On Nov. 9, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed legislation requiring that any restaurant food sold with toys meet certain nutritional standards.
This law would effectively ban the Happy Meal, among other food items. What led to this situation? What makes food sold with toys so important? And what other steps are being taken to fight child obesity?
Like other parts of the U.S., California is experiencing rising numbers in cases of childhood obesity.
Eric Mar, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, said in an interview with the LA Times, “From San Francisco to New York City, the epidemic of childhood obesity in this country is making our kids sick, particularly kids from low income neighborhoods, at an alarming rate. It’s a survival issue and a day-to-day issue.”
In 2008, approximately 29 percent of 5th graders, 26 percent of 7th graders, and 25 percent of 9th graders in San Francisco were unhealthily overweight.
According to Sara Bleich, a professor at the Bloomberg School of Public Health, “With respect to effectiveness, there is pretty clear evidence that promoting toys with food influences children’s behavior.”
Significant sums of money are spent on fast food advertising aimed at children, after all.
The specific requirements laid out by the law are that meals must contain fruits and vegetables, not exceed 600 calories, and must not have beverages that have excessive fat or sugar.
The actual effectiveness of the law remains to be seen. It won’t go into effect until December 1, 2011, and considering that the law would only apply to San Francisco restaurants, its effectiveness is questionable.
“I agree that it makes sense to limit toy promotions to children since they strongly influence food preferences,” Bleich said, “but I am not convinced the ban will do much to address the problem of childhood obesity.”
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom vetoed the law on November 10, 2010, arguing that it reflected an inappropriate intrusion into the choices of parents, but the Board of Supervisors overrode the veto two weeks later.
Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said in an interview with the L.A. Times, “It’s time for fast-food companies to stop exploiting children in order to sell more junk food, and this measure would at least set basic nutrition standards for meals sold with toys. Fatty meat, French fries, and sugary drinks are the last foods that we should encourage kids to eat.”
Mar said, “We’re part of a movement that is moving forward an agenda of food justice.” Ultimately, regardless of the success or failure of this particular law, the issue of child obesity remains significant.
According to Bleich, “It is quite clear from the literature that the environments in which we live play a huge role in our obesity risk. And fast food consumption (and proximity to fast food restaurants) is associated with increased risk for obesity. So, my general recommendation is that public health officials and policy representatives work with the fast food industry to increase transparency and help people make better choices.”
Bleich cited the inclusion of mandated calorie labeling for all chains with twenty or more outlets in the health reform bill as a step forward.
Still, having access to information isn’t the only important factor.
“Policy alternatives — such as pricing strategies — which nudge people towards healthier options by making them cheaper than unhealthy options will also be important,” Bleich said.
On the other hand, such measures, and regulation of fast food in general, would be politically difficult. Bleich concluded, “I am also not convinced that it will successfully reduce childhood obesity.”
