Argument: 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 1: "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 2: "The ban is ineffective in addressing the problem of obesity.

Studies have shown that only a very small amount of the calories consumed by children come from foods like the Happy Meal. And while kids are eating at fast food restaurants at an alarming rate, it is their parents who make the decision to take them there 93% of the time. Of the kids who do want to go to McDonald’s, only 8% cite the toy as the primary reason. Therefore, this piece of legislation seems to tackle a perceived problem rather than a real one. Legislators would be better off focusing their attention where it matters: providing information to parents about making better choices for their kids, and improving the quality of school lunches, which are actually provided by the government and are eaten by kids every single day, often as their main meal [1] .

[1] Eskenazi, Joe, and Wachs, Benjamin. “How the Happy Meal ban explains San Francisco.” San Francisco Weekly. January 19, 2011. http://www.sfweekly.com/content/printVersion/2330057/"
Candidate 3: "It is important to instil good habits in children at an early age. But the manner in which it is done is equally important. Kids should be taught to make choices based on what is best for them, through information and appropriate explanations, rather than just being shielded from potential dangers. That kind of behaviour, predicated on reason and understanding, will have a far more lasting impact on the way they make choices, than just protecting them from temptation, with which they will inevitably have to cope later in life."
Candidate 4: "Even if we were to accept that the government has a role in combatting the so-called ‘obesity epidemic’, that does not justify it taking any measures it deems appropriate. The government should at the very least be able to prove that there is some link between the toys sold with the fast food meals and the rise in obesity. After all, the toys have been around since the late 70s. The ‘obesity epidemic’ is a far more recent phenomenon."
Candidate 5: "If a parent gives into pressure from a young child so easily, even when she knows it’s the wrong thing to do, then she has bigger parenting problems to worry about than the presence of toys in fast food meals. The government cannot possibly step in to eliminate all temptations and negative influences on children’s choices. Parents need to be firm and provide their kids with the guidance necessary to choose what is best."
Candidate 6: "Children may have a strong preference for a certain type of meal over another, but young kids don’t buy their own food. Parents do. And if kids might not understand that fast food is bad for them, their parents should. If a child is eating too much fast food, that is not a marketing success, it’s a parenting failure."
Candidate 7: "This ban constitutes serious governmental intrusion into parental responsibilities and private choices.

Parents, not politicians, should be responsible for guiding the choices their children make and the food they eat, especially when they pay for it with their own money. Parents may have other reasons for wanting their children to have the meal with a toy, for example the toy is a useful distraction for the child. Governments should not try to impose their own idea of what constitutes appropriate food choices for children on parents and on businesses. Governments may aim to promote and educate, but imposing bans on private businesses goes too far [1] .

[1] Martinez, Michael. “Mayor vetoes San Francisco ban on Happy Meals with toys.” CNN. November 13 2010. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/11/12/california.fast.food.ban/index.html"

Even if we were to accept that the government has a role in combatting the so-called ‘obesity epidemic’, that does not justify it taking any measures it deems appropriate. The government should at the very least be able to prove that there is some link between the toys sold with the fast food meals and the rise in obesity. After all, the toys have been around since the late 70s. The ‘obesity epidemic’ is a far more recent phenomenon.
