Illegal Happy Meals! This is "What Got To Me Today"

Oh puh-leeeaasse give me a break.  I just watched a video from abcnews.com about a law in Santa Clara County, CA making happy meals/kids meals illegal because it should be unlawful to use advertising to lure children to unhealthy foods. 

Really?  Last time I checked it was the parent who decided what their kids should have for dinner.  So what then?  We implement a law so parents don't have to hear their kids whine and beg for Happy Meals?  How weak is that?  Now, before all of the health foodies out there go ballistic (as I consider myself a version of one), let me say the following disclaimer:

I know fast food restaurants do not make their biggest profits on their healthier menu items.  I know fast food is a major contributing factor to childhood obesity in this country.  I know that fast food is often much more affordable than healthier options, and that some families cannot afford to feed their entire families elsewhere.  I know all of these facts.

What I do not know, is how county officials are allowed into my kitchen, or my car, to decide what I  feed my kids for dinner.  We don't let government into our bedrooms, so why should we let them into any other rooms of our homes (unless of course there is a CRIME being committed)?  There are so many awesome programs out there, many provided by the government, that seek to educate versus boycott.  And this is coming from me, one of the all time pro- boycotters out there.  Show me the injustice of happy meals, and I will consider your argument.

You want to take soda (pop), candy and chips out of the lunch line at public schools?  Go for it.  But when it comes to how I spend my own money on my kids, hands off.  I guess this is similar to a "dry" county, where alcohol is not legally for sale within county lines.  But if you're going to boycott kids meals based on that argument, then you have to boycott ALL fast food, not just for kids.

This is strictly about advertising, and whether or not we, as parents, give into it.

This takes me back to my Cookie Monster debate, and how the "cookie opposition people" wanted to give Cookie Monster carrots and celery instead, because cookies contribute to childhood obesity.  My argument then was the same as it is now, it is up to the parents to moderate what their kids eat.

I, for one, occasionally look forward to treating my kids to a Happy Meal,  especially, if there was a particular toy they were really crazy about.  It doesn't mean they get the entire series with 12 visits to the restaurant inside of a month.  It means I get to treat my kids to a "TREAT". 

I get the childhood obesity numbers, but again, the kids within the age range of those who want happy meals, only eat what they are provided. You want to tax it?  Fine. But you shouldn't be able to tell me I'm not allowed to buy it.

And I haven't even touched the business side of this argument.  Shouldn't it be true, if fast food restaurants are forced not too offer toys with their food, then health food restaurants should be forced to offer toys along with their kid's menus?  Both arguments, of course, are ludicrous.

This isn't an argument for big business.  This isn't an argument on whether or not fast food causes obesity.  This is an argument about whether or not the government should be allowed to decide what advertising I decide to buy into.  What's next? No trendy flavors for my coffee at the corner coffee house?  Because even though some consumers buy them because they are fun, trendy and sophisticated, they are high in fat and calories?

We, as consumers, get to decide.