Nanny County Bans Toys In Happy Meals

Essentially, they have taken the happy out of Happy Meals, and parents out of parenting

No toy for you, Junior.

Not if you live in unincorporated Santa Clara County, where the Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to ban restaurants from giving away toys with children’s meals that exceed set levels of calories, fat, salt and sugar.

Miguel Marquez, acting county counsel, states that this is well within their Eric Cartman authoriti, and Chicago is considering implementing the same law. Perhaps they can use the National Guard to enforce it.

The ordinance, which the board passed by a 3-2 vote, is believed to be the first of its kind in the nation. The target is the fast-food industry and what critics call its practice of marketing unhealthful food to children and fueling an epidemic of obesity among the young.

Here’s an idea: have the little snowflakes go outside and get some exercise. Perhaps, instead of Indoctrination class in school, they can spend more time in the gym. Snowflake wants his/her toy.

“This ordinance breaks the link between unhealthy food and prizes,” said the law’s author, Supervisor Ken Yeager. “Obviously, toys in and of themselves do not make children obese. But it is unfair to parents and children to use toys to capture the tastes of children when they are young and get them hooked on eating high-sugar, high-fat foods early in life.”

“This ordinance breaks the link between parental rights and their children.” Fixed that for you, Ken.

“I don’t need politicians to tell me what I can and can’t buy for my kid,” said Chris Mackey, who bought his daughter, Cattie, a Kids Meal that included an “Iron Man 2” action figure. “We don’t come in here every day, and I don’t associate giving my daughter a toy with giving her bad food. This is a private matter between me and my child.”

Apparently, in Liberal World, you do. You do have to love when liberals/progressives pass these kinds of laws. They pitch a hissy fit over laws meant to actually protect the citizens of a State or the whole USA, such as, oh, I don’t know, the Arizona illegal immigrant law, but, are perfectly happy regulating actual citizens to death over happy meals. Where are the liberal pundits decrying this law as a civil rights violation?

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “Nanny County Bans Toys In Happy Meals”

  1. […] an ending, here’s an interesting little thing to note, from William Teach. Apparently, in Liberal World, you do. You do have to love when liberals/progressives pass these […]

  2. […] an ending, here’s an interesting little thing to note, from William Teach. Apparently, in Liberal World, you do. You do have to love when liberals/progressives pass these […]

  3. mojo says:

    Have fun enforcing that joke of a law, boys.

  4. John Ryan says:

    First the nanny government took the nicotine from the kids. But no one complained. Then they made the dairys put expiration dates on their containers. Teach the people of San Jose can change their government if they wish or move if they don’t like living there. And Teach maybe you just don’t get it when people love and want to protect children. It is like with salt in New York restaurants maybe YOU can make good choices but not all kids can, so let’s protect the kids

  5. gitarcarver says:

    But no one complained.

    Factually false. There were lots of complaints but the cry of “its for the kids” made everyone cower. In the view of some it is better to make a choice for people than to teach them the correct choices to make.

    Teach the people of San Jose can change their government if they wish or move if they don’t like living there.

    Why should they change it? The fact of the matter is that the local government does not have any jurisdiction in this area.

    Teach maybe you just don’t get it when people love and want to protect children.

    Maybe you don’t get it. The premise behind this silly law is to prevent childhood obesity. We can argue if that is a worthwhile goal of the government another day given the left’s propensity for “my body my choice” when dealing with abortion. What has yet to be shown is any causality between a toy in a box and childhood obesity.

    The law presumes many things, none of which have been shown to be true:
    1) The law presumes that children make the choice of what to eat at a restaurant, and not the parent.
    2) The law presumes that a child demands to go to a fast food place to get a toy and eat, rather than eat and get a toy.
    3) The law presumes that the state has the right to make choices for parents.

    It is like with salt in New York restaurants

    This is the first thing that you have said that I have ever agreed with. It is like salt in New York restaurants. Just like the idiots in the New York legislature that considered that law, the idiots in San Jose passed a law that is not based on any science, any study, or any practical experience in order to remove choices, education and freedom from people while at the same time expanding the role of government in people’s private lives.

    Ryan, you may not be mature enough, educated enough, or posses the parenting skills to say “no” to your kids, but I do.

    Don’t try and justify your shortcomings on the rest of the people in this country.

  6. Kevin says:

    We must be protected from ourselves! Thanks, nanny county. Parenting is a pain, and I’m glad you’re there to do it for me.

  7. pa says:

    Fast-food restaurants used to have playgrounds with jungle jims — lots of exercise opportunities there. Now they don’t. The threat of lawsuits over injuries makes it too risky. No matter what they do, the state will never be satisfied.

    Here’s a probable cause of increasing obesity in the USA: Government protection of American sugar corporations raises the price of sugar. Americans pay more for sugar than anyone else in the world because we block the import of sugar from other countries. Two consequences:

    1. Some companies, like Brach’s candy, have moved their businesses overseas because they can no longer afford the cost of American sugar. Say good-bye to lots of jobs.

    2. Manufacturers have sought affordable substitutes for sugar, so now we are all consuming enormous quantities of high fructose corn syrup. Surprise! Princeton University reports: “In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States.”
    http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

    So government creates a problem, industry uses innovative measures to try to circumvent the problem, and people end up fat without knowing why. Lady Lardbutt now feels free to call us all fat, lazy hogs and swears to heaven that she will get those dastardly Twinkies people to print nutrition information on the package.

    I looked at a Twinkies box in the grocery store after she made this statement, and I was not surprised to find that Hostess follows the law and prints nutrition information on the back of the box — just like every other food manufacturer in America. Maybe that’s why Sibelius now wants the info printed on the FRONT of the box, where even a certain someone who is too lazy to look at the back of the box will be able to see it.

Bad Behavior has blocked 11709 access attempts in the last 7 days.