Argument: Such bans are easy to side step.

The San Francisco ban has already been circumvented by McDonalds who has started selling their Happy Meals without the toys and then selling the toys separately for a nominal price [1] . Banning the sale of any toys in fast food restaurants would be difficult without prompting legal action from the companies. The steep legal costs of defending such a law would waste public resources that could easily be put to better use.

[1] Eskenazi, Joe. “Happy Meal Ban. McDonlad’s Outsmarts San Francisco.” San Francisco Weekly. November 29, 2011. http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/11/happy_meal_ban_mcdonalds_out...

Candidate 1: "This is not exactly a ban on the sale of fast food to children. This ban does not affect the options of bad foods that parents can continue to feed to their young children if they choose to do so. They will even be able to continue buying happy meals – simply without the toy. It merely alters the incentives slightly toward promoting better, healthier choices by making fast food less appealing."
Candidate 2: "Obesity is a public health issue .

All around the world, obesity has become a serious threat to public health. And the problem starts early on. In the US, for example, 17% of youth are obese4. Obesity itself has many consequences; most obviously on health such as increasing the risk of numerous diseases like heart disease, there are however economic costs both for treatment of these diseases, lost working days and due to less obvious costs such safety on transport and its resulting fuel cost. [1] Tackling obesity is therefore well within the purview of government policy. A failure to act might seriously affect the economic productivity of the nation, and even bankrupt healthcare systems [2] . A measure like the toy ban would be a first step to tackling the problem at the root, preventing children from growing up into obese adults.

[1] Zahn, Theron, “Obesity epidemic forcing ferries to lighten their loads”, seattlepi, 20 December 2011, http://www.seattlepi.com/local/komo/article/Obesity-epidemic-forcing-fer...

[2] “Obesity ‘could bankrupt the NHS’”. BBC. 15 December 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180991.stm"
Candidate 3: "While McDonald’s may have found a way to circumvent the ban, the significant pressure that was applied to them in the process led the company to improve the quality of the Happy Meal, by providing clients with fresh fruit and healthier drink options. Therefore, the ban could be considered a success."
Candidate 4: "Marketing aimed at children should be subject to strict regulations.

Unlike adults, children are not able to make healthy decisions for themselves. They don’t understand what calories, sodium content, or saturated fats are. They are unable to comprehend the long-term effects that fast food might have on their health and development. On the other hand, a toy is instantly appealing to them and offers a straightforward incentive to opt for such a meal. As long as the negative consequences cannot be explained to kids in a clear and compelling manner, we should not make unhealthy food even more desirable for them. We should not allow children to make bad choices based on information they don’t understand [1] .

[1] Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. “Fast Food FACTS: Evaluating Fast Food Nutrition and Marketing to Youth.” Yale University. November 2010. http://www.fastfoodmarketing.org/media/FastFoodFACTS_Report.pdf"
Candidate 5: "Bad nutrition habits start during childhood.

Giving away toys with meals that are calorie laden and of poor nutritional quality creates an emotional attachment between the child and fast food [1] . This bond will then follow that child into adulthood, making it harder for her to make better nutritional choices in order to become a healthy individual. This ban would break that bond and make it easier for children to grow up to be healthier adults.

[1] Storm, Stephanie. “McDonald’s Trims Its Happy Meal.” The New York Times. July 26, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/business/mcdonalds-happy-meal-to-get-h..."
Candidate 6: "Of course there is no such thing as a silver bullet solution to a problem as complex as childhood obesity. This ban would need to be part of a bigger push to regulate the fast food industry’s marketing to children and to provide kids and parents with better choices and information. That doesn’t mean the ban has no merit or that it would not play a beneficial role in the fight against obesity."
Candidate 7: "Making it easier for parents to raise their children well.

As well meaning as parents may be in trying to guide their kids toward better nutritional choices, they face a formidable opponent: the fast food marketing machine that spends over 4 billion dollars on advertising a year, much of it targeted directly at kids [1] . This can create enough ‘pester power’ [2] from the kids themselves, seduced by the toy that comes with the meal, that it can persuade parents to make bad choices they wouldn’t otherwise make. By eliminating at least one layer of negative pressure, this law would help parents make those healthy choices that they already know are best.

[1] Philpott, Tom. “The fast-food industry’s 4.2 billion marketing blitz.” Grist. November 10. 2010. http://www.grist.org/article/food-2010-11-09-the-fast-food-industrys-4.2...

[2] “San Francisco Happy meal Toy Ban Takes Effect, Sidestepped by McDonald’s.” Huffington Post. November 2011. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/san-francisco-happy-meal-ban_n_..."

While McDonald’s may have found a way to circumvent the ban, the significant pressure that was applied to them in the process led the company to improve the quality of the Happy Meal, by providing clients with fresh fruit and healthier drink options. Therefore, the ban could be considered a success.
