of the toy. This decision helps to stop marketing companies from using kids to sell unhealthy junk food--it's taking a stand for healthy eating. If using a toy as an incentive can only be used for healthy choices, it's a win for kids! If you ask me, it's a small step in the right direction.The only thing San Francisco McDonald's (and other restaurants) have to do is revamp their Happy Meals into something healthy. I don't see what's wrong with that!


Sam
said

Tim, if people were able to decide with any level of success what they should be able to put into their body, we wouldn't have an epidemic of obesity, issues with alcoholism and drug abuse. People simply don't have the will power to say no. I eat at McDonald's probably at least once a month, and each time end up saying to myself "Why'd I do that?". I agree that a ban isn't the answer, but to simply leave it up to the public? Why do you think we have police forces and armies? Because the public has shown over eons that they simply can't do it on their own.


Bil
said

the "western civilization" Tim is also the first to treat children who are simultaneously obese and malnourished.Congratulations. Eat what you want.


Kylie
said

If the government is truly concerned about children becomong obese then they need to simply change the food served at schools. I am a teacher and the only things ever served in the school cafeteria are hamburgers, chicken strips and french fries. Most schools are government run, they have the right to change and control this, not independently owned restaurants. This looks like it may be about something more than just giving our kids healthier foods.


Scott ON
said

@ Ry, what's to say that the cost won't go up in order to compensate for these expensive fruits and vegetables. What are the parents going to do then? Let the kids starve? I think it's stupid, chances are now the parents, not having the toy in the happy meal will just order the extra value meal and the kids can eat even more of the junk


Wes
said

Phil said Are parents in San Fran just that useless they can't figure out that they can just stop going to Mcdonalds if their kid is too fat?Phil - Apparently the answer is YES.McDonald's should sue San Francisco for violation of their first amendment rights. The city has no right to tell McDonald's what they can or can't give out with their meals. Oh yeah - I forgot - the liberal nuts apparently only like free expression when it supports their cause and not when they don't like what they hear.


Prof. Pye Chartt
said

Thank heavens for the righteous lefties in this world who, with their superior intelligence, caring, and compassion, always take the initiative to save us from our stupid and ignorant selves. (Strip us of our freedoms, deny us our natural options, and set us straight with your authoritative rules governing how we should live our lives.) ...God bless you.


B. Kelley, Ontario
said

More proof of governments running amok. One minute they're rightfully slamming China, North Korea and Iran for failing to uphold human rights and the next minute they pass legislation restricting the right of their own citizens to make their own personal choices about such basic things as deciding what to eat. Here's a news flash for politicians: We really are smart enough to find our way through life without your self-ascribed superior intellect and wisdom herding us like sheep through a gate of your choosing.


it is not just San Fran
said

This is not just a problem from San Fran, it is country wide and indeed worldwide! Check out the obesity rates in the USA..it is astounding! Why should there by XXXL clothes for kids? Granted there are a few medical reason for obesity but I would say 90% or more are eating habits and lifestyle choices. Obviously the parents are not doing a good enough job at controlling this so someone else has to step in. I still think parents should be charged with cruelty or neglect for having obese children. The kids will suffer their entire lives...medical problems, being teased (although obesity is fast becoming the norm), not getting seats on airlines....this all stems from parents not watching what their kids eat. Make a meal don't nuke it or order it in! I am all for the ban until the meal itself is healthy. What should a happy meal have more than 1/2 your daily sodium? Why should a happy meal have more than 1/2 your daily fat? Come people, wise up, eat properly!


Jen Toronto
said

It's about time we started standing up to these big corporations who have become extremely wealthy at the expense of our health. Now if only we could get the price of good food lower, so that it would actually be cheaper to buy healthy food rather then fatty, salty fast food. There is something seriously wrong with the fact that you can buy a happy meal for less than a healthy, well balanced meal. I hope Ontario considers taking similar action, although realistically, I highly doubt it will happen.


sask guy
said

I think it's about time we put our foot down on fat people. The poor old smoker has been tormented enough.


GUTSHOT!! in Thunder Bay
said

What else does one come to expect from San Franfreako?? Get used to this folks, because fast food restaurants are the cigarette companys of the 2000's. Everyone was so quick to condemn the tobacco companys (for a half decent reason too) but it was only a path towards legislating away something that one of YOU like. Today it may be a happy meal, but tomorrow it may be your Tim Hortons cup of coffee. Beware of anything that takes the rights of people to choose away. Just because you dont agree with their choice its no reason to ever try to take it away from them. Its gonna be your turn soon.


James T Murphy
said

This could be a satire from saturday night live of the state California is now in if it wasn't so terribly sad.


Evan, Kingston
said

Although I don't like the general concept of government interfering in the personal decisions of its citizens (especially on how to raise their children), there is a simple solution here. The law doesn't target McDonalds or Happy Meals, it simply sets nutritional guidelines for meals targeted at children. If McDonalds offers healthier options then they can keep handing out toys and pushing their "food" on kids.


Ry in the Hammer
said

I completely agree with this. I find it hypocritical for McDonald's - of all chains - to lecture about offering "wholesome" food to children. As an adult, I can barely stomach eating fast food on a good day, let alone regularly. I wouldn't let my kids near it.And as for the quip about parents choosing what their children should eat - McDonald's, your absolutely right. But when your on a fixed income and fruits and vegetables costs more than a happy meal, you've locked the market to no alternatives, leaving most parents are forced to opt for the unhealthy choice of a "happy meal". With such a ban, McDonald's would be obliged to offer a more healthier product if it wanted to sell meals with toy's for children, and hopefully, would lessen the cost of more "wholesome" foods.It's a shame, McDonald's could have taken a leadership role in this instead of being so combatitive - and probably scored points in the process.


Tim
said

This is a prime example of what is wrong with Western Civilization. The government has no right to tell us what we can and cannot put in our bodies. It is up to us to decide what food we should eat. Governments continually try to remove our responsibility to make our own decisions in life.If people wonder why groups like the Tea Party appear, it is not because they are a bunch of right-wing redneck racsist nutjobs. It is because they are tired of the size of the government, and its interference in our lives.


Reader90210
said

Really, seriously.


pat j
said

They peddle garbage to people, wrap it in a pretty package for little kids and then act like ' whoa, wait, we did not do anything bad!'.

Intelligent Liberal
said

This is terrible news, San Francisco is taking the HAPPY out of HAPPY meal. So now what, it will just be called "meal?" This is particularly outrageous since Ronald McDonald himself is a resident of San Fran, I saw him there. On the positive side, in order to comply with the order to have at least half a cup of vegetables each meal, McDonalds will have to lift their long-standing policy of not serving fries until 10:30 in the morning, that always bothered me.


Phil
said

Are parents in San Fran just that useless they can't figure out that they can just stop going to Mcdonalds if their kid is too fat?


Gary
said

I fail to understand how banning happy meals is going to stop parents from making bad choices. My sister's kids had McDonald's as a treat once in a while and as a nurse she saw nothing wrong with it. Another idiotic decision from over government.


Share with your social Network:

Facebook DIGG Newsvine Delicious Twitter StumbeUpon Reddit Yahoo! Buzz

 

Advertisement

Contest

Today's Top Stories

Former Liberian President Charles Taylor waits for the start of his sentencing judgement in the courtroom of the Special Court for Sierra Leone in Leidschendam, near The Hague, Netherlands, Wednesday May 30, 2012.  (AP / Toussaint Kluiters)

Charles Taylor gets 50 years for 'brutal' crimes

More   2 Comments 2    1 Video(s) 1

A police officer removes a package containing a human foot from the Conservative Party headquarters in Ottawa on Tuesday, May 29, 2012. (Sean Kilpatrick / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

Police probe body parts in Ottawa, torso in Montreal

More    Comments    3 Video(s) 3

Supporters of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, hold placards and banners bearing images of him before the verdict was given in his extradition case at the Supreme Court in London, Wednesday, May 30, 2012. (AP / Matt Dunham)

Britain's top court backs extradition of WikiLeaks chief

More   4 Comments 4    2 Video(s) 2