I can't imagine a topic more blog-worthy than this one. If you haven't heard, San Francisco has banned restaurants (like McDonald's) from offering a free toy in a kids' meal unless it meets a set of relatively low nutritional standards. Meals that include toys must contain no more than 600 calories and 35% of calories from fat. Full story on LAtimes.com. A meal with 600 calories may provide anywhere from 25%-60% of a child's total daily calorie needs, depending on age, gender, and activity level. Because the ordinance does not actually require meals with toys to contain any beneficial nutrients such as vitamins, minerals, or fiber, I would hardly consider it to be draconian.
Nevertheless, many object to the new regulation on the grounds that government is once again reaching into private lives and meddling where it shouldn't. It is an understandable objection, but on this issue, I side with the San Francisco government. In a column published today, physician and preventive medicine researcher David Katz does a great job of presenting an argument for regulating toys in kids' meals.
When I first read about the move, my first thought was not that the government was manipulating consumers by regulating businesses, but that it was preventing the manipulation of consumers by businesses. Dr. Katz's column expresses this point better than I could:
"Let's assume that you see the removal of the toy from the Happy Meal as a case of Big Brother telling you what to do. How, then, did you view the placement of the toy in the Happy Meal in the first place?
McDonald's did not consult you to find out if you wanted a toy encouraging your child to prefer a meal of lamentable nutritional quality. They did not consult any parent. They may have done consumer testing showing that kids- and thus their parents- are apt to choose such meals, but that's to find out what's best for them, not for you."
He also makes the important point that the government must be accountable to voters, whereas McDonald's is only accountable to its shareholders. The implication here, as I interpret it, is that the decisions made by the government in this instance are much likelier to be in our best interests than those made by McDonald's.
Finally, as if reading my mind, he says, "We are all prone, whether or not we care to admit it, to manipulation by multinational corporations with fortunes to spend and the best thinnking Madison Avenue can provide. Thinking designed to figure out what it takes to get us to buy what they're selling. Being manipulated into a lunch choice my McDonald's and Dreamworks [which supplies many of the toys] is not exactly the epitome of personal liberty."
Nevertheless, many object to the new regulation on the grounds that government is once again reaching into private lives and meddling where it shouldn't. It is an understandable objection, but on this issue, I side with the San Francisco government. In a column published today, physician and preventive medicine researcher David Katz does a great job of presenting an argument for regulating toys in kids' meals.
When I first read about the move, my first thought was not that the government was manipulating consumers by regulating businesses, but that it was preventing the manipulation of consumers by businesses. Dr. Katz's column expresses this point better than I could:
"Let's assume that you see the removal of the toy from the Happy Meal as a case of Big Brother telling you what to do. How, then, did you view the placement of the toy in the Happy Meal in the first place?
McDonald's did not consult you to find out if you wanted a toy encouraging your child to prefer a meal of lamentable nutritional quality. They did not consult any parent. They may have done consumer testing showing that kids- and thus their parents- are apt to choose such meals, but that's to find out what's best for them, not for you."
He also makes the important point that the government must be accountable to voters, whereas McDonald's is only accountable to its shareholders. The implication here, as I interpret it, is that the decisions made by the government in this instance are much likelier to be in our best interests than those made by McDonald's.
Finally, as if reading my mind, he says, "We are all prone, whether or not we care to admit it, to manipulation by multinational corporations with fortunes to spend and the best thinnking Madison Avenue can provide. Thinking designed to figure out what it takes to get us to buy what they're selling. Being manipulated into a lunch choice my McDonald's and Dreamworks [which supplies many of the toys] is not exactly the epitome of personal liberty."
I think this last point, the one that I mentioned at the beginning of this post, is perhaps more important. If people were as vigilant of manipulation by business as they are of manipulation by government, maybe they would view this issue, and others like it, differently.
No comments:
Post a Comment