"San Francisco bans Happy Meals"
That was one of many excited headlines last week as The City's board of supervisors passed a veto-proof ordinance.
But the fine print shows a more complex story, one of associating toys with fast food.
The meals that spark happiness can continue to exist if a) the combined meal contains fewer than 600 calories, and if less than 35% of the calories come from fat, and b) fruits and vegetables are provided with all meals that come with toys.
From a child's perspective, the meal isn't as euphoric without said toy. But we really have to ask ourselves whether there is merit to associating fast food with a toy, especially a highly marketed toy.
At that age, having a hamburger, French fries, and drink in a special container should be special enough. Children can travel with their own toys if they need additional entertainment.
But these restaurants have options if they absolutely can't serve these meals without a toy: offer healthy food along with the burger, fries, and drink.
Children can still get the fast food and the toy, all with the significance of tying them together, as long as there is healthy food alongside the rest of the meal.
But the children won't be as happy, the restaurants (and their profits) won't be happy, the toy makers won't be happy. Sounds like the line of reasoning that William Frawley's character gives us in "Miracle on 34th Street" on why Santa Claus exists.
Perhaps we need to change the definition of "happy." When children eat healthy food, somebody should be happy. The doctors would be happy. The nurses would be happy. The brains of the children would be happy.
Tying in toys from large conglomerate companies with fast food is a tired and lazy strategy. You might argue that government doesn't have a role in doing something such as this. But however symbolic, this ordinance will make someone very happy: parents of small children.
Comments