Fast food executives such as McDonald's franchise owner Scott Rodrick have made it public knowledge that they are not happy with the decision of the Board of Supervisors, claiming that it will "take the happy out of Happy Meals". Even the National Restaurant Association publicly opposed the legislation. On the other hand, supporters of the bill want to stress that the bill is important in "improving the nutritional value of kid's meals and addressing childhood obesity".
In my opinion, although this bill is aimed at helping fight obesity and health risks, it should not be made into a law. It is unfair to subject fast food restaurants to changing their menus and legacies to fit new laws on health. Happy Meals in particular have been around for many years, and changing that now is unfair to the corporations. Although I believe it is crucial to fight childhood obesity, I think that there are other ways to go about doing this, such as changing the meals served in schools and the vending machines available to students, rather than changing the entire fast food system.
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2010/11/03/san-francisco-cracks-down-on-happy-meals-and-their-ilk/?KEYWORDS=restaurants
Your perspective on the sensibility of the law is interesting. I don't know whether I agree or disagree, but I do find it very interesting that this law was passed. It further proves that there is an increasing demand for low calorie, nutritious fast food options. However, it is difficult to make these changes for many fast food restaurants, and the passing of this law may prevent some economic and systematic issues within individual restaurant chains.
ReplyDelete