Comments on: “San Francisco bans Happy Meals”

By: “San Francisco overrides mayoral veto, bans Happy Meals with toys”

“San Francisco overrides mayoral veto, bans Happy Meals with toys” — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:03:52 +0000

[…] A nation laughs, even if many kids don’t. [CNN, earlier] […]

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Sat, 06 Nov 2010 15:04:25 +0000

For Ed above,

CPSIA has not collapsed under its own stupidity or otherwise. In fact, Patty Murray, the grotesqly incompetent senator from Washington was reelected. From tea parties to CPSIA, 2010 was the year of STUPID!

By: Jack Wilson

Jack Wilson — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 21:49:05 +0000

McDonalds should call it the Unhappy Meal , but just in San Fran.

By: Ed

Ed — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 15:38:18 +0000

First, this doesn’t just affect McDonald’s. Burger King, Wendy’s and all the other national chains include toys with their kids meals.
Secondly, Dictionary.com defines a toy as: “1) an object, often a small representation of something familiar, as an animal or person, for children or others to play with; plaything. 2) a small article of little value but prized as a souvenir or for some other special reason; trinket; knickknack; bauble.” How does the law define a toy? Using these broad definitions, it should include crayons and coloring pages, plastic cups with images and a bendy straw, or other things. These type items are given to kids at more upscale family type restaurants. Will these restaurants have to comply with the law? If not it will open a whole set of lawsuits by both sides of the argument. It sounds like the law of unintended consequences will cause this law to collapse under its own stupidity. See the CPSIA.

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 22:38:43 +0000

If McD’s charges $0.01 for the toy, most problems will be avoided. For those who complain that they have to fork out an extra penny, well we have a great teaching moment!

By: Mark Biggar

Mark Biggar — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 22:11:38 +0000

Actually the headline is wrong. They didn’t ban the meals just the toys, probably under a mistaken belief that removing the toy will make it less likely that a child will buy the meal.

By: Kathryn

Kathryn — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 20:22:14 +0000

Is there anything in the law that prohibits them from deducting $.05 from the meal and asking if the customer would like to purchase a toy for $.05? That’s what I would do if it weren’t prohibited by the law.

By: Mark Biggar

Mark Biggar — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 16:49:26 +0000

I don’t see how this will have the effect they think it will. Kid’s don’t buy happy meals, parent’s do and the toy is the last thing the parent considers. Price and convenience go into the decision to buy their kid one of these meals much more then the existence of the toy. What’s next, ban the pretty box/bag with the games and puzzles on it?

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 16:43:28 +0000

Now, parents are still going to go to McDonalds, but they’re going to buy larger burgers and meals for their kids. And the people who passed this law are going to be mystified as to why obesity kept on increasing.

By: mojo

mojo — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 16:36:58 +0000

Why they’re known far and wide as the SF “Board of Stupes”