In the wake of movies such as, “Super Size Me,” the story of a man who becomes fat and unhealthy after eating three meals a day at McDonald’s, it has become popular to demonize fast food chains, and the meals they offer. Now, we are seeing actual legislation seeking to limit, or outlaw certain foods. California has done some crazy things in its day, but they have gone way too far this time. Elect the Terminator as Governor, sure, but leave my Happy Meal alone! For those of you who haven’t heard, Santa Barbara County, California has officially passed a law that prohibits the inclusion of a toy in kids’ meals that contain too many calories and fat. What is too many calories, you might ask? The toy will be excluded from any child’s meal that exceeds 450 calories, which is exactly ALL of them. Even asking for apple slices instead of fries at Mickey Dees won’t help you get Barbie Princess.
Back in my day (which wasn’t that long ago!) we had parents who were competent to make decisions, and, imagine this, a government that stayed out of our personal business. This whole trend of demonizing junk food is so obnoxious to me. Kids are fatter than ever, and we are looking to point the finger anywhere but at ourselves. In the era of video games and texting, parents these days are excited if their child will play Wii bowling because it’s the most physical activity that they will get for the entire week. So is this Burger King’s fault? Aren’t we in charge of what our children eat? Parents aren’t taking the time to make home-cooked meals, are grabbing fast food, and the scales are telling the tale. I will not deny that a large percentage of children are overweight, but I get down-right angry when someone tries to mess with my junk food, as if Cheetos are waging war on America.
Recent measures, such as NYC threatening to ban all saturated fats from city limits, and the campaigns throughout school systems nationwide to get rid of pop machines and snacks are anti-American. Before you think I’ve lost it, consider this: There are high school students that are old enough to fight in Iraq who are not allowed to crack open a Sprite at lunch. I would venture to say that this is unconstitutional. A legal adult should be able to drink whatever non-alcoholic beverage they choose. Many schools will not even let students bring in soda with their parents’ permission.
What bothers me even more than the personal rights side of it, though, is the Big Government infringing on the rights of business. Michelle Obama takes offense to fat kids, and all the sudden my son can’t have a toy in his Happy Meal? As I parent, I know that the toy is one of the only weapons we have against a stubborn child. “Eat your nuggets, and you can have your car.” Am I revealing too much? Perhaps the children of Santa Barbara County choose on their own good judgment to dine on tofu and wheat grass, and a greasy cheeseburger is a personal affront to their sensitivities. I have a sneaking suspicion, though, that even yuppie parents have a desperate moment every decade or two, where they swing by a drive-thru to get a quick meal. This law will put the business owners of Santa Barbara County at a disadvantage. Silly or not, they will lose business. And will this really inspire parents to enforce good eating habits for their children? Of course not. We will still have fat children because we have fat parents with bad habits and the unwillingness to say no.
The government has no business in business. Short of regulations that prevent an E-Coli breakout or a six-year-old from cleaning bathrooms, I don’t want our government passing moral judgments on something as American as a cheeseburger. Now if a parent decides that said cheeseburger is too fatty for their child, so be it. If a parent is worried about the amount of sugar in a soda, they can refrain from buying soda. Passing a law, no matter how well-intended, on my health, is un-American. It’s none of your business whether I eat a salad or the fattiest, cheese-dripping, bacon-covered burger on the planet.
Before you decide I’ve made much ado about nothing, I want you to think about something much more worrisome: If our government is willing to nit-pick on something so minor as a toy, what other issues will they stick their nose into? What larger rights will they soon be trying to take away?
How could something that looks so good be bad?
While I see your point, I believe you are disregarding a very poignant epidemiological fact about fast food – cheap price. Those parents who often make the choices to give their children the greasy hamburger from the scary big-footed clown are typically those parents who cannot afford to provide fresh fruits and vegetables. In addition, their work life may very well conflict with providing the time to prepare healthier alternatives. In some situations it is a matter of accessibility. Without transportation, many families have to resort to accessibility based on what is near their home. This is often a zippy mart or McDonald’s.
My point is – don’t vilify the parents for making “poor” choices, it may be their only choice. How can you argue with a $1 burger being more filling than the $1 apple? You yourself would likely agree the former taste better.
In regard to governmental control over our options – I agree. It is silly to ban items because parents are not able to afford an alternative. What the government should look at is accessibility and affordability or healthier foods. Work on the problem, not the symptom.
I was not trying to vilify poor parents, just stating that it is their decision and responsibility what their child eats, not the government’s. And I believe we have programs (WIC, food stamps) set up that enable poor families to purchase healthy food. Everything in moderation, that’s my motto. I occasionally eat fast food with my children, and don’t appreciate Big Government casting judgment on my choice.
Thanks for your comment, Amanda! I hope you will continue to follow Tempest Tossed.