This Just In ...

3rd UPDATE: Culinary no-no #164

Posted by Kevin Fischer on Jan. 20, 2011

Culinary no-no's

Culinary no-no #164 and subsequent updates dealt with Santa Clara County in California banning Happy Meals. Here’s an excerpt:

“And like a cancer, the folly spreads.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports, ‘(Supervisor Ken) Yeager said he hopes the law will inspire cities and counties across the country to follow suit like ‘ripples that create a wave.’ Miguel Marquez, acting county counsel …said his office has been contacted by officials from Orange County, Chicago and New York City about Yeager's toys ordinance.”

Sure enough, San Francisco has banned Happy Meals. While Santa Clara County’s ordinance does not affect McDonald’s, in the City by the Bay, the Golden Arches was the intended target.

Two columnists who aren’t exactly conservative write in the San Francisco Weekly that the ban should come as no surprise. San Francisco is ban-crazy.

“In recent years, San Francisco government has passed numerous laws to make us healthier, greener, and — in the city's eyes — all-around better people. Whether we like it or not. This includes banning the sale of cigarettes in drugstores, and, later, supermarkets; banning plastic bags in large chain stores; banning bottled water in City Hall, and the sale of soft drinks on government property; banning the declawing of cats; making composting mandatory; and forbidding city departments from doing business with companies that were involved in the (pre–Civil War) slave trade, yet haven't publicly atoned.

San Francisco's acumen for imposing bans has grown so pronounced that when an anticircumcision zealot began disseminating a petition to criminalize the practice within city limits, observers nationwide didn't write it off as fringe lunacy but, instead, saw it as just another day at the office in San Francisco.”

Besides the San Francisco is just being San Francisco argument, the writers make this assertion:

“It becomes clear that a left-leaning pack of cities is fundamentally changing the role — and pushing the limits — of local government. It's a movement fueled by the perception that state and federal government are unable or unwilling to tackle big problems like pollution or rampant obesity. So municipalities are marching headlong into the void, attempting to save the world one plastic bag, Big Mac, cigarette butt, or water bottle at a time. And San Francisco is leading the parade.”

But even the writers have to wonder:

“As is so often the case in San Francisco, everyone has the best of intentions. But now that we've reached the point where city officials have meticulously worked out what quantity of multigrains and fruits must be present in a meal in order for a restaurant to earn the privilege of including a toy with it, it's reasonable to wonder if San Francisco's elected leaders believe there's anything they shouldn't be deciding for you.

The great irony of San Francisco's Happy Meal ban is that it's the legislative equivalent of a Happy Meal. It's a small and cheap attempt at something substantive; it feels good going down, like consuming a greasy burger and fries. But feeling good and doing good aren't synonymous. Data from a recent survey of Americans' fast food choices indicates banning toys from fast food meals won't help San Francisco's youth.”

And how about this:

‘It warrants mentioning that not one meal served to San Francisco's schoolchildren in December or January — the 708-calorie beef dippers; the 711-calorie cheese lasagna; or the 712-calorie chicken nuggets — would qualify under the Healthy Meal Incentive Ordinance to be allowed to come with a toy. San Francisco is trying to hold McDonald's to a higher standard than it is willing to hold itself.”

Read the entire piece, “How the Happy Meal ban explains San Francisco."