A few days ago, the San Francisco board of supervisors voted to prohibit companies from offering free toys in unhealthy meals for kids, and set up guidelines for what makes a meal healthy enough to add a free toy to it. That's led, unsurprisingly, to cries that the city is creating a nanny state, and even Mother Jones' Kevin Drum thought it was going a little too far.
I dunno. Does this make sense? What's the proper dividing line between states and cities being allowed to set their own rules as they see fit, and nationwide companies being allowed to effectively sell their products nationwide? I haven't really thought this through, but I imagine plenty of others have. What's the state-of-the-art thinking on this?
But that's thinking of this in the wrong way. It's a relatively new phenomenon that nationwide food franchises sell uniform menus across the country, anyway. And McDonald's has multiple options here, none of which are burdensome: It can replace fries with a fruit cup to its meals in San Francisco and keep the toys, or it can sell conventional Happy Meals without them. There's good evidence that governments have an interest in doing this. Companies market aggressively to children, who react strongly to that marketing, and that doesn't do a lot to make the parents of those children feel like they have much of a choice at all.
Also, comparing this to other efforts -- like New York City's recent decision to try to block food stamp recipients from buying soda -- takes it the wrong way. This puts the onus on companies, who will adapt easily rather than abandon big markets. It doesn't blame people for the consumer choices that they make, and it also doesn't take away their choice.
-- Monica Potts
