 for food that has more than 200 calories or for a meal that has more than 600 calories. )
GAME OVER: San Francisco wants to ban restaurants from offering an incentive item (a trading card, game or other prize) for food that has more than 200 calories or for a meal that has more than 600 calories.
Image: COURTESY OF CHRISTINA KENNEDY, VIA WIKIMEDIA COMMONS
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
No kidding, McDonald's Happy Meal fans in the San Francisco area might have to look elsewhere if they want movie tie-in trinkets, along with their fries and burgers.
On November 3, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors gave preliminary approval for a ban on unhealthy restaurant meals that include toys as enticement for children to consume their products—the so-called "Happy Meal ban," named after the popular McDonald's menu item. The ban dictates that a restaurant cannot provide an incentive item (a trading card, game or other prize) for a menu item that has more than 200 calories or for a meal that tops 600 calories. The law would also prohibit menu items from being sold as children's meals if they contain excessive fat or sodium as well as require that the fare includes at least a half cup of fruit and at least a three-quarter cup of vegetables (pdf).
The ban's proponents see it as a modest victory in efforts to curb childhood obesity, citing the 2007 California Health Interview Survey that found 15 percent of 12-to-17-year-olds in the greater Bay Area to be overweight or obese (8 percent of children under age 12 were found to be overweight for their age). Opponents for the most part see the measure as government interference in parenting. Mayor Gavin Newsom indicated a desire to veto the ban, although the board is expected to formally approve the measure in a final reading November 9 and has enough votes to override a mayoral veto.
San Francisco's actions coincide with a Harvard University study published this week in the journal PLoS Computational Biology, which modeled obesity as a kind of infection, spreading in part because of social contact. It found that the number of obese Americans will not plateau until it reaches 42 percent of adults (the rate has been about 34 percent for the past five years). In a bit of good news–bad news the researchers claim that whereas the U.S. may not reach the 42 percent obesity rate for another 40 years, their projection is a best-case scenario—it could be higher.
Scientific American interviewed Marion Nestle, a New York University professor of nutrition, food studies and public health, about the significance of such legislative efforts to improve children's eating habits, and the likelihood that they will help keep kids from becoming overweight.
[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]
Based on your study of food sociology, will San Francisco's proposed ban on Happy Meal–type offerings have a big impact on efforts to keep children from becoming overweight?
Let's be clear. Toys in happy meals are about marketing, not health. There is only one reason why they are there: to get kids to pester their parents for the meals. The toys are not about the food—they are about the marketing. With that said, one meal is not going to affect obesity rates. But cooling down the marketing environment might make life a lot easier for parents who want to feed their kids more healthfully.
What is the most significant reason for the rise in children who are overweight or obese?
I can't point to one reason in isolation from the others. Obesity rates started to go up in the early 1980s. What happened then? Farm policies that encouraged greater food production, Wall Street pressures on corporations to grow every quarter, economic downturns that make people work longer hours, societal changes that keep kids indoors rather than outside playing on their own. Food companies responded by putting foods everywhere, encouraging snacking, serving larger portions, making it normal for kids to drink sodas all day long. The list goes on.
If I had to choose one, I'd say it's the rise in caloric availability from 3,200 per capita per day in the early 1980s to the present 3,900 per day today—roughly twice the population's need. Food companies have to sell products in a hugely competitive environment. On top of that, they must demonstrate growth to Wall Street every quarter.
New York City has tried a few different approaches in recent years to discourage unhealthy eating, including a move by the Bloomberg administration to have chain restaurants display calorie information on their menus. The mayor also wants to have soda excluded as an item that can be purchased using food stamps. Is there any evidence that such measures are working (or would work) as intended?
Calorie labeling is soon going national—it's signed into the health reform act—so we will be able to conduct that experiment on a much larger scale quite soon. Preliminary studies do not show much difference in calorie intake, but I don't think the studies are asking the right questions. I know plenty of people who go into calorie shock when they look at a cookie and discover that it contains 670 calories. Some people will change their choices in response to such information, others will not. The studies need to probe such differences.
What I like about calorie labeling is its educational potential. People do not understand calories very well. Labeling will be accompanied by a statement about a 2,000-calorie standard. Eventually, it can encourage people to get a feel for the amount of food that balances their daily needs.
The word "epidemic" is often used when talking about obesity, whether for children or adults. Epidemic, however, implies that there is a contagion involved. Is this a proper characterization of obesity, or does thinking of it in terms of an infectious disease contribute to the problem?
I think plenty of sociologists would consider obesity "contagious" in the sense that eating habits are exquisitely sensitive to peer pressure and the social context, most of which encourages people to eat more than they might do otherwise.
What is the most effective relationship between government and its citizens when dealing with healthy eating?
I see the government's role as giving the best possible advice—direct, unambiguous, based on available science and free of food industry influence—about the role of diet in health. The government's role should be to make it easier for people to eat more healthfully. The government currently supports the existing food system in multiple ways that promote overeating in general and of less healthful foods in particular.
What kind of changes should the U.S. make, then?
If policies were restructured to link agriculture to public health, fruits and vegetables would be cheaper and more readily available, for example. And the government could put restrictions on food marketing to children to help create a food environment that promotes more healthful eating. As citizens we can vote with our forks for the kind of food system we want, but we also need to exercise our democratic rights and encourage better federal policies.
See what we're tweeting about
21 Comments
Add CommentShould alcohol be banned because it can lead to fatty liver, pancreatitis, embarrassing behavior, physical impairment ... Can't these local politicians deal with the more pressing issues of their city - say dumping Nancy Pelosi?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI remember something you could get in San Fransico when I was a kid. It was called ............. freedom.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf they can impose 200%-300% tax on cigarettes in the name of public health then they can tax all fast food at the same rate. Right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisComon this is America, land of freedom and free choice. What is much more important though is to BAN the Diary Management board, which is sponsered by good ol OBAMA's administration. This agencys sole purpose is to promote the consumption of high saturated fat cheese. UN-freaking-BELIVABLE.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe drug makers and diabetes drug makers take in 10 billion$$$$ every year with no cure!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFood Chemicals are the cause of the diabetes and obesity crisis NOT MC Doanlds!
The FDA and Drug makers know this and are laughing to the Billionaire$$$ bank!
The food chemicals break the gut(insulin) and this is the cause of the diabetes and obesity crisis
A filmmaker has been reversing diabetes and Obesity in now 10 countries and the drug makers do not promote the story
just google SPIRIT HAPPY DIET
We as adults and members of the community should do all we can to promote healthy choices for our children. Reagan's reclassification of ketchup as a vegetable so it could fulfill the dietary requirements of the school lunch program was not helpful in this regard. Government has a role in providing guidelines and rules that promote this goal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am all for banning toys of any kind as an incentive for buying meals from restaurants. Period.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am also in favor of requiring restaurants to offer more balanced choices but Restaurant food is unhealthy primarily because portions are too big (and thus have too many calories) not because of the mix of foods available.
If choices were unbundled (or bundled into reasonably-sized meals - calorie-wise) and toys were banned altogether, we would all be better off.
No, that is not correct. It's not the fat, its the high glycemic value of potatoes and corn (both common staples in the American diet) which contribute the most to the diabetes and heart disease problem in America.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDeep-fry the potatoes and provide super-sized portions and you introduce so many calories that avoiding obesity is almost impossible.
Children, and many adults (myself included), need to be taught the DASC diet. DASC stands for Difficult Application of a Simple Concept. Here it is: No matter what happens, do not put too much food in your mouth!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot really. You can live without cigarettes, and usually longer and healthier. You can't live without food.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell you can try to blame fats, sugars, red meats or even happy meals to the rise in obesity, but the true offender is not far from anyone. If you really want to know why you are "fat" or your kids are "fat" look in the mirror. We are a society in which enough is never enough and more is always better. Some of us talk about having restraunts decrease the size of a meal but for that to work the average person would have to be willing to buy that and well they wont. Children are getting fatter because there PARENTS let them. Parents must learn how to eat right if they wont there kids to. Finally anyone who believes that the government to teach this should also favor a manditory state instition to raise they kids (I believe Germany did this in the late 30s early 40s).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce again San Francisco leads the country in governmental idiocy. Just watch Adams Smiths "invisible hand" play out on this one. Instead of attempting to be the State or Federal Nanny, buck up and teach parents to be parents. The key comment in the story: "Let's be clear. Toys in happy meals are about marketing, not health. There is only one reason why they are there: to get kids to pester their parents for the meals."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPestering is what kids do; it is their function. The adult role is to say No! However in the current iteration of our post Spockian culture, saying no to a child might make you a bad parent and we would not want that!!!
If you want to make inroads on the current obesity problem start with the parents. If the parents can redefine their lifestyles so that fast food becomes the exception and not the rule, you will not have to worry about the kids. Try to ban and the only thing that will happen is that people will drive further to get what they want or what their kids are pestering them for.
On a related note, why is it that many who lean to the political left always see "education" as the golden rule and condemn those who would advocate bans when it comes to their pet issues but demand governmental bans on those issues that cause them ire? I am just looking for an explanation.
y wuld this article be on an science website??????? this contains NOTHING about science
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am really tired of neanderthals crying "freedom" or "intrusive government" whenever government attempts to influence societal norms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShould parents educate their children and not feed them this crap? Absolutely. But when they don't, and public welfare is affected (in the form of medical costs, life expectancy, etc) the government will step in and do it for you.
Don't like it? Parent responsibly.
It is not a question who should try to affect social norms. It is a question of what works and what does not. When it comes to basic human desires, the options to influence cultural norms are very limited. Look at the failures to control smoking, HIV and HPV. Do you think trying to control food intake though edict will have any more success?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are facing an epidemic of obesity and DMII but have limited resources to apply towards these problems. It is essential that we enlist the public to help apply those resources in the most efficacious manner possible. Doing some useless symbolic act like banning kids happy meals compromises what little authority any government has with which to affect the needed changes. History shows us time and again that edicts and bans simply do not work. In the 21st century it is the neanderthal position to insist that they do.
As an aside, the number 1 risk for childhood obesity is not access to happy meals. It is being on Federal food assistance such as Food Stamps and WIC.
This is so true. This article has nothing to say about science, rather it is an article giving a progressive professor a soapbox to spew his opinions about social engineering, and how to pressure people into doing what he has decided is good for them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike all nanny-wannabes, he insults the public at large, and casts them as not competant enough to make these decisions for themselves - so he will force upon them his decision and morals instead.
SciAm should go back to its core reporting, real hard science, not left leaning politics.
Obesity is primarily caused by individual choices (or parent's neglect). Good nutrition taught at home would shield many children from making the bad choices. People should have to pass a parenting skills test before having children but lacking that maybe the best we can do is to try to educate to importance of responsible choices.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the best demonstration of how to deal with obesity is illustrated in TV's "The Biggest Loser". Those are amazing cases of what causes obesity and how it can be reversed. More incentives to follow those guidelines may help.
Is it a matter to be banned by law?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about leave it to the parents to decide if they want their children eating fatty foods, if a restaurant wants to advertise with toys let them. Who says we have a right to eat there! It is a simple personal choice, are you also for banning ice cream, because it is fatty and children for the most part love it? I say government should butt-out and let the people decide by not going to that restaurant and let it go out of business, oh but you would probably bail it out right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is the once-great Sci Am now an echo of the old "Ramparts," the later "New Republic," and the new kid on the block, the "Huffington Puffington"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you want to just switch over to political advocacy, about gun control and climate change and food politics, just do it honestly.
"Political American" would probably enter an overly-crowded field, but, hey, that's politics for you.