Editorial: Whose hands should we allow in our Happy Meal?

Each year, we let the government’s fingers reach into our wallets, but should we also invite… Each year, we let the government’s fingers reach into our wallets, but should we also invite them into our kids’ Happy Meals?

Whatever your views might be on the limits of governmental intervention, the municipal directors in San Francisco have granted themselves this invitation anyway. And it’s not because they want the deep-fried, greasy goodness all to themselves.

According to the Huffington Post, on Tuesday the San Francisco Board of Directors approved an ordinance that would allow toys to only be included in children’s fast food meals if the meals meet strict nutritional criteria. If the board members overturn the mayor’s likely veto, toy-containing meals from fast food restaurants would have to limit excessive calories, sodium and fat and also contain adequate portions of fruits or vegetables.

In removing an incentive for children to consume unhealthy food, the board is making an effort to curb the alarming childhood obesity rate, which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate to account for 17 percent of American children.

Whereas its impact isn’t limited to the Happy Meal in San Francisco, the ordinance has come under heavy fire by McDonald’s Corp. representatives. They argue that the board’s decision not only threatens business but also limits the parents’ ability to make decisions for their children. Scott Rodrick, who owns 10 McDonald’s franchises in the Bay Area, said, “Somehow the San Francisco Board of Supervisors just took the happy out of Happy Meals.”

Law proposals that aim to affect children’s behavior — especially those that limit it — never fail to unsettle people. They conjure up the draconian image of storm troopers invading a nursery and ripping a sleeping, innocent babe from his polka dot-studded crib.

But letting such fantasies get the better of our rational discourse is unwise. Although the San Francisco board’s plan has flaws, it represents a brave and creative effort by committed public servants with limited means to address a huge social problem. The board members clearly approved the ordinance with constituents’ interests in mind — though perhaps the board could direct its concern more pragmatically.

Instead of zeroing in on the products of specific fast food companies and thereby drawing political battle lines, local municipalities like San Francisco’s Board of Directors can promote childhood obesity prevention in other ways. Enhancing the nutritional value of grade school lunches, making in-school physical exercise requirements more effective and involving parents in health educational programs are all excellent starting points.