Blog

Save the Happy Meal!

Proposed legislation undermines parents' roles, ignores nutritional transparency.

April 19, 2011 by Alicia Kelso — Editor, QSRWeb.com

Inspired by proposed kids' meal bans spreading throughout the country, I may just take some time out of my weekend to make a "Save the Happy Meal" T-shirt.

Maybe we should all take some time out from this legislation-happy (no pun intended) culture to realize the iconic quick-service kids' meal is not the only reason kids in the U.S. are overweight. McDonald's exists in 119 countries, many of which are not dealing with a childhood obesity epidemic.

The Happy Meal, specifically, has been around for 30 years, well before we paid attention to the Body Mass Index of schoolchildren.

I'm curious to know what these same council members are doing about the dramatic cut in gym classes. Or if they'll ban cereal marketed by cartoon toucans next? Do we then remove the candy bar display from the check-out aisle?

Sure, kids' meals have a little toy incentive, but so do Cracker Jack boxes. Are we going to lobby to get rid of those, too? How about limiting visits to Chuck E. Cheese's? Forbidding candy-filled piñatas from birthday parties?

Why don't we just vote to skip childhood altogether?

Kids' meals are portioned appropriately. They now come with more choices – including low-fat milk and apple slices – than ever before.

And not only are they a fun and occasional treat for many families, they're essential for others. Not every family can afford to eat organic groceries, and not every single working parent has the time to cook a full meal every day.

Besides, kids are picky eaters and it can be a true struggle to get them to finish an entire meal. If they need to be distracted by a toy to do so, that'll have to suffice sometimes.

From another perspective, instead of defending McDonald's and other chains that offer these meals, including Burger King, Wendy's, Arby's, Sonic and Taco Bell, how about we give a bit more credit to parents and caregivers?

The Center for Science in Public Interest's lawsuit filed against McDonald's in December was done so "on behalf of all parents." The plaintiff claimed she couldn't compete against the enticement of the toy's inclusion and the marketing muscle behind these meals.

One has to wonder if this struggle will intensify when her kid turns 16 and sees a bombardment of commercials for fancy imported sports cars.

Isn't telling your kid "no" one of the most difficult, yet necessary, parts about parenting?

McDonald's and its competitors are not pretending to be the poster companies of health. But that doesn't mean they don't offer transparency in what they are offering, which gives parents the power to make the right choices for their kids.

Changing harmful eating habits and curbing obesity are noble causes, to be certain. But I have a hard time believing a prohibition on toys will shift consumer habits dramatically. Families will continue to eat at McDonald's and they'll order the hamburger (or chicken McNuggets), fries and small drink combo for their kids without the entertaining box and plaything.

And we'll move on to our next impulsive idea on how to control harmful trends, spending more time picking on the easiest target than we do keeping our kids active, teaching them lifelong healthy lessons and figuring out how to make nutritious items more affordable for everyone.

About Alicia Kelso

---

None

Connect with Alicia: