Santa Clara twists the typical ban on fast food by banning toys in fatty, salty kids’ meals. If the meals meet certain nutritional guidelines, they can be sold with toys. None of McDonald’s meals meet the criteria. Here’s guessing the city council knew that when it passed the rule.
Given the Nudge blog’s preference for policies that fit a libertarian paternalism philosophy, this kind of ban seems to run afoul. KJ Dell’Antonia thinks a better idea would be to put a better toy in the healthier meals.
You can have the cheeseburger and fries or you can have the grilled chicken and apples—but only the grilled chicken and apples comes with a toy. (My kids would go for the fries.) When I think of it that way, I’m less bothered by it, but only slightly. It still strikes me as more of a bribe than an incentive, and I don’t see that as a good way to talk about food. More importantly, I resent the legislating of this. If McDonald’s offered it voluntarily (how about a better toy with a healthier meal?) I’d applaud them, but I remain thumbs-down on making it the law.
It looks like Santa Clara is just legislating a lesson from basic economics about tradeoffs. Are the kids you know trading the toy for the fries?
