- Share This Post
- 1
- submit
- 16
-
Sparkle (0)
If you thought Seinfeld's Soup Nazi was bad, read this article about how a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors (a combined city and county governmental entity) wants to restrict restaurants in terms of the meals with which toys can be given. The highlights of the plan, which was introduced on Tuesday, August 10, 2010, include:
Under the proposed legislation, restaurants in San Francisco would not be allowed to provide an "incentive item," such as toys, trading cards or admission tickets, linked to the purchase of an individual menu item or meal that includes:
-- More than 200 calories for a single item or more than 600 calories for a meal. (A typical fast food hamburger has at least 250 calories, according to McDonald's and Burger King nutritional websites.)
-- More than 480 milligrams of sodium for a single item or 640 milligrams for a meal. (A typical fast-food hamburger has 520 milligrams of sodium.)
-- More than 35 percent of its calories derived from fat, unless the fat is contained in nuts, seeds or nut butters, or from a packaged egg or packaged low-fat or reduced-fat cheese.
-- More than 10 percent of its calories derived from saturated fats, with the exception of nuts, seeds, packaged eggs or packaged low-fat or reduced-fat cheese.
-- More than 0.5 grams of trans fat.
Other requirements:
-- Meals must include at least a half-cup of fruit and three-quarters of a cup of vegetables.
-- A beverage may not have more than 35 percent of its calories fat-based or more than 10 percent of its calories sugar-based.
The main proponent of the legislation, Supervisor Eric Mar, is quoted in the SFgate.com article as saying that, "Our legislation will encourage restaurants that offer unhealthy meals marketed toward children and youth to offer healthier food options with incentive items or toys ..." But the article also states that the local restaurant industry is calling the proposal punitive, and quotes at least one parent, at a McDonald's, stressing that the decision of what kids eat is up to the parents:
"They were hungry. We got something quick and they got toys to play with," Choice, 24, said. "These are growing boys, extremely active. I think it should be up to the parents, not the city, to decide what they eat."
A drive through of blog writing about the proposal reveals a mix of emotions -- including guilt. At this Eat Drink Better post by Jeannie Moulton, commenters were asked to answer the question of whether toys should be banned from being served with unhealthy meals and offered these kinds of thoughts:
I am so guilty of occasionally giving in to the diet desires of my child, but I do support a more healthy diet more often than not. It is not the government’s job to dictate what the public should or should not consume with ANY product.
and
Ban the toys if you want … my kids would ask for Happy Meals even if they came without a toy. They actually enjoy that conglomeration of chemicals & processed food particles that McDonald's calls chicken nuggets. But as their PARENT, I make the CHOICE not to feed them that garbage except on extremely rare occasions, even though they often whine & beg. Not only that, I EXPLAIN to them WHY I don't allow them to have it. That's really the problem here -- toys may be a marketing tool to encourage children to ask their parents for a product … but ultimately it's up to the parent to say NO, not the government to make laws
