Here’s the summary paragraph from the New York Times article.

In what it described as a blow against the fattening temptations of fast food, the board of supervisors in Santa Clara County, south of San Francisco, voted Tuesday to ban the promotional toys that often accompany child-size portions of cheeseburgers and chicken nuggets if those meals don’t meet certain nutritional standards.

From my vantage point, this is absolutely ridiculous. Here are a few thoughts on the vote and one thought on the comment from the McDonald’s spokesperson.

1) These supervisors need more work.

The fact that fast-food toys even got a vote serves to show me that either everything is perfect in Santa Clara County or these people have way too much time on their hands.

2) Is this really something that should be addressed by a board of supervisors? And is it something they should be able to ban?

If a company wants to sell fatty foods and put toys in a box for children along with those fatty-foods, don’t they have a right to do so? It’s not like they are forcing children to eat the food or forcing parents to buy it for them. Which leads to point number 3.

3) Do the toys tempt children to such an extent that their parents cannot say, “No”?

This is the big question for me, because I am sure there are some parents behind this vote. And I just don’t understand it. If you don’t want your children getting fat off fatty foods, then don’t give them fatty foods. You have a choice not to eat fast food. Eating at McDonald’s or Wendy’s or wherever is not mandatory. I know many parents don’t realize this nowadays, but it is possible and wise and very good to often tell your children, “No.” The reality is that if your kid is obese, it is usually your fault as the parent. Not all the time I realize (the kid might have some sort of disease, etc.), but most of the time, yes. After all, you buy the food and monitor what and when your child eats. Or you don’t (which may be the problem).

How many people are under the impression that eating fast food is good for you anyhow? Sure, low-income families may eat that food more, but the reality is, eating out at fast food restaurants is, in the end, more expensive than going to the local grocery store and managing a simple list. So the argument that you are protecting low-income families from obesity is ridiculous. They still have a choice, to eat or not to eat. The parents can still say ‘No’ to both themselves and their children. Mr. Yeager, who interestingly enough doesn’t not have children, doesn’t seem to understand this.

4) A note to McDonald’s: Don’t try to defend the toys by telling us that your “Happy Meals provide many of the important nutrients that children need.”

That is just ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. So your food has zinc, iron, calcium and some protein. It also has 30 percent of your daily intake of fat (for an adult by the way). Just face up to the fact that your food isn’t the most nutritious. Don’t act as if I am a moron and try to convince me that it’s ok to give my children this food because it has zinc. Come on.

When I head to McDonald’s or any other fast-food joint, I am well aware that the food isn’t the best for me or my children. That is why I head there rarely. It’s a special treat. So I would rather have McDonald’s or whoever say, “We know our food isn’t equal to fruits and veggies. I am the spokesperson for McDonald’s and I don’t eat there every day (and I eat for free). And neither should you or your children.”

That would be much more refreshing and actually might get me to make a trip for some happy meals sometime in the next six months.

As you can tell, I was a bit fired up by this vote. No. I am not headed to Santa Clara anytime soon for Happy Meals, but a vote such as this just seems to give greater excuses for poor parenting and more power to government officials to monitor what is good for us. If we don’t want McDonald’s giving toys along with bad food, we don’t need a council vote. We just need to stop buying the Happy Meals. Or at least I think so.