|
 |
Townhall...
New York Welcomes the
Unhappy Meal
By Julie Gunlock
Parents have many responsibilities. Getting the kids up and ready for
school, making sure they do their homework and practice proper manners.
Parents manage carpools, play-dates and sleepovers; they sooth scraped
knees, bruised heads and injured feelings. But perhaps the most basic
thing a parent does is feed their children. Feeding a child means more
than just spooning mashed carrots into a baby’s mouth or preparing a
simple peanut butter and jelly sandwich for a toddler. It requires a
firm constitution when children demand a meal mom and dad might not
consider healthy.
Most parents deal with these demands by simply saying “no” to the
pestering child, but apparently this is a feat too difficult for
parents -- at least according to one New York City council member.
Taking a page from the San Francisco ban on toys in McDonalds’ Happy
Meals, New York City Councilman Leroy Comrie just announced his plan to
introduce a bill to ban fast food restaurants from using these
“predatory marketing techniques” unless they meet “certain satisfactory
nutritional requirements.”
Of course, Comrie is just the latest public official to jump on the
anti-Happy Meal bandwagon. San Francisco passed its own ban last year
despite there being no evidence that these bans result in children and
parents making healthier food decisions. And there’s the rub: What
seems to escape Comrie and the rest of the food nannies is that
something else comes with these toys—yummy food that kids love. French
fries, chicken nuggets, hamburgers--these items taste good to kids (and
adults). Kids will still clamor for these appealing items, even if a
toy isn’t included.
Fast food restaurants are already voluntarily altering their menus so
that customers have healthier choices. McDonalds now offers apple
slices, yogurt and oatmeal on their menu. At Burger King, customers can
order a veggie burger as well as a variety of salads and grilled
chicken sandwiches. The entire fast food industry has been
experimenting with oils that don’t contain trans-fats to get ahead of
trans-fat bans and many fast food restaurants post the calories
contained in each item—some even directly on many of the food
containers.
And, of course, parents can stop their children from eating unhealthy
fast food by not giving them the money to purchase these meals. But
that’s not enough for the nation’s food nannies, who want government to
step in and do parents’ job. The engine behind most of these proposed
regulations is the Center for Science in the Public Interest—which last
year made a media splash by announcing it would sue McDonalds for
daring to give your kids a free toy (the nerve!). And they’ve followed
through with the suit.
In December, CSPI and California mother Monet Parham filed suit against
McDonalds Corporation because the company “exploits very young
California children and harms their health by advertising unhealthy
Happy Meals with toys directly to them.”
Talking about the lawsuit, Parham explained the harrowing ordeal she
faces saying no to her children’s constant demands for McDonalds:
“Needless to say, my answer was no, and as usual, pouting ensued and a
little bit of a disagreement between us. This doesn’t stop with one
request. It’s truly a litany of requests.” Does anyone truly believe
that Parham’s children won’t still demand french fries, even when
packaged without a toy?
Parham captures perfectly how the CSPI views parents: spineless, weak,
and at the mercy of children and advertisers. While the CSPI might try
to portray itself as being on the side of these poor overwhelmed moms
and dads, the truth is the CSPI has nothing but contempt for parents.
They view parents as hapless creatures, incapable of making sound
decisions about when—and when not—to give their children a treat.
American parents everywhere should recoil from this kind of government
paternalism.
I, however, feel a little sorry for Parham. Someone needs to get her a
Happy Meal.
Read the article at Townhall
|
|
|
|
