
Happy Meal Ban: McDonald's Outsmarts San Francisco - pitdesi
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/11/happy_meal_ban_mcdonalds_outsm.php
======
tokenadult
My class on legislation in the first year of law school (which was quite
innovative, as at that time most law schools didn't require a course in
legislation at all) was taught by one of the legal scholars who literally
wrote the book on the subject.

[http://store.westlaw.com/eskridge-frickey-garretts-
legislati...](http://store.westlaw.com/eskridge-frickey-garretts-legislation-
statutory-interpretation-2d-concepts-insights-
series/133287/40449808/productdetail)

Almost everyone, "conservative" or "liberal," who took that course began the
semester supposing that passing a new law is an effective way to solve a
social problem. By the end of the semester, hardly any of us thought that
anymore.

~~~
refurb
Agreed. I work in the health care industry and it's amazing how gov't
regulation (well intentioned as it may be) creates incredibly perverse
incentives.

If you want to read up on this type of thing, just read how ASP (average sale
price) reimbursement for Medicare drugs works. Doctors and drug wholesalers
make money hand-over-fist because of the system.

Capitalism creates wealth by matching buyer and seller. If kids want happy
meal toys (thus parents want them too) they'll get them one way or another,
regulations be dammed.

------
callmeed
This story and the comments here are quite interesting and I'm really torn on
this.

On one hand, I think the government does have a job to intervene when negative
externalities affect society (like obesity has). On the other hand, as this
story demonstrates, they clearly suck at intervening.

On a personal level, I don't care what McDonalds does because I don't take my
kids there (I have 3 kids under 7). But I care about obesity being a drain on
society and a healthcare issue we all have to share. McDonalds, well, they
care about profits.

~~~
morrow
I wonder if there is some political philosophy to describe my thoughts on this
- but I never understood why government just didn't set up taxes on things it
didn't like, and directly allocate the revenues from those taxes to the
opposite side of whatever stance it took (versus going towards general
expenses).

For example with this, tax the happy meal and other fatty kids foods, allocate
revenues earned from that tax directly to childhood obesity prevention
campaigns. McDonald's still makes money, kids still can get happy meals, and
childhood obesity is reduced through funding effective programs.

~~~
protomyth
They tried this with the tobacco taxes / settlements and just decided to spend
it any way they wanted.

------
driverdan
Kudos to McDonald's for circumventing a stupid law. The government needs to
stop meddling in everyone's life.

~~~
Herring
Have you seen the rising obesity statistics? If the government doesn't take it
on as a public health issue, who will?

<http://www.wikinvest.com/images/3/37/Obesity.jpg>

~~~
yummyfajitas
Obesity is a private health issue. It is not communicable and poses no danger
to anyone except the people who freely choose to eat too much.

The only reason obesity becomes a public issue at all is because the non-obese
are forced by the government to pay for the health care of the obese. This
problem has a very simple solution - no medicare/medicaid for fatties, and
make it easier for insurance to charge fatties and fitness freaks different
rates.

~~~
billjings
It's not communicable from person to person, but it's certainly communicable
from your environment to you.

edit: Is this such a controversial statement? Does it bear explanation?

What we eat is not solely a matter of willpower. It is influenced by what sort
of food is available. It is influenced by what sort of food is easier or
harder to obtain. It is influenced by how hungry we are. How hungry we are can
be changed by how stressed out we are, or by what we ate yesterday, or last
week, or how active we have been lately. It is even influenced by what we see
others eat, what is culturally acceptable to eat.

So yeah - obesity isn't communicable from person to person like the flu is,
but it is something that your environment has a huge influence on.

~~~
gsmaverick
And yet somehow obesity was hardly a problem for thousands of years in human
history. People need to stop making excuses for their poor eating and
exercising habits and take responsibility for their actions.

~~~
notJim
I think it's awfully naive to claim that the environment you're raised in has
no effect on your actions later in life.

------
staunch
The law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head yet again.

~~~
bstrand
Only an unintended consequence if you accept the article's premise that a non-
trivial number people actually went to McD's and only bought the toy, and
those people will continue to go for the toy but buy the happy meal to get it.
And feed it to their kid.

Seems dubious to me.

~~~
city41
But McDonald's is still selling happy meals with toys in them in San
Francisco. They are just selling them for ten cents more now. So the law is
effectively moot.

------
bstrand
San Francisco should respond by imposing a 10000% tax on the sale of toys from
food service establishments.

~~~
NiceOneBrah
Or by ceasing to make stupid laws.

------
veyron
I'm confused -- do kids actually clamor specifically for the McDonald's toys?
Aren't there better and cheaper toys out there?

~~~
colanderman
"Aren't there better and cheaper toys out there?"

I'm gonna guess you haven't spent much time around kids ;)

How much a kid wants a toy is directly proportional both to how well it is
marketed, and to how much their peers want it (which, since their "peers"
appear in ads for the products, is really just a proxy for how well it's
marketed). See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogs#Popularity> and
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beanie_babies#Marketing_strateg...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beanie_babies#Marketing_strategies)

~~~
veyron
How does Lego do marketing? I don't think I or my parents have ever seen a
Lego ad in my life, yet I played with legos as a little kid and I still play
with Legos :)

~~~
true_religion
Lego seems to have plenty of ads at least in my area. If you watch kid's
cartoons in the 5-9 age bracket you'll see a lot of their ads for special
packs like Lego Space Adventure, etc.

------
geoffschmidt
It seems like it would be easy to redraft the law to close the loophole. I
mean, I can't just walk in and donate $.10 and get a toy. They have gone from
bundling a toy with the happy meal, to bundling an option to purchase a toy.

~~~
refurb
It's tough to legislate against every possible loophole in a law.

------
mindstab
How? This sounds like a hilarious legal hack but the details were never
revealed.

~~~
zizee
The article was quite clear. You have to donate 10c to charity (Ronald
McDonald House) for the toy, instead of getting it for free. But you can only
dontate if you get a happy meal.

Also, apparently you used to be able to buy the toys separately, which is no
longer an option.

~~~
mindstab
Ah thanks

------
8ig8
When debating issues like this in my mind, I frequently flip-flop. I can argue
both sides. On one side, I don't want a corporation taking advantage of the
consumer by using immense resources to exploit a flaw in human behavior. On
the other hand, I don't want the government deciding what is right and wrong
for me. In doing so, the government draws an arbitrary line and uses it to
promote and also defend its actions, ultimately limiting my rights.

This whole Happy Meal debate would be a non-issue if consumers didn't want
Happy Meals. It turns out they do, so work-arounds work just like prohibition
did not eliminate alcohol from our culture.

The government is elected to serve and represent the people. The people want
Happy Meals (and alcohol) (and drugs sourced from Mexico).

