Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Is the End of the Happy Meal in Sight?
Officials in Santa Clara county, California, have voted to ban the practice of giving away free toys to children with unhealthy restaurant meals. Is this a step in the right direction?
CPC is the stuff at fairgrounds, in party bags, in slot machines with rigged cranes, next to the tills at motorway service stations - pretty much anywhere, really, where you see normally sanguine parents with their tethers snapped on the point of threatening to bludgeon their shrieking toddler. It's dreadful stuff, as powerful and ubiquitous as the nastiest street drugs save for one small patch, one sane corner where good, honest burghers have finally said 'no more'. On 27 April a law was passed and very soon no toys will lawfully be given away with Happy Meals in the unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County.
I clearly have no understanding of the child brain because, to me, there could be no joy in owning these things. Rootling in the bottom of our toy basket I find a sedimentary layer of plastic figures from long forgotten Disney launches, part of a thing that was supposed to fly or explode and an amorphous pink glitter whatnot that may, or may not have once been part of a fairy trousseau or a unicorn hip replacement. What could the design brief have been? 'Make it unbelievably cheap' was certainly in there. There would definitely have been strictures against choking hazards, but where was the line that said, 'this object must have no earthly function, no ability to entertain, stimulate or even satisfy, a microsecond after the visceral urge to own has been sated'. Probably, it should be noted, a similar brief to the foods these gewgaws often accompany.
Parents who are interviewed always say that the toy never affects their choice. In their defence the fast food joints claim that the toy is a genuine gift and is in no way intended to tempt children to pester their parents. It's very similar to the argument the British ad industry makes; that there is no evidence that advertising has any effect on children, yet it continues to sell its services to clients by proprietary measures of behavioural change. (Try not to think about this piece of sophistry for too long, it has been know to make rational people's ears bleed.)
In truth this is a tiny gesture by a local authority with a disproportionate media impact. Santa Clara is home to Silicon Valley and Stanford University - half the money and most of the brains of California. A hundred or so restaurants are covered by the legislation, all outside of major towns and laws of this kind have a shorter lifespan than a dotcom in a country where big businesses lobby like there's no tomorrow and are prepared to cry unconstitutional restraint of trade at the drop of a writ (the county supervisors already granted a 90 day period of grace before the law comes into force to win majority support for the measure).
It does also raise interesting questions. Effective lobbying from advertising and broadcasting industries in the UK means that the whole debate about marketing to children has been pretty quiet. Even when the debate is live, we tend to legislate against direct selling to kids and ignore the obvious effects of advertising to children in order to indirectly change their parents' purchase decisions, what most of us call 'pester power', something the advertisers continue to deny exists yet which any parent can tell you does. In fact in this recent survey by Which? 38% of 8-11 year-olds said McDonald's was their favourite fast food chain because of the toys / Happy Meals. Which? say they are concerned "that these techniques could lead to children pestering their parents to take them to these restaurants regularly so they can collect the full range of toys". Parents will respond with a resounding "Well, duhrr!"
What do you make of toys offered as incentives to buy? Would you like to see some sort of ban?
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

10 Comments so far
Show AllWhy should children be held to a higher standard than their parents? Parents regularly salivate for cars with "integrity", clothing with "character", sneakers with "athleticism", food which is "friendly" and gasoline which is "hard working". Immunity from advertising bullshit is a attribute which must be instilled at an early age.
this was my first thought, too...adults are the same way...
prior to Reagan, it was illegal to comingle cartoons and commercials in a way that might 'confuse' a child...he put a stop to that, which opened the floodgates to cartoons that existed only to sell toys...
a mentality that transcends many arenas...
my play, of course, is to starve the plastics and fast food industries, among others, by shutting our systems down on September 22, 2012...
to keep pumping petroleum through plastics and packaging into landfills and oceans in the name of a toy or figure that, literally, does nothing and matters less, and to do it all in the name of profit? please...
as others have stated, the widespread damage far outweighs the personal profit, and is paid for by all, not the one making the toy, or the burger\money...
Parents regularly salivate...
Arrested development - strongly encouraged in US culture. Think of these children as the farm club for future out-of-control consumers.
"... no ability to entertain, stimulate or even satisfy, a microsecond after the visceral urge to own has been sated'."
That just about sums it up. The CPC!
This is an area where the government should be spending time? Good God, has everyone lost any sense of proportion?
Why not? Are we there yet?
It's also regrettable that the name 'Happy Meal' is associated with both crappy 'free' toy gifts and non-nutritious food. However, 'Happy Meal' is, you know, happy-sounding and may account for part of the appeal. Let's have more 'Happy Suppers' at home and call the fast food what it is, 'unHappy Grease Snacks'.
Veritas has a point there. I would go further to suggest that government should do something different. They could simply stop ramping up the corporate subsidizations to Big Food which would hit them in the pocket books and cut off the plastic toys automatically. But that alone won't fix the problem. If you were to see today's commercials during the kids' shows hours, the way the food is being presented as "super delicious" what with the latest digitally sharp recording technologies such as presenting the burgers and fries so close and similar is enough to get both kids and adults hooked to the junk. Government could go after misleading commercials on these fatty foods but I don't believe that it is enough. My wife, just after finishing her tax returns, thought that governments, local and federal, can rewards small restaurants with proven track records of serving their customers tax breaks and shift subsidizations from the unhealthy big chains to smaller chains and the subsidization costs aren't much. Even the most rigorous conservatives at her workplace loved that idea. Banning the "Happy Meals" only sweeps the problem under the rug temporarily but putting it out of business by empowering small restaurants that serve their customers healthily is the answer. A healthy meal and not a factory processed pile of junk is what a truly happy meal deserves to be.
Big Fast Food is really going to be pissed about this. The kiddie movie industry gives them billions in hard cold cash to push these trashy trinkets. They literally drive the movie industry. One reason I avoid fast food joints like the plague is b/c I don't even want to know about what the latest incarnation of Shrek is this month.
Of course, I would like to see the end of such things. But, is the strategy of choice to ban them? I think not, for it is clear we can't ban everything which is a blight on our society. The answer has to lie elsewhere and clearly what we need is a multi-pronged approach. And the first prong must be education and the second, and probably of equal import, is comprehensive, quality health care. Otherwise our no holds barred capitalistic model will hold sway.