A perfect example of the law of unintended consequences is one currently in play in San Francisco. There, city officials passed a measure that prohibits fast food restaurants from giving free toys as a lure in promoting the sales of kids’ menu items.
The thinking was – if there were no free toys, children might not clamor so much for food high in fat, sugar, and salt content.
That alone should demonstrate that lawmakers are severely out of touch. Who else believes that – without plastic trinkets – American children would be stamping their little feet demanding apples, bananas, and whole wheat toast smeared with organic butter?
The law presents no problems for the fast food chains, which come out as winners regardless of public opinion. Can’t give the toys away free? Okay, that’ll be an extra dime, please. Burger King has just announced that it will join McDonalds in charging for the plastic former-giveaways.
Customer, wrangling four toddlers: What?
McDonald’s employee: We can’t give the toys away anymore. They passed a law.
Customer: Who did?
Employee: The city. If you want the toy, it’s an extra dime.
Customer: It’s obvious I want the toy. That’s why I ordered the kid’s meal. Here’s your dime.
Employee: A dime each. That’ll be forty cents extra for the four Happy Meals.
Customer: Here’s your forty cents, then. You know where to put it?
McDonald’s says the extra change will go toward Ronald McDonald Charities, allowing the company to provide benevolence at the expense of the customer. There is no corporate guilt, either. It was the city’s idea. Burger King has jumped on board the charge-for-toys bandwagon: the dime extra is also Burger King’s new toy surcharge.
The intent was to protect the health of the San Francisco children by reducing the allure of burgers and fries. There is no imaginable way, except among naïve government policy-makers, that such a ban would change eating habits. The unintended effect is to increase the cost to feed the fast-food-loving younger set, who will have their toys – just not for free.
For every such intrusive piece of legislation, regulation, or law, there are similar side-effects. Any more ideas about how the government should be regulating our health, welfare, and other aspects of our personal lives?
