Should "Happy Meals" Aimed at Kids Be Banned to Help Curb Childhood Obesity?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By Larry Greenemeier

No kidding, McDonald's Happy Meal fans in the San Francisco area might have to look elsewhere if they want movie tie-in trinkets, along with their fries and burgers.

On November 3, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors gave preliminary approval for a ban on unhealthy restaurant meals that include toys as enticement for children to consume their products—the so-called "Happy Meal ban," named after the popular McDonald's menu item. The ban dictates that a restaurant cannot provide an incentive item (a trading card, game or other prize) for a menu item that has more than 200 calories or for a meal that tops 600 calories. The law would also prohibit menu items from being sold as children's meals if they contain excessive fat or sodium as well as require that the fare includes at least a half cup of fruit and at least a three-quarter cup of vegetables (pdf).

The ban's proponents see it as a modest victory in efforts to curb childhood obesity, citing the 2007 California Health Interview Survey that found 15 percent of 12-to-17-year-olds in the greater Bay Area to be overweight or obese (8 percent of children under age 12 were found to be overweight for their age). Opponents for the most part see the measure as government interference in parenting. Mayor Gavin Newsom indicated a desire to veto the ban, although the board is expected to formally approve the measure in a final reading November 9 and has enough votes to override a mayoral veto.

San Francisco's actions coincide with a Harvard University study published this week in the journal PLoS Computational Biology, which modeled obesity as a kind of infection, spreading in part because of social contact. It found that the number of obese Americans will not plateau until it reaches 42 percent of adults (the rate has been about 34 percent for the past five years). In a bit of good news–bad news the researchers claim that whereas the U.S. may not reach the 42 percent obesity rate for another 40 years, their projection is a best-case scenario—it could be higher.

Scientific American interviewed Marion Nestle, a New York University professor of nutrition, food studies and public health, about the significance of such legislative efforts to improve children's eating habits, and the likelihood that they will help keep kids from becoming overweight.

[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]

Based on your study of food sociology, will San Francisco's proposed ban on Happy Meal–type offerings have a big impact on efforts to keep children from becoming overweight?

Let's be clear. Toys in happy meals are about marketing, not health. There is only one reason why they are there: to get kids to pester their parents for the meals. The toys are not about the food—they are about the marketing. With that said, one meal is not going to affect obesity rates. But cooling down the marketing environment might make life a lot easier for parents who want to feed their kids more healthfully.

What is the most significant reason for the rise in children who are overweight or obese?

I can't point to one reason in isolation from the others. Obesity rates started to go up in the early 1980s. What happened then? Farm policies that encouraged greater food production, Wall Street pressures on corporations to grow every quarter, economic downturns that make people work longer hours, societal changes that keep kids indoors rather than outside playing on their own. Food companies responded by putting foods everywhere, encouraging snacking, serving larger portions, making it normal for kids to drink sodas all day long. The list goes on.

If I had to choose one, I'd say it's the rise in caloric availability from 3,200 per capita per day in the early 1980s to the present 3,900 per day today—roughly twice the population's need. Food companies have to sell products in a hugely competitive environment. On top of that, they must demonstrate growth to Wall Street every quarter.

New York City has tried a few different approaches in recent years to discourage unhealthy eating, including a move by the Bloomberg administration to have chain restaurants display calorie information on their menus. The mayor also wants to have soda excluded as an item that can be purchased using food stamps. Is there any evidence that such measures are working (or would work) as intended?

Calorie labeling is soon going national—it's signed into the health reform act—so we will be able to conduct that experiment on a much larger scale quite soon. Preliminary studies do not show much difference in calorie intake, but I don't think the studies are asking the right questions. I know plenty of people who go into calorie shock when they look at a cookie and discover that it contains 670 calories. Some people will change their choices in response to such information, others will not. The studies need to probe such differences.

What I like about calorie labeling is its educational potential. People do not understand calories very well. Labeling will be accompanied by a statement about a 2,000-calorie standard. Eventually, it can encourage people to get a feel for the amount of food that balances their daily needs.

The word "epidemic" is often used when talking about obesity, whether for children or adults. Epidemic, however, implies that there is a contagion involved. Is this a proper characterization of obesity, or does thinking of it in terms of an infectious disease contribute to the problem?

I think plenty of sociologists would consider obesity "contagious" in the sense that eating habits are exquisitely sensitive to peer pressure and the social context, most of which encourages people to eat more than they might do otherwise.

What is the most effective relationship between government and its citizens when dealing with healthy eating?

I see the government's role as giving the best possible advice—direct, unambiguous, based on available science and free of food industry influence—about the role of diet in health. The government's role should be to make it easier for people to eat more healthfully. The government currently supports the existing food system in multiple ways that promote overeating in general and of less healthful foods in particular.

What kind of changes should the U.S. make, then?

If policies were restructured to link agriculture to public health, fruits and vegetables would be cheaper and more readily available, for example. And the government could put restrictions on food marketing to children to help create a food environment that promotes more healthful eating. As citizens we can vote with our forks for the kind of food system we want, but we also need to exercise our democratic rights and encourage better federal policies.

http://www.scientifi...eal-ban-obesity

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The same commercials (if not worse) were on TV when I was growing up on happy meals, wendy's kids meals, etc...

I got McDonalds maybe once a month or even less than that. I didn't care, because my mom made me food and I ate what she put in front of me, because i was a CHILD. Children are to do what their parents tell them to do. They are to be seen and not heard, and they are not your friend if you're a parent.

Stop keeping your kids indoors, stop 'fearing' they are going to be abducted every day, tell them to get off their fat and pathetic butts and play outside when it's nice or even when it's cold put on a damn jacket. Turn off the TV, computer, video games, and COOK THEM A DAMN MEAL. Stop taking the easy way out....

McDonalds isn't the problem, it's the idiot parents of today.

[Jenn! 918]

McDonalds isn't the problem, it's the idiot parents of today.

Right, but since we can't stop people from being idiots, we're going to have to get at the problem by taking the toys away from McDonald's.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Right, but since we can't stop people from being idiots, we're going to have to get at the problem by taking the toys away from McDonald's.

which is answering idiocy with even more/worse idiocy.

Education is the key and getting people to change habits as well.

You can give kids all the healthy food in the world, but if they sit on their arses all day and watch tv/play games, they are still going to be little fat brats.

[Jenn! 918]

which is answering idiocy with even more/worse idiocy.

Education is the key and getting people to change habits as well.

You can give kids all the healthy food in the world, but if they sit on their arses all day and watch tv/play games, they are still going to be little fat brats.

Do you think that people are really unaware that McDonald's and lack of exercise makes one fat?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Do you think that people are really unaware that McDonald's and lack of exercise makes one fat?

Not so much being unaware about fatty foods/lack of excercise as realizing responsibility for their child's health... You see workout frenzied mom with fat kids... they take care of themselves, yet ignore their children in this aspect. I just don't think a lot of people really realize how their decisions in what they have their kids doing, are effecting that child's overall health...

There are some just really dumb ones that don't get the whole fatty/laziness thing.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

The only regulation that needs to be done on "fast-foods" should be done by the customer (from one who does not like Mickey-D's, and avoids its establishments on road-trips--well, that IS a practice of the right type of "regulation"), with-wallet!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The only regulation that needs to be done on "fast-foods" should be done by the customer (from one who does not like Mickey-D's, and avoids its establishments on road-trips--well, that IS a practice of the right type of "regulation"), with-wallet!

What about cigarettes and alcohol to minors? We bar minors from being able to purchase those products because of the harmful effects.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

What about cigarettes and alcohol to minors? We bar minors from being able to purchase those products because of the harmful effects.

Well parents can give their kids alcohol is they buy it for them, just as they do happy meals, soooooo.... kind of a bad argument.

The only argument you could make is not allowing kids to purchase these meals on their own, but by the time a kid is old enough to purchase his own meal, he's already up to a Big Mac Meal lol....

Interesting article. I'm little leery of all of this because whom knows if its going to take place and etc. Even though I'm for this. Hope I made sense here.

so you're for being told how to raise your children? Interesting. I'm sure CPS could offer you some good advice. Perhaps you should go ahead and call them and have them check in on your and make sure you are doing the right thinga nd your children aren't in danger from you.

Because that's EXACTLY where that type of attitude leads.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Well parents can give their kids alcohol is they buy it for them, just as they do happy meals, soooooo.... kind of a bad argument.

The only argument you could make is not allowing kids to purchase these meals on their own, but by the time a kid is old enough to purchase his own meal, he's already up to a Big Mac Meal lol....

so you're for being told how to raise your children? Interesting. I'm sure CPS could offer you some good advice. Perhaps you should go ahead and call them and have them check in on your and make sure you are doing the right thinga nd your children aren't in danger from you.

Because that's EXACTLY where that type of attitude leads.

Paul, the sky is not falling, Dennis Kucinich isn't president, and aliens aren't landing on the west lawn at the white house. So calm the ** down. Your rights are not being infringed upon, and the government looking out for its citizenry is not enslavement, so stop being a melodramatic John Stossel clone. You can still buy your kid a burger if you want, and you can even go home and dump half a quarry worth of salt on it for anyone cares. But the current state of fast food is unacceptable. The food is loaded with sodium, sugar, fat, HFCS, etc., and that is the default setting. Yes, parents should cook their kids meals and avoid fast food. But this is the real world, not some rerun of Leave it To Beaver. You can stop the hysterics and overreaction here.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Paul and Vanessa,

Confused on your response to my response and need further explanation to it.

Government telling people how to raise their children is not new--and was the case in two examples we DON't want to emulate (USSR and Hitler's Germany).

[Jenn! 918]

But it's not the government telling people how to raise their children. It's telling McDonald's what things they can and cannot include in their products. Government regulation of corporations is nothing new.

Parents are still free to give their children a toy when they go to McDonald's if for some strange reason they wanted to do that.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Paul, the sky is not falling, Dennis Kucinich isn't president, and aliens aren't landing on the west lawn at the white house. So calm the ** down. Your rights are not being infringed upon, and the government looking out for its citizenry is not enslavement, so stop being a melodramatic John Stossel clone. You can still buy your kid a burger if you want, and you can even go home and dump half a quarry worth of salt on it for anyone cares. But the current state of fast food is unacceptable. The food is loaded with sodium, sugar, fat, HFCS, etc., and that is the default setting. Yes, parents should cook their kids meals and avoid fast food. But this is the real world, not some rerun of Leave it To Beaver. You can stop the hysterics and overreaction here.

If it's unacceptable, then don't eat it...... Don't get it for your kids, it's THAT simple.

Every kid when I was growing up ate Happy Meals too and we were fine. The problem isn't the damn food, it's the lack of activity. We played, we were outside, we had fun, we had recess at school in elementary school, we did physical activities all the time, and especially after we got home from school. Kids don't do that today...

Stop blaming the 'fast food nation' on the problems of changing in activity. That's like blaming the policies of Grover Cleveland for the Great Depression.....

[Obama 2012 1,714]

But it's not the government telling people how to raise their children. It's telling McDonald's what things they can and cannot include in their products. Government regulation of corporations is nothing new.

Parents are still free to give their children a toy when they go to McDonald's if for some strange reason they wanted to do that.

It's a slippery slope and placing blame where blame is not due.

We were fed commercials on sugary cereals, mcdonalds, and all sorts of other ####### as kids and it didn't make a damn bit of difference.

It's not the foods... it's not the toys... Stop trying to blame them for it.

[Gemmie 142]

My family was too poor for fast food when I was growing up. I probably had McDonald's like, twice. My mum would cook us basic things every day (potatoes, meat, veggies). Having said that, she would let me choose what I wanted for dinner, so long as she OK'ed it, so I could still have some choice, and I think that's a good balance.

I don't like the idea of forcing your kids to eat foods they don't like, except in the case of fruit and vegetables. My husband's parents sat him at the table and told him he would eat what was put in front of him, no matter if he liked the taste or not. If he didn't finish it, they would put it in the fridge and he would be forced to have it for breakfast the next day. If he didn't finish it then, dinner would be the same thing, re-heated. Now that he's an adult, he still doesn't like those foods, and if anything it's had a negative impact on him, as he's more likely to not restrict what he eats.