Frisco’s plan to fight obesity in children is hard to stomach
In the land of the wacky and the home of the absurd, the big fat hands of Big Brother are trying to strong-arm Ronald McDonald.
In San Francisco, the Board of Supervisors earlier this month approved a ban on toys and other promotional products from children’s fast-food meals — including Happy Meals — unless strict nutritional guidelines are met that limit calories, sugar, salt and fat.
Remarkably, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom used a heaping helping of logic in vetoing the measure ostensibly aimed at curbing childhood obesity. But the city’s legislators vow to override the veto, and they have enough votes to do so. When they do, we can only hope this misguided ban does not spread beyond the crazed confines of the city by the bay.
Despite the noble intent of the ban as one tool to curb the growing epidemic of childhood obesity in America, the bill yanks some of the fun out of kids’ fast-food meals and, more importantly, lunges far too intrusively on the turf of free enterprise and American parenthood.
The proposed ban angers McDonald’s Corp. And with good reason: The private-food industry in this country should not have to give government at any level the right to shove down its throats the minutiae of its menu options.
What’s more, the ban is an ill-advised weapon in the war against childhood obesity because it removes a choice that rightly belongs to parents. It is up to parents to decide whether to buy their children a less than nutritious cheap meal, complete with a cheap plastic toy.
As Mayor Newsom argued in his veto message, “parents, not politicians, should decide what their children eat, especially when it comes to spending their own money.”
SEEK BETTER TOOLS TO FIGHT OBESITY
Most parents don’t buy these meals as routine dinner fare for their children anyway. In addition, McDonald’s has responded to health concerns by substituting apple slices for fries and milk for sugary soft drinks in its popular Happy Meals. Unlike the misguided San Francisco supervisors, the company has the good sense to offer parents an option .
Even if the ban survives the mayor’s veto, it likely will have little impact on combating childhood obesity. Larger, less intrusive, and potentially more effective tools should be used.
For example, Ohio set a better example in promoting slimmed-down children in passage of Senate Bill 20 earlier this year. The bill, portions of which we also found intrusive and were removed before passage, requires school districts to set nutritional standards for beverages sold in cafeterias or vending machines, mandates certification for physical education instructors and strongly encourages (but does not force) districts to schedule 30 minutes of rigorous physical activity for all students each day.
Broad-based public service campaigns on preventing the dangers of obesity could also play a role. But in the end, we the people must be held accountable for what we the people eat. It should be a personal responsibility to eat healthy. It is not the responsibility of the San Francisco supervisors or any other do-gooder government.