Political Experiments

I’m a big fan of local political experimentation. Each local municipality, each county, each state, even each country allows for some degree of experimentation. I can look at Holland’s or Switzerland’s drug policy and say, “Well, decriminalizing drug use and seeking to make it safer and easier to get treatment seems to have worked out.” Since it’s essentially a proven system, I would recommend trying it at the national level.

However, America is afraid of new things. Just as states one by one allowed females to vote, eventually a majority of states had a national policy instated in the form of the 19th amendment.

While we’re on amendments… the one right before it was also a political experiment. The 18th amendment was passed after many states had banned alcohol. In this case, one of the strongest arguments in favor of a national policy was that as long as there were states producing alcohol legally, it could be too easily brought into banned municipalities.

Ultimately, we saw that banning alcohol on a national level did not empirically improve society. I hope it’s a lesson we don’t have to repeat, literally, though it is one we are repeating in other ways. Still, many “dry counties” exist across the country, as well as “blue laws” limiting the sale on alcohol on Sunday or holidays. If you want to live in a place like that… your choice.

Ultimately, I believe what makes a law have a positive or negative impact on society is to what extent it grants liberty. With that in mind…

San Francisco is passing an ordinance over the veto of the mayor that will place restrictions on fast food meals for children… sort of.

If you listen to fast food defenders, you’d think McDonald’s was being targeted in some kind of hippie vegan witch-hunt. Are they banning hamburgers? Fries? Oh my god… not… the McRib?!

No.

Well, then they must be banning the sale of Happy Meals and their famous toys.

Nope.

Um… what are they doing?

Under the proposed ordinance, restaurants may give away a free toy or other incentive item only if the meal contains less than 600 calories, has less than 640 milligrams of sodium and if less than 35 percent of the calories are derived from fat (less than 10 percent from saturated fat), except for fat contained in nuts, seeds, eggs or low-fat cheese.

In beverages, less than 35 percent of the total calories can come from fat, and less than 10 percent from added sweeteners.

In addition, the meals must contain a half-cup or more of fruit and three-quarters of a cup or more of vegetables. A breakfast meal must contain at least a half-cup of fruit or vegetables.

So… you can still poison your kids and you can still get your kids a Happy Meal with a toy… in fact, at 640 milligrams of sodium, you can do both, with some fruit and vegetables that you can throw away if you want.

Honestly, the travesty is the drink. Hopefully, they provide multiple juice options, or you’re stuck with 2% milk or Diet soda.

Also, why is everyone turning this into a McDonald’s commercial by always mentioning them and Happy Meals? This affects every fast food place equally. I remember preferring Burger King kid’s meal, because it tasted a lot better than McDonald’s and you got a crown.

[I am going to regret having everyone picture me wearing a crown as a kid…]

And if 600 calories isn’t enough, you can get two. Or go to the next town. Or just order a la carte. I know the article says this is an idea that may spread, and every alarmist thinks this will happen, as well as the people advocating it in San Francisco. In fact, the belief that this will result in some sort of Communist-domino-theory is the only thing those who support the measure and those who oppose it have in common.

Here’s what I see: I see a community telling McDonald’s they want to have healthy options available to their kids. I see statist libertarians imposing their will on a small town deciding how they want to legislate.

Is the ordiance dumb? Hell yeah it’s dumb. It has more holes in it than a large box of Krispy Kremes. But people aren’t quoting the ordinance itself in nearly any of the criticism I see. They are attacking what they perceive to be the spirit of the law, that people should not be told what they can put in their bodies.

This law isn’t doing that, and I hope that is the precedent made here. Your choice of what you can put in your body shouldn’t be made for you (or your kids… unless you’re trying to bone your offspring… which a disturbing number of parents statistically are). I think it’s rather petty that unhealthy kid’s meals won’t be able to get toys, but you have to remember… you can still order whatever you want.

In reality, this will end up costing people in the area more money to get what they want, but they can still get anything. You can order a “Healthy Meal” and then get a real burger or fries or real soda or extra nuggets… whatever it is you want. A cynic might say, “See, it didn’t even work,” but I would say that parents who supported the measure likely got what they wanted.

They can get a healthy meal with a toy for their kids and believe their children are getting a semi-balanced dinner on the go. In their mind, the toy penalty seems like a disincentive, but it’s more like a tax that benefits fast food chains in the form of increased sales (since you wouldn’t be paying for apple wedges and celery sticks unless it was required to be included for the prize).

Since this ordinance’s specifics are so ill-conceived, don’t expect this to be anything but a local dilemma that I predict will be corrected (I’m guessing about when pot is legalized). Otherwise, people will just go to the next town, where they may have a better plan for providing healthier meals.