But what about the kids who have been to McDonald's enough times so that they know when they get a happy meal they get a toy? When they see that their's no toy then they'll tell their parents and then the parents will have to talk to the manager which will say something along the lines of "We had to take away the toy because our meals were too unhealthy". Then who knows what will happen.
Well, the fact that this is only in one state shouldn't worry anybody. I'm a vegetarian anyway, so I don't care. The toys are the things that really atract the kids, although this won't stop childhood obesity, it may help a little but, or just be a sign to all of states and fast food franchises.
Honestly, I think it's a waste of time and resources. The child doesn't get the food for the toy that comes with it, the child gets the food for the food. The toy is no more than an added bonus. And yes, it is a sales gimmick, yes, it does work sometimes, but if a parent is going to get McDonald's for their kid, then obviously lack of something more that comes with the food would, at best, get them to switch restaurants to something equally unhealthy. Instead of spending money pursuing this fruitless venture, we should pour it into something more lucrative, like lowering the prices of the healthy food and raising the prices of the unhealthy food.
I think that if and when Micky D's makes the happy meals more nutritious, then the state will allow the toys back into the meals. If the Golden Arches doesn't want to comply, then yes, they will see a drop in sales, because everyone knows that little kids have only one thing on their minds when they go to McDonalds "What toy do they have now?" at least that is what I always thought. Hopefully the Golden Arches makes the food more healthy so that way all paties get what they want. The kids get a toy, Micky D's gets more sales and the People who instated the ban get less fat kids.
The only problem I forsee is the fact that they only placed the ban on McDonalds. They should put that type of ban on all fast food restuarants, so there can be no lawsuits filed.
The only problem I forsee is the fact that they only placed the ban on McDonalds. They should put that type of ban on all fast food restuarants, so there can be no lawsuits filed.
Read the article OP... all fastfood chains. Pretty much all of them have a kids' meal with a toy, so this applies to all of them, the article actually says little to nothing about the happy meal objectively. This is ALL the chains, but "happy meal" is a well-known term to use for the quickening of a debate.
----------------- As for the whole toy argument going on here: Sometimes the time the kid wants it for the toy sometimes not, but it is definitely something that sets off the child's impulse reactions, which is exactly what fast food chains go for. TONS AND TONS of their profit comes from parents buying their kids happy meals because their kids ask so, and while they're at it, getting a meal for themselves.
This isn't a legislation trying to straight up take away the toys. It's just using the toys as a pawn to make sure the food meets, in the article's words, "certain nutritional standards". I don't see anything wrong with this tactic in and of itself and McDonalds/Burger King/Wendy's would (I would assume!!) make their meals more naturally fatty/salty instead of artificially fatty/salty before they allowed the toys to be taken from them.
I doubt the "certain nutritional standards" are significant anyways, but it is assumable that the standards would toughen as the program may become useful.
I think that if and when Micky D's makes the happy meals more nutritious, then the state will allow the toys back into the meals.
Actually they offer more nutritious options with all the Happy Meals now, such as fruit, yogurt, baked chicken, and (as always) you can get milk or juice instead of soda. So let me ask you, what is unhealthy about some chicken nuggets, fresh fruit, and a glass of milk?
This isn't a legislation trying to straight up take away the toys. It's just using the toys as a pawn to make sure the food meets, in the article's words, "certain nutritional standards".
If the food is healthy enough to sell, then it's healthy enough to sell with a happy meal.
Obesity isn't the government's problem to fix. People must be allowed to live their own lives and to
I agree that obesity shouldn't be the government's problem to fix, whether it is making laws to (try to) fight it or funding organizations to promote awareness. They have more important stuff to spend money with anyway. Awareness in general for obesity is fine, even beneficial. If organizations want to promote awareness for obesity, then it should be privately funded only.
Parents just need to be more enlightened about this sort of thing. Give their children checkups to see if their metabolism is slow or quick. Naturally, slower metabolic rates mean the digested material takes longer to break down and dispose of, while faster metabolism is vice-versa. Parents with children with slow metabolic processes need to watch out with this sort of food.
*shrugs* this is rather idiotic if you think about it. No one is forcing the parent to buy the Happy Meal. I'm all for nutrition, but when we boil it down, who cares?
That's right, WHO FREAKEN CARES, it's like some people get fat and the world ends. Man, I just can't believe that the government hasn't figured out that it's the PERSON'S FAULT. And plus, if I wanna get fat, that's my choice, not yours, just 'cause you wanna make the country look like it's not the fat, lazy mass it really is. So all i'm sayin' is, I don't care, and neither should you.
If you read the comments the people have a good point.It's not their job to be the kid's parents. It's the parents job to keep there kids from being chunky
