McDonalds Facing Lawsuit For Happy Meal Toys

cosm writes "Looks like personal responsibility died a little bit again today. From the article: 'A watchdog group says giving away toys with Happy Meals contributes to childhood obesity, and threatens to sue. The [watchdog] organization on Tuesday served the fast food giant with a letter expressing its intent to sue if toys are not removed. The letter is legally required in several states before lawsuits can be brought under consumer protection statutes. ..."McDonald's is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children," Stephen Gardner, litigation director for the advocacy group, said in a statement. "McDonald's use of toys undercuts parental authority and exploits young children's developmental immaturity."'"

Comments

If you are that fat

[Rasperin]

You arent eating a happy meal.

Re:If you are that fat

[JWSmythe]

    I second that opinion. That kid looks like he could inhale a couple supersized bigmac combos in a few seconds.

    People need to learn not to overfeed themselves and their kids. It's not the toys fault, it's the DUMB PARENTS. They're raising an entire generation of people who will be lucky to live to 30.

Re:If you are that fat

[Anonymous Coward]

That's one way of controlling your total number of citizens. It's still better than China's way.

Re:If you are that fat

[JWSmythe]

    Is it better? It costs us in the food resources that are being wasted over the lifetime of the morbidly obese, medical costs, and dedication of medical professionals to help with patients who aren't willing to help themselves. Consider the other additional problems, where ambulances have to be made larger to accommodate the oversized patients, larger tools (everything from stretchers to MRI machines), and even when they pass, oversized accommodations must be made at the cemetery.

    I went to the doctor recently, and joked that I am fat (I'm 155 lbs at 5'8"). He laughed, but pointed out that they had a new scale. The old one only went to 400 pounds. My doctor personally sent a person to a large animal hospital, because they couldn't find an MRI machine that could take anyone that size. Even if you look at the high end of a height/weight chart, someone who's 6'8", the high normal weight should be 216. We're not talking about extremely muscular athletes, we're talking about people who can't see their own shoes to tie them, because too many fat folds are in the way.

    Even someone very muscular, like Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was winning body building trophies was only 250lbs at 6'2". There's no excuse for anyone to be 350+ pounds.

    We're going to kill ourselves, and that's not just the morbidly obese. They are putting a huge demand on the food supply, which hurts everyone who wants to eat. When you hear about the morbidly obese and their diet, they eat enough in a day to feed a normal healthy person for a week (or more).

Re:If you are that fat

[gstoddart]

If you are that fat ... You arent eating a happy meal.

The Happy Meal is the gateway drug.

You get hooked from the shiny toy and the burger. Next thing you know, you're hossin' down the super-sized double Big Mac combo with a side of cheeseburgers like El Gordo there.

Re:If you are that fat

[Anonymous Coward]

And it means work for mechanics, construction workers and engineers who have to re-design and modify existing vehicles and structures. And it means a lot of work for thousands and millions of farmers, doctors and health professionals too. That's one way of providing work to your country.

Re:If you are that fat

[Anonymous Coward]

For the people responding and possibly the parent poster: that picture is has nothing to do with this case. It's been floating around 4chan for years.

Re:If you are that fat

[Kludge]

You are eating two happy meals.

Re:If you are that fat

[Hognoxious]

That's one way of providing work to your country.

Another is to go round chucking bricks through windows.

Re:If you are that fat

[Hognoxious]

Is there such a thing as an ecstatic meal?

Re:If you are that fat

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds a bit like 1984.

Re:If you are that fat

[Hognoxious]

You see morbidly obese people.

I see a self-propelled food supply with an integrated anti-spoilage mechanism.

For when a comet hits, or something like that.

Re:If you are that fat

[JWSmythe]

    Nah, your food supply would degrade too quickly. No food makes your supply shrink, either through internal usage or failure of it's support mechanism.

Re:If you are that fat

[green1]

People prefer lean meat, which means more muscle and less fat....

Re:If you are that fat

[PFI_Optix]

"Even if you look at the high end of a height/weight chart, someone who's 6'8", the high normal weight should be 216."

This is utter nonsense. I have a cousin who stands at 6'8" and isn't especially athletic. He is quite fit: he watches his diet, works out three days a week, and barely has any visible fat on him. His weight? 235 pounds. Likewise, I'm 6'1" and if I weighed what those idiotic charts say I should weigh, I'd be skin and bones. At my lowest adult weight, I was 205 lbs and had a 30 inch waist below a 44 inch chest.

Much of my family is truly big-boned. We struggle with our weight (I've got a fair bit to lose now, a combination of a bad knee interfering in workouts and my just being lazy), but even at our skinniest the charts call us overweight because *gasp* not everyone has the same build. Now that I've recovered my knee and am able to focus on getting back in shape, my target weight is 210-215 pounds. Anything below that and I'll have to give up some of the muscle I'm planning to build up soon.

Re:If you are that fat

[JWSmythe]

    No, actually you're arguing the finer points of the charts. I was simply referencing where the lines were drawn the the "experts".

    You mention folks over 6', with weights in the low to mid 200's. My complaint was where weights were frequently exceeding 400 pounds, and sadly if you've spent any significant time people-watching, you'll see that they aren't always even near 6'.

    I was underweight for most of the first 20-some years. Then I bounced over to "overweight", and agreed I was. I corrected that, and have been happily in the middle of the chart since then. It's not for the sake of where the chart says I should be, it's just where I am happy and healthy.

Re:If you are that fat

[Anonymous Coward]

But the first one came with a toy you already had...

Re:If you are that fat

[rainmouse]

Stop the greedy children, they are eating all the toys!

No doubt the experts involved in the case are the kind of people who's only apparent credential is starting every phrase with "Speaking as a mother..."

Eating crap is a choice, sure they use cunning techniques to influence that choice but its hardly mind control caps. All this desperate finger pointing really should just lead back to pad parenting. People who are too lazy to cook healthy meals for their children. Blaming the source is like blaming drug pushers and dealers for addicts..... oh wait I've just broken my own argument. Fail.

Re:If you are that fat

[secondhand_Buddah]

Half the problem is that fast foods are engineered to inhibit the signals that tell us that we have had enough of a specific nutrient. With natural foods, we stop feeling like the food when we have had enough (see how many bananas you can eat before they lose their appeal) . This level of bio-engineering should be made illegal. The reason people are getting fat is because we do not get that natural response when eating fast food. Going after the toys is simply going after they symptom of the problem,

Re:If you are that fat

[secondhand_Buddah]

Yes. An ecstatic meal generally contains mushrooms..

Re:If you are that fat

[jgagnon]

Bacon hater. :p

Re:If you are that fat

[Anonymous Coward]

/facepalm

You honestly think that restaurants bio-engineer food? I'd hardly consider the addition of salt and sugar because they taste good to be bio-engineering. Hell, if that's the case I "bio-engineer" my baked potato every time I put some butter and hot sauce on it. And if you really think natural foods won't make you fat, I challenge you to eat nothing but avocados and nuts for a few months.

Here's your tin foil hat. Enjoy your visit.

Re:If you are that fat

[Sponge Bath]

That kid looks like he could inhale a couple supersized bigmac combos...

He is so grotesquely obese he probably has problems inhaling air. He has fat segments flowing over his wrists! They should just throw him whole into the fryer were he can dissolve and be recycled.

Re:If you are that fat

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Even someone very muscular, like Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was winning body building trophies was only 250lbs at 6'2". There's no excuse for anyone to be 350+ pounds.

I can actually disagree with that some. Though 99% of the people shouldn't be even remotely near that weight. I have a friend who is actually about 320 pounds or so and he isn't fat. He is about 6ft 6inches or so and the man could probably chuck a car engine like a medicine ball. The weird thing is he doesn't do steroids and isn't an avid weightlifter or anything. He is just naturally built like an Ox.

But also, even at 320 pounds or so he still wouldn't have any problems fitting onto an MRI machine or anything like that cause even at that weight, it is actually distributed properly.

Re:If you are that fat

[green1]

I love bacon, but then I also like it crispy meaning most of the fat is cooked off, also you'll notice the cheap bacon in the store has lots of fat, but the good stuff has much less.

Fat isn't the part people eat, it's the muscle that we all enjoy so much.

Re:If you are that fat

[JWSmythe]

    He's definitely the exception to what I said, not the rule. I've known people like him. They're great to have beside you in a bar fight. Not so great to be the one angry at you.

    "No sir, your girlfriend wasn't all over me. That was another girl that looked a lot like her, I promise."

    [runs away quickly]

Re:If you are that fat

[ThePhilips]

This level of bio-engineering should be made illegal.

I do not think that they employ anything complicated like that. It's more like "serial manufacturing" or "mass production" (compare to "cooking").

Occasionally when I get something from fast food, I get the feeling that their food is simply "empty". One feels full for a short time - often very short time - but the food apparently contains close to 0 of what my body actually needs. Why shortly after I feel hunger again.

If I were in the environment where there were no other choices but fast food, I'm sure I would overeat a lot. Simply because the food isn't nutritious enough. (And well it wasn't made to be nutritious: comparing prices to the rest it is obvious that fast food is made to be cheap.)

Re:If you are that fat

[BLKMGK]

Well, the issue isn't so much overfeeding as it is allowing a screaming child who "wants a TOY!!!!!" to overrule parental judgement. So far as I'm concerned McDonalds has done nothing wrong, in fact adding carrots as an option over fries was a GOOD thing. But parents can be weak and so it's not so much that they overfeed as it is they cannot say no.

That said, a McD's small hamburger is 250cals, with cheese 300 as I recall. The small fries add say another 150-200cals. To a parent, or someone like me on a diet, this seems pretty reasonable (I skip cheese though). However to a small growing child this could be WAY too much! Parents know they can inhale a quarter pounder easily, so what's wrong with Jr having a small burger? They aren't educated and frankly kids aren't as active. I'll never forget as a kid ordering a 20piece nuggets with a friend at a Popeyes and the lady's eyes getting big as she hollered for a "party pack". She nearly passed out when the friend behind me ordered the same thing! These days though this is commonplace and they have them stacked up and waiting - not so 20 years ago.

BTW a quarter pounder is less cals than two small burgers, the swiss mushroom Angus however is like 770 and the way my McD's slathers on the mayo it's probably more - way more. Sweet Tea isn't on the menu but fries add another 300+ so that "meal" is well over 1K. My height and size say I can eat 3Kcals but I ain't getting' them THAT way! I didn't feel as bad though eating that when I saw a breakfast that breached 1100cals BEFORE syrup and butter not to mention the M&M McFlurry which also breaches 1K if you get the 12oz. Really the Happy Meals ain't all that bad by comparison! :-O

How many parents, let alone grown up adults pay attention to this stuff? I didn't until I decided I was too damned fat and started walking to McD's locally as a treat on my diet *cough*

Re:If you are that fat

[Zymophideth]

I tried to motivate someone I work with to start being a little more healthy so he bought one of those fancy body fat scales. It is rated for 330lbs, it gives an error when he stands on it (he's 5'6"). Despite that he still shows up to work everyday with McDonalds in hand and might eat there for lunch as well. I think we should implement no taxes on healthy foods (fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, fish, fungus, juices/water). Small tax on white and dark meat. Heavy tax on red meat, fried foods, snacks (chips, hot pockets, etc.), sweets (ice cream, Twinkies, candy, etc.). That tax money should go to paying for the damage caused by the fatties. I'm generally opposed to the government banning certain products we buy but I'm fine with representative taxation on "SIN" items.

Re:If you are that fat

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for McDonald's, at the corporate offices. This is not an official statement in any way by McDonald's. That said...

I have sat in presentations by the head chef and company and department meetings with our high level executives. As a company McDonald's really does care about freshness, nutrition, and good health. It is not just public relations.

Complete - stunningly complete - nutritional information is available both in the restaurants (as a brochure) and on the web site.

McDonald's food ingredients are the same or better quality as those most people would buy at the grocery store, from companies like Kraft and Tyson. Is it organic? No, but that's not what most Americans eat either.

Most of the produce we use looks better than the stuff I can buy at my local grocery store.

Should you eat two Big Macs and a McGriddle as your daily food? No, of course not.

Could you eat a healthy diet and still only eat McDonald's food? Yes, if you wanted to. There's a lot more than burgers and fries on the menu these days.

Re:If you are that fat

[ThePhilips]

I work for McDonald's, at the corporate offices.

That explains a lot. (*)

Two of my friends had McJobs in past so I know for a fact that what you say is not completely true and rather naive. (E.g. dehydrated onions story or how to sell a day old hamburger.)

And even if the info from the friends is outdated or they (unlikely) lied to me - I personally still cannot go against the verdict given to the food by my own stomach.

(*) I went now through couple of large companies and, as a software developer, I was always surprised about the level of delusion in corporate offices: higher one is in the orgchart, more distorted picture of reality one has.

Re:If you are that fat

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why you slaughter and smoke the meat to preserve it once it becomes necessary to take such steps.

There is something extremely humorous about the concept of making human jerky out of all the people who overate all their lives.

Re:If you are that fat

[Anonymous Coward]

"They are putting a huge demand on the food supply, which hurts everyone who wants to eat."

No they aren't. There is no food supply issue, there is a food distribution issue.

There is enough food grown / raised to feed everyone, but due to war, profiteering, poverty, etc not everyone is getting enough.

Re:If you are that fat

[centre21]

This is a prime example of the hypocrisy in our nation. We've all been taught (or should I say shamed) to become more "tolerant" and understanding to the plight of those who are not traditionally considered "the norm" (e.g. the homeless, addicts and those afflicted with mental disorders) - unless those who are telling us to do so find fault with a particular group such as smokers or, as this case, those who are considered obese and heavier.
The fact is that the scale has been changed, and obese is a lot lower in BMI than it used to be. Also, most morbidly obese people have a genetic tendency to be so. Eating fast food does not necessarily determine whether or not you'll gain weight (a reporter here in Chicago took Spurlock's "Super Size Me" challenge and actually LOST weight). It's a combination of intake, output and genetics.
So, you're right, there is no "excuse" to be 350+ pounds. But there are REASONS.
So pick on someone your own size, or better yet, learn some compassion and don't pick on anyone at all. Because who knows, you might be part of the next group that people decide we'd do better without.

Re:If you are that fat

[Anonymous Coward]

Arnold Schwarzenegger has never been 6'2". The guy would be lucky to top 5'10". Anyone who's seen him close realizes this.

Re:If you are that fat

[jedidiah]

> McDonald's food ingredients are the same or better quality as those most people would buy at the grocery store, from companies like Kraft and Tyson.

That kind of says it all right there.

Most of ConAgra engages in the same nonsense as McDonalds. So it's not terribly interesting to say that one is a lot like the other.

Re:If you are that fat

[jedidiah]

"produce" at McD's. Yeah right...

Produce at McD's is GARNISH. The bulk of what's at McD's is cheap white bread, potatoes, high fat meats and psuedo-cheese all fried or deep fried.

Those complete nutritional disclosures tell the tale very well.

Most people simply don't bother.

Re:If you are that fat

[JWSmythe]

    Both IMDB and Wikipedia list him to be 6'2". While Wikipedia can be questionable, IMDB is pretty accurate with their information, often maintained by the celebrity (or their agent).

Re:If you are that fat

[JWSmythe]

    I'll pick on anyone, I'm an equal opportunity offender. I'll pick on fat people because they are fat. There are genetic reasons to be overweight, but for the majority of people, it is not a genetic disorder. It is a decision. They decide to eat more than they can burn, and the excess is stored. If you're overweight, and eat like you aren't, you will find that your weight will drop. It's as simple as that. The part that isn't easy is that modern society makes food readily available to us, and we have the luxury of not needing o be physically active to replenish our food supply.

    I was really skinny working in a computer repair shop. I didn't sit all day, because I was walking between at least 3 repair stations constantly, to the parts room, and to the front desk to talk to customers. When I got a desk job, my walking was reduced to almost nothing in comparison. My diet remained the same, and I gained weight. I changed my eating habits. I exercised more, before a car accident that has left me with chronic pain. Even still, I remain active. Friends tell me not to do things because I'll hurt myself (i.e., lifting heavy things), and I tell them that I won't stop doing things until I hurt too much to do it.

    Even chronic pain isn't an excuse to not be active. Last weekend, I sent to a friends place to fix the brakes on his car. I only brought hand tools and my floor jack (no air tools). When I was finishing up, I hurt my back again tightening down the lug nuts on the last wheel, but I still worked through and cleaned up. The floor jack weighs 75 pounds, but I still got it into the back of my car to take home. Of course, I ended up laying on his living room floor for about an hour before the meds kicked in (prescribed as-needed). So I'll be in pain for a few days, and then I'll get back into doing physical work. Until then, I'm comfortably propped up in bed, not eating very much, and getting computer work done.

Old News

[Monkeedude1212]

Didn't that guy bring this up with Supersize me like years ago? Haven't they already had to face lawsuits because "Eating McDonalds makes you fat"?

I swear, is no one responsible for their own actions anymore? Don't get me wrong, I don't think what McDonald's does is right, but if you play the "I'm not in control of what I eat" card, you deserve to become obese.

Re:Old News

[gstoddart]

Didn't that guy bring this up with Supersize me like years ago?

I'm not saying there's no such thing as personal responsibility ...

But, it's cheaper to eat McD's that actual fresh food from a grocery store -- both in terms of $$, and time. And, in Super Size Me, he actually went through withdrawal when he didn't have that crap. Your body starts to crave the high sugar/high fat.

You start giving a four year McD's on a regular basis, putting it into schools and whatnot, you're going to end up with this problem. Sadly, a lot of children grow up and will only eat this crap, and actual vegetables and real food is something they'll turn their noses up at. Heck, I suspect the parents sitting across from this kid are also way obese too.

Re:Old News

[Monkeedude1212]

But, it's cheaper to eat McD's that actual fresh food from a grocery store -- both in terms of $$, and time.

Definately NOT in money. At least not here in Canada.

Spaghetti noodles: $3
Extra Lean Hamburger meat: $5.50
2 Cans of Tomato Paste: $3
Stock of Celery: 89 cents
2L juice: $1.50
Grand Total: about 15 dollars after Tax.

This will easily get you 5 full meals, more than any meal you can buy at McDonalds with any combo.

There are TONS of easy meals you can spend 20 minutes cooking and have microwavable leftovers for the rest of the week. Chicken and Rice with any veggies you want is another great combo.

Just most people would prefer going through a drive thru 5 times a week as opposed to spending 20 minutes cooking 2 nights a week. It baffles me.

Re:Old News

[SleazyRidr]

I still don't get people who try and tell me that eating out is cheaper than cooking. I make something that my Dad calls chicken surprise (the surprise is there's no chicken) for about $10 which gives me lunch all week and 4 dinners. I can't afford to eat unhealthily.

Re:Old News

[adolf]

Hmm.

Ten McDoubles == $10.

Five small fries == $5.

Five big meals for $15, from McDonalds.

Next?

(I'm ignoring the health aspects, on purpose.)

Re:Old News

[Abreu]

There's also the fact that a lot of people don't even know how to cook something as simple as some noodles anymore...

Re:Old News

[lena_10326]

What are you talking about? Big Mac combo is about $6.50 in Seattle. A deluxe combo is about $7.50. A happy meal is about $4.50. It's more expensive to eat at McD's than it is to eat at home. My average home cooked meal costs between 75 cents to $5 depending on whether I'm eating spaghetti or steak. For a child under 12 it's even lower.

You have to know where to shop to get it under $3 a meal. Here we have a few stores: Costco, Bargain Mart, Cash & Carry, and Walmart. Typical prices at Bargain Mart on 4th Ave:

• Jar of spaghetti sauce: $1
• Bag of potatoes $3
• Bag of apples: $4
• 1lb bag of rice: $1
• Loaf of fluffy white bread: $1
• Half gallon of OJ: $2
• Jar of peanut butter: $1.75
• A pack of 8 hot dogs and 8 buns: $2.50
• 3lbs of hamburger meat: $7
• 12 pack of generic soda: $5.

Now, it's a lot more expensive if you choose the top shelf items over lesser items: such as Fuji apples over Empire apples, "not from concentrate" OJ over "from concentrate" OJ, white onions over yellow onions, 7 grain bread over white fluffy bread, etc, so unless you're eating t-bone steak or king crab every night ($10 a steak, $15 for king crab) the avg price per meal is still below McD's. Even with top shelf brands avg meal is between $3 to $6 a meal.

People eat at McD's because 1) they are lazy, 2) they don't want to cook, 3) they don't know how to cook (see #1 and #2), 4) they want something fattening and salty, 5) they want it now and do not want to wait, 6) they are not serious about losing weight.

Re:Old News

[L4t3r4lu5]

I swear, is no one responsible for their own actions anymore? Don't get me wrong, I don't think what McDonald's does is right, but if you play the "I'm not in control of what I eat" card, you deserve to be euthenased.

FTFY. Being in control of what you eat is easy. When you see the sale on a jumbo pack of 72 pancakes with some of that lovely high-fructose corn syrup you love to drizzle over, don't buy it. Walking past a $2.99 all-you-can-eat fried food buffet? You bet! Walk straight past! Grab a banana.

Unless you are tied down to a chair and being spoon fed can after can of refried beans Gluttony-scene-from-Seven style, you are in control of what you eat. Get some willpower. And if you're doing this to your kids, you deserve to have them taken off you and be sterilised. Yeah, this counts as child abuse.

Re:Old News

[L4t3r4lu5]

Obviously that's the parents being sterilised. No doubt the type-2 diabetes and reduced kidney function from excessive salt intake will screw up their fertility before they get past their 20th birthday.

Re:Old News

[L4t3r4lu5]

Time spent next to your dying child's bed as he's hooked up to dialysis for salt-induced renal failure while the doctor tells you that the lack of a lifestyle change the last time around makes him ineligible for a second transplant == priceless.

Mmmm... Those 15 minutes each day spent queueing instead of cooking sure were worth it.

Re:Old News

[adolf]

The topic is money, not healthfulness.

My argument is that it is equally cheap to get five meals from McDonalds as it is to make five meals with of spaghetti using a previously-posted recipe.

If you want to discuss healthfulness, you'll have to find another thread.

Re:Old News

[Monkeedude1212]

You including a beverage? Because I am.

Re:Old News

[Monkeedude1212]

Well if the topic were MONEY I'd suggest the 69cent instant noodles you can get from any supermarket. A meal for under $2

Or even just a box of Rice, will last you for like 2 weeks.

I was trying to show that if you are willing to spend as much money on groceries as you are on fast food, you can actually eat Healthy.

However, if you are trying to eat cheap, home cooking is DEFINATELY cheaper than fast food, I guarantee.

Re:Old News

[mrjb]

Well if the topic were MONEY I'd suggest the 69cent instant noodles you can get from any supermarket. A meal for under $2

Cheap and fast doesn't have to be unhealthy. Example: Here in the UK, the cheapest McDonalds burger costs 1 pound.
A packet of Sainsbury's basics or ASDA noodles (that's walmart for you people across the pond) can be had for about 9 or 10 p. Preparation time is about 4 minutes. To make it a proper meal, upgrade it: For example with an egg (15p), half an onion (5p), a tomato (10p) and half a bell pepper (30p).
You can cut the veg in the time the noodles are soaking. This way, 70p can get you 2 of your 5-a-day in under 10 minutes. Oh by the way- that's about US$1.50 - so previously mentioned 15 bucks may get you 5 meals at the Mac, but when home cooking it gets you 10.
As a personal preference, I'd rather use proper chow mein noodles or rice noodles though. Preparation time is marginally longer but proper noodles and a vegetable stir fry can still be cooked up under a pound and in less than 15 minutes- and it gives me more control over how much sodium is in the food.

Re:Old News

[Opportunist]

Oh, I'm quite sure that there's a 12-step program for those people that starts with something akin to "I admit that I am powerless over my food addiction and only someone else can save me".

What really blows is that these people have SO low self esteem that they can't even fathom they they, and nobody else, beat the habit. They accomplished that. Nobody else. But that won't work. They would never believe that they, and they alone, got anything done right. And instead of giving them a self esteem boost during their program, we toss them from one thing that has power over them into the next. What's gained?

That's what really blows about that 12step program. It turns addicted losers who can't get their act together into religious losers who again don't want to take their own life in their own hands. Instead of giving people a pat on the back when they're making progress and informing them that THEY and THEY ALONE make their progress possible, building their self esteem and turning them into people who have faith in their own abilities instead of some fluffy-cloud being....

Huh? Sorry, I think that "I am not in control" sentence triggered a Pavlovian reflex in me.

Re:Old News

[jgagnon]

The proper way to cook noodles is, of course, in a toaster.

Re:Old News

[jgagnon]

Don't worry, kids are birthing other kids long before age 20 these days.

Re:Old News

[Jaysyn]

You're wrong of course. Hamburger Happy meals are $1.99 here in Florida. That's 7.5 meals for $15.

Not that I'd ever advocate eating at McDonalds.

Re:Old News

[Jaysyn]

BZZZT wrong. A hamburger Happy meal is $1.99, right now, where I live.

Re:Old News

[BoberFett]

Not if they look like that kid they're not.

Re:Old News

[Anonymous Coward]

The comment was about Canadian prices: We don't have 1$ McDoubles here - Ours are 1.39$ plus on average 13% tax, so about 15$ for 10 McDoubles.
In regards to the Canadian pricing above, those seem like Ontario prices... Don't generalize, as most of the north, you can expect double the prices, and on the east coast, especially NL, it's 1.5× the price...

Re:Old News

[Pontiac]

Hmm I can get each family member (6 of us) a burger and fry for $2 each.. $12 total and they are all bitching at me 2 hours later because they are still hungry..
Or I can feed all of them for $5-10 and about 30 minutes of my time. As a bonus I still have leftovers I can take to work for Lunch the next day.

Now for single people I'll have to admit.. cooking for one person sucks.. You either make way to much or there isn't enough material in the pan to cook properly.

Re:Old News

[centre21]

But, it's cheaper to eat McD's that actual fresh food from a grocery store -- both in terms of $$, and time.

Definately NOT in money. At least not here in Canada.

Spaghetti noodles: $3
Extra Lean Hamburger meat: $5.50
2 Cans of Tomato Paste: $3
Stock of Celery: 89 cents
2L juice: $1.50
Grand Total: about 15 dollars after Tax.

This will easily get you 5 full meals, more than any meal you can buy at McDonalds with any combo.

There are TONS of easy meals you can spend 20 minutes cooking and have microwavable leftovers for the rest of the week. Chicken and Rice with any veggies you want is another great combo.

Just most people would prefer going through a drive thru 5 times a week as opposed to spending 20 minutes cooking 2 nights a week. It baffles me.

1. I'm not sure what this recipe is, but it's not spaghetti with meat sauce. It's spaghetti with meat in tomato paste (I'm not sure what the stalk of celery is for), which, as an Italian, sounds pretty gross. I'm not sure if I'd want to eat that for one night, much less 5.
2. Yes, there are 20 minute meals you can cook and have leftovers that are cheap. They're also pretty flavorless.
3. It baffles you? Perhaps it's not about the food, but more about the effort. If I go through the drive through, I get my food in 10 minutes, tops. So I'm already 10 minutes ahead of you. Also consider, that I don't have to do any dishes or take out any trash. This is the problem - it's not about what they eat or how they eat it, you just want everyone to be just like you. It shouldn't baffle you, simply because everyone is different. Not everyone has to like to cook. Not everyone has to like chicken and rice with veggies. Stop judging others for what they do and just appreciate them for who they are.

Re:Old News

[jedidiah]

If the topic is MONEY, then you just replicate the food faithfully and you end up spending less. You can replicate the food and improve it's nutritional content considerably and still pay less.

Potatoes are dirt cheap. Even ready made fries aren't very expensive.

Re:Old News

[jedidiah]

Maybe he's posting from the past. I don't think Happy Meals have been that cheap for a LONG time.

Re:Old News

[Anonymous Coward]

l hate to say this but we choose to eat this much it's our fault and ours alone don't blame a business for what we are doing dumb ass!!!

Re:Old News

[Syberz]

"McDonald's is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children"

Uh, there's a part missing to complete that quote: "that parents willingly go to see with their kids and PAY said stranger for their kids to receive candy."

Don't want your kids to eat Happy Meals? Don't take them to McDonald's! If your kids control you and make you go to McD's then you should concentrate on yourself instead of blaming others for your incompetence.

If your kids can go to McD's and pay for a Happy Meal on their own then they're old enough to make their own decisions about what to eat.

I am sick an tired people trying to legislate common sense.

Parental responsibility anyone?

[Envy Life]

This watchdog group is implying parents need help keeping their kids away from McDonalds. Are parents incapable of saying "no honey, we're going to eat in tonight" or "no we're going to ... instead" or "no you can't have a Big Mac and fries, but you can have the grilled chicken sandwich and a fruit salad." When do lawyers become more important to our society than parental responsibility? It's just all backwards.

Re:Parental responsibility anyone?

[Locke2005]

In the words of the immortal childcare expert Bender, "Have you ever tried simply turning off the TV, sitting down with your children, and hitting them?"

The sooner your child learns to accept "no" for an answer without whining about it, the better off they are going to be in life. In marriage, we learn to expect "no" for an answer!

Re:Parental responsibility anyone?

[FuckingNickName]

You are completely wrong. The sooner a child learnts to accept "no" for an answer without whining, the sooner he becomes a malleable, passive tool and occasional useful idiot. A child's job is to whine - to learn and to question - and it's your job to provide a convincing argument to him. He can't force you to do anything, so it's not the end of the world. And if you didn't expect your child to keep you up all night while he questioned everything, you may wish to reconsider your parenting!

Meanwhile, it's the adults who whine and don't accept "no" for an answer who actually go on to achieve interesting things, both for themselves and for the world around them. Channel his dissatisfaction.

Re:Parental responsibility anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like a true non-parent.

How do you explain calorie balance, saturated fats and the like to three-year old?

A fair proportion of adults wouldn't have a clue.

Re:Parental responsibility anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like a poor parent.

Understand your audience. For example, calorie balance doesn't need to be explained at graduate level, but with an illustration of how you get fat if more goes in than comes out. I had no trouble "why"ing everything at the age of 3, and my parents had no trouble taking the time to try to explain.

A fair proportion of adults wouldn't have a clue.

A fair proportion of adults make poor parents.

Re:Parental responsibility anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like one of those parents that have to beg children to behave. Children don't have developed reasoning and thus can't always be convinced. Telling your child "No" to McDonald's with an explanation that too much can make you fat should be enough. Most children can continuosly reply with "but why?" regardless of what you say. You can't convince that.

Re:Parental responsibility anyone?

[FuckingNickName]

You sound like one of those parents that have to beg children to behave.

Why get personal? Did it hit a raw nerve because I advocate reasoning rather than authoritarianism? :-)

Children don't have developed reasoning

Oh, children are very receptive to reasoning, and it can be formalised quite early if you're willing. Modern state education won't give you that, but the brain is there for training.

and thus can't always be convinced.

Unlike the average 40 year old, the perfect model of reason.

Telling your child "No" to McDonald's with an explanation that too much can make you fat should be enough.

You're insulting your child.

Most children can continuosly reply with "but why?" regardless of what you say. You can't convince that.

Most adults have given up on asking "but why?" to everything, instead developing a series of unquestioned assumptions and prejudices. It's a shame.

All you need to avoid is getting involved in a loop. You don't need to skip your responsibility to reason.

Re:Parental responsibility anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like a patronizing shithead.

I'm sure you're just a fucking perfect parent.

Re:Parental responsibility anyone?

[Hognoxious]

Meanwhile, it's the adults who whine and don't accept "no" for an answer who actually go on to achieve interesting things

But I want the Sudetenland! I want it! I want it!

Re:Parental responsibility anyone?

[Abreu]

Typical "American exceptionality" thinking...

Protip: It doesn't make you achieve anything, except a misplaced sense of entitlement

Re:Parental responsibility anyone?

[sammyF70]

As a father of two four year old girls, all I can say is : either you're extremely lucky, or you never had kids ... and you definitely never really watched ads targeted at kids.

The kids I know (that's including my daughters, nieces, cousins and the other kids in the kindergarten ) are very receptive to logical arguments, they understand them, and they don't give a fucking damn. All they want is the miniature shrek. And once they've seen that there are fries coming with it they'll want those too. Thankfully, you can try (and sometimes succeed) to reason with them about how many times you will go to mcD, BK, or buy one of those pseudo-healthy products (with REAL milk, 0.5% of it!!), but you'll NEVER be able to avoid them completely, unless you live in a cave.

Re:Parental responsibility anyone?

[Envy Life]

Kids are coercive and manipulative--it's natural for them to exercise their boundaries starting from the time they are infants... it's really fascinating to watch how smart toddlers really are in this area, and it goes against much of parental nature to tell their kids they can't have something.

The parents who get into trouble are the ones who give in too often, sometimes making up for what they didn't get as kids. Once in a while is fine, even necessary, but too often gives kids the impression they can get, on command, what they want, and thus become spoiled brats.

My daughter begs for food from a handful of restaurants for lunch and dinner (a couple of which are fast food), for which I'll oblige on occasion (especially when I'm too tired to cook), and other times I have no problem saying "no, we're making dinner at home tonight." In fact her reward for good grades (elementary school) is to go out for sushi. I'll acknowledge some of that is luck, but some of that is due to training--consistency in enforcement of rules.

Re:Parental responsibility anyone?

[PFI_Optix]

No, you can't have McDonald's again today.

Why?

Because you had it yesterday.

Why can't I have it again?

Because it's not good for you.

Why?

Because it has things in it that will make you fat.

I wanna be anorexic when I grow up!

-----

My boys get their choice of restaurant foods once a week. It's usually McNuggets and apple slices from McDonald's or a grilled cheese sandwich and banana from Sonic. Our choices are limited here, so that's really all they know that they like. They've been told that having too much food from places like that is bad, but that's all they've been told. I for one am not going to create body image problems in my 3- and 5-year old sons by telling them that they'll get fat if they eat too much. I simply control what they eat so that they develop healthy appetites.

Children do need to learn to accept that their parents understand things that are above them. I do my best to answer all the questions my kids have. They are already both considered gifted and are well above their age levels on education, but some things are beyond their comprehension and I'm not going to tell them something that might result in them completely misunderstanding my answers.

Re:Parental responsibility anyone?

[spun]

Kids are only coercive and manipulative when they've been indoctrinated into hierarchical thinking. In (very rare, isolated) non hierarchical societies, where kids are not beaten regularly, don't have their genitals mutilated, are held until they don't want to be anymore, and never sleep alone, they do not rebel and do what adults want them to without being beaten into it. Think about it, what is the evolutionary advantage of untrained, unskilled young humans rebelling against the wishes of their elders? Nothing. However, when a child finds itself in an environment where every natural and innate expectation goes unmet, it then has reason to rebel.

I'm not saying that everyone should raise their kids according to The Continuum Concept with family bed and carrying baby around everywhere. In Western society, hierarchical structures are everywhere and unavoidable, and even if you do it perfectly, it probably won't work. Unless you form some sort of cult with like minded folks and isolate your kids from 'evil western influences,' but that approach has a pretty poor track record too. However, if you lay the groundwork of trust early, your kids will be more likely to accept your reasoning without rebelling later.

Re:Parental responsibility anyone?

[woyboy]

Parents do need help. Parents themselves often don't see the harm, and then there is the added pressure of the ads everywhere. Then finally junk toys (that get thrown away on the same day half the time) sucking the kids into develop bad food habits. Supersize the children of some MacDonald's board executives and see how they like it!

Re:Parental responsibility anyone?

[BoberFett]

I prefer to think I raised my daughter well to simply being lucky.

My daughter said something a few years back that made me smile. She may have been 7 or 8 at the time. Out of the blue, she very matter of factly stated that "Companies make things on commercials look better than they really are, just to make you want to buy them."

I couldn't have been more proud.

Re:Parental responsibility anyone?

[sammyF70]

nice :) I hope to get my daughters that far too in a few years :)

Re:Parental responsibility anyone?

[Zixaphir]

Obviously a better one than you. And I don't need no stinkin' Anonymous Coward banner to hide behind. Seriously, fuck off.

Re:Parental responsibility anyone?

[xtracto]

Your reasoning is wrong.

The reason they should not be eating that shit is because if they do, they will die like their grandpa when their heart suddenly malfunctions because blood cannot pass.

Go show them a heart stroke video from youtube.

Re:Parental responsibility anyone?

[jedidiah]

A 3 year old is perfectly capable of understanding "stuff that makes you grow" versus "stuff that makes you fat" or "stuff that gives you energy". You don't have to patronize young humans. They've got much more inherent talent than older people who do nothing but make excuses.

Re:Parental responsibility anyone?

[jedidiah]

> As a father of two four year old girls, all I can say is : either you're extremely lucky, or you never had kids ... and you definitely never really watched ads targeted at kids.

It's pretty simple really. You understand the situation and the dangers. Simply don't let it happen. Yes, don't let them be subjected to that propaganda to begin with.

If they start acting like they've bought into TV commercial propaganda then threaten to yank their TV watching priveledges.

If you let a kid walk all over you, they will.

Yes, you need to remember who the boss is supposed to be.

Re:Parental responsibility anyone?

[PFI_Optix]

So that my five-year-old who already has issues with death (he lost a dog, a great grandmother, and a great uncle all in the past year) can spend the next six months freaking out about whether or not the food he's eating will kill him.

I think "it's bad for you" is a sufficient answer for young children.

Re:Parental responsibility anyone?

[couchslug]

"How do you explain calorie balance, saturated fats and the like to three-year old?"

You don't, you impose (gentle) discipline. They don't get the reasons for the orders they are given until they can understand them. I got to see the results of a wide variety of child-rearing methods among recruits in the USAF and in community college where I work. The key to happily competent SELF-discipline is early, IMPOSED discipline (no, not Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket if you are dealing with a child, though his character didn't do anything unethical when training "adults", such as they were). Lack of ethical impose discipline breeds aimless, unfocused adults. The common examples are from single-parent or no-parent families where the child was barely cared for by whoever bothered to do it. They are not only toxic to themselves, but to other kids who emulate them.
It really is OK to tell (calmly, anger is weakness!) a child what to do and save the explanation for later.

McDonald's Happy Meals Had Toys Since 1979

[Super Marx Brothers]

If this is such a major issue, why didn't these watchdog groups sue decades ago?

Bad analogy

[Locke2005]

McDonald's is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children. Somebody obviously misunderstands the intentions of the stranger handing out candy. Hint: He's not trying to make the kids fat!

Re:Bad analogy

[Monkeedude1212]

Right. He's not trying to make them fat, he's just trying to stuff them!

Reality check

[Locke2005]

As long as you understand that McDonald's, Chuck E. Cheese, et. al are playgrounds subsidized by food sales, I don't see why anyone should have a problem with it. Just don't delude yourself that their primary aim is to provide nutrition. Sounds like some parents are incapable of saying "no" to their kids, so they want the government to do if for them!

Re:Reality check

[sv_libertarian]

When people don't have to think for themselves, and can blissfully walk around thinking they are taken care of by the guiding hand of government.... then we get stupid shit like this.

Stupid Stupid Stupid

[jklovanc]

1. The kids are not the ones buying happy meals; the parents are. If the parents are not strong enough to say "No" there is a much bigger problem.

2. Happy meal toys are a good thing. They give the kids something to do while the parent is eating their meal. Kids get bored fast.

3. Today's Happy meal can be quite healthy. http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/food/meal_bundles/happy_meals.html. A bit low on vegies but not all that bad.

Re:Stupid Stupid Stupid

[iamhassi]

"Today's Happy meal can be quite healthy"

That's what I was thinking. The Chicken McNuggets meal with milk and apple slices has a combined total of 400 calories, 15 grams of fat and 18 grams of protein. Not bad for an entire meal.

it's the parents that buy a Happy Meal and a few extra burgers and fries off the Dollar Menu for their kids that are doing it wrong. Maybe they'll sue McD's for offering affordable $1 pricing?

I don't get it.

[Lewis Daggart]

Mc Donalds makes child portioned meals more attractive to children by providing them with toys. How is making the kid actually want 4 nuggets, an apple dipper and some juice instead of a bigmac going to make him fatter?

Re:I don't get it.

[Errol backfiring]

Less profitable, I guess.

McDonald's undercuts parental authority?

[asdf7890]

If you think McDonald's undercuts your parental authority then you had no parental authority to start with, and as much .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtwMRnc_oU0&feature=fvsr

Re:McDonald's undercuts parental authority?

[asdf7890]

Not sure what happened there, managed to post without a chunk of the comment... That should have been:

"If you think McDonald's undercuts your parental authority then you had no parental authority to start with, and as much as I dislike McD's I must say I'm pretty sure your fat kid isn't their fault."

Re:McDonald's undercuts parental authority?

[blazer1024]

Yeah, exactly.

There's this little thing that parents seem to forget these days called "saying no".

When my daughter would ask to go to McDonald's, I would say no. She may have thrown a fit the first few times, but I didn't let it get to me. Eventually, she stopped asking.

I see so many parents say something like "Well I don't think that's a good idea..." the kids then throw a fit and they give in to avoid the screaming. All this does is teaches them that screaming gets them what they want. It's bad for you and them in the long run.

Say no when you mean no, let them have their fits but NEVER give in. In the long run, they'll give up on the fits, and you'll both be happier.

Re:McDonald's undercuts parental authority?

[Hognoxious]

You fucked up the link too. Just sayin'.

Re:McDonald's undercuts parental authority?

[L4t3r4lu5]

Just in case you can't work out the URL, here's a clicky version

Re: the card played

[Errol backfiring]

It's a "McDonalds tries to control what my children eat" card. Some parents leave their children from their sights once in a while to teach them responsibility. You could argue that McDonalds tries to abuse that.

Australia does it different

[StantonSmith]

Over here in Australia 'Maccers' is giving out shrek ear toys in happy meals only if the kid has 'ogre apples' (cut up apples, should be onions imo) instead of fries. Seems they are realising the only way to make kids healthy is buying them off.

Re:Australia does it different

[Anonymous Coward]

That's assuming the kid eats the apples.

Re:Australia does it different

[Abreu]

That's assuming the kid eats the apples.

At least they won't be eating the fries...

Re:Australia does it different

[L4t3r4lu5]

This doesn't help. This teaches kids that they get benefits before earning them. The kid can have the "ogre apples" and get the ears, then throw the apples on the floor and scream for fries.

It's not 'Maccers' fault, it's the parents. Just saying that kids are smart little bastards, and very capable of working the system to get what they want. Best to just teach them what's good and bad, and explain why, then let them make the decision (And by that, I mean "eat the red berries" yourself and eat healthy food with your kids).

Re:Australia does it different

[pwagland]

Over here in Australia 'Maccers' is giving out shrek ear toys in happy meals only if the kid has 'ogre apples' (cut up apples, should be onions imo) instead of fries. Seems they are realising the only way to make kids healthy is buying them off.

Actually, I think that this is a good solution to the problem. The kids are still eating the burgers/nuggets which are not exactly healthy, but at least you are putting something healthy into the mix. And yes, I do think that Apples are healthy ;-)

but if i can't blame everybody else

[nopainogain]

for my problems then who's left?!?! the kid cant drive himself to mcdonalds and the odds are the kid doesnt have his own money to load up on deep-fried-carcinogens.

Re:but if i can't blame everybody else

[nopainogain]

being an IRRESPONSIBLE LAZY PARENT contributes to obesity by putting people in their cars with their kids driving to fast food restaurants to eat crap~!

** notice from reality **

[FuckingNickName]

1. The brain is a biological organ like any other, able to be manipulated and programmed - "personal responsibility" is a philosophical fiction with a certain limited degree of practical application (e.g. to legal principles) but which cannot be applied to a scientific analysis of animal behaviour;

2. Few /.ers may be in kids' advertising, but it works and it works and then it works some more - if you think there is no problem with encouraging bad behaviour "because no-one's forcing you to do it" then you ought to question your premises;

3. In particular, if you think anyone should be able to make a buck as long as they're not putting a gun to your head, your position is one of self-interest and your opinion is motivated by creating a world full of people fucking each other over;

4. "Parents need to acquiesce less to kids' demands" and "McDonalds should stop pounding kids with advertising to help them get fat" are not mutually exclusive. If you wonder why everyone's eating out and getting fat, perhaps you should cut through the screen of political correctness and check out how families were generally arranged 30 years ago - who isn't at home now to make the meals?

Re:** notice from reality **

[grasshoppa]

Bullshit.

One of the major problems with the country is the lack of willpower exhibited by supposed adults. It's even worse when we are talking about parents. I don't fault McDonald's in their efforts, I do fault parent's inability to say no. It's not hard, certainly not hard when your child understands that YOU are in charge.

Who do you propose we put in charge of monitoring companies? A government agency? That's never a good answer, as most government agencies couldn't find their ass with both hands. The ultimate answer is that parents need to instill the will power in their children themselves, not some agency run on incompetence.

Re:** notice from reality **

[Fantastic Lad]

Yes, yes. We get it. What you're really saying is, "Look at me! I have my shit together! I'm smarter and stronger, and everybody should strive to be me!"

So, fine then. Good for you! Here's a gold sticker! You should be praised and patted on the head.

People who rail on about personal responsibility are often the least aware people on the planet. They really, honestly, truly believe that they are indestructible, that they are immune to mind programming.

But if I were to take you and strap you down and feed you drugged food every day hit you with sleep deprivation, your vaunted will-power would be mush within 72 hours. Within two weeks, a smart programmer could have you shaven-headed, dressed in a robe and shaking a tambourine for donations at the airport.

The "Lone Wolf" is a myth. Everybody can be broken. You are fooling yourself if you think you are somehow special and exempt from the realities of the human psyche. As Pavlov discovered, even a strong dog can be broken if you first broke its health.

The fact of the matter is that mind-control techniques of this nature are played out upon the populace of the world in slow form. They work and they need to be addressed and understood. The government has a vested interest in NOT helping, but that's not the point. Yes, people are stupid and they certainly need to be more aware, but you cannot condemn the ignorant for being ignorant. The fact that you are condemning them is a direct proof that the dumbing-down tactics employed are effective.

-FL

Re:** notice from reality **

[grasshoppa]

Except...I'm not being strapped down, force fed bullshit. It's advertising, and I have the option of walking away from it. The will power argument applies here, strictly BECAUSE it's one's choice whether they pay attention or not.

Nice straw man though.

Re:** notice from reality **

[Fantastic Lad]

Except...I'm not being strapped down, force fed bullshit. It's advertising, and I have the option of walking away from it. The will power argument applies here, strictly BECAUSE it's one's choice whether they pay attention or not.

Yes, you are VERY special.

You probably have a healthy brain, were probably fed well as a child, you probably had authority figures in your life who placed importance on critical thinking and passed those values on to you, you probably had access to books and time and space to develop a strong will and the ability to discern lies from truth.

A great many people do NOT have those benefits.

You are working from a state of high benefit to condemn those who are not as smart as or as gifted as you as though these areas of lack were deliberately acquired based on fully informed choices. You might as well condemn house pets for not having thumbs.

All men were NOT created equal. If everybody was exactly the same as you, and they made poor choices, then you would have some legitimate complaint, but they were not. As such, you are blowing hot air either out of impatience or conceit.

As such, it is NOT a straw man argument. If it were, then there wouldn't be an obesity problem in the U.S.

The question becomes this: "Is it morally okay to trick a dog because the dog technically has the option of not being tricked?"

-FL

Re:** notice from reality **

[grasshoppa]

If you want to boil it down to such a question, then yes; it is morally and ethically OK to trick a person ( not a dog, straw man again ) when they have a choice otherwise.

Unless you want to argue that only a small subset of people in the world ( or this country ) are responsible for their own choices, and as such only those can be held responsible for their actions. That's not a road I want to go down, nor is it sustainable in any sense.

Stupid people will make stupid decisions, but it's their choice and no one else's; hence their responsibility.

Re:** notice from reality **

[Fantastic Lad]

Stupid people will make stupid decisions, but it's their choice and no one else's; hence their responsibility.

Exactly. Except the difference is that you are able to say it now without hate.

Feels better, doesn't it?

-FL

Re:** notice from reality **

[Jaysyn]

2. Few /.ers may be in kids' advertising, but it works and it works and then it works some more - if you think there is no problem with encouraging bad behaviour "because no-one's forcing you to do it" then you ought to question your premises;

You're letting your kids watch television with ads, there is your first mistake.

Re:** notice from reality **

[Anonymous Coward]

"who isn't at home now to make the meals?"

Increased female participation in the workplace is the only thing that's been keeping household incomes stable over the past few decades.

Lots and lots of women would prefer to be stay at home moms-- and lots of men would prefer to be stay at home dads, too-- but there's a gigantic economic penalty for doing so.

I don't get it...

[Thraxy]

The only kids that will get fat from happy meals are the ones which are taken to McD by their parents. How does taking away the toy help? "No sweety, they don't have the meal with the toys anymore, but you can have the big McTasty instead"... Educate the parents, for f***s sake. McD only delivers because there is a demand. Get rid of the demand, problem solved.

Re:I don't get it...

[sammyF70]

McDonald (among others) CREATES the demand for fast food with the toys, they don't answer to an already existing one. That's effective marketing for you.

Re:I don't get it...

[Piranhaa]

The problem is with the way people think.. "It's always someone else's fault" is a quote that a lot of people live by.

Re:I don't get it...

[Thraxy]

I'm sorry, but I just have to disagree with that. They cater to a marketplace filled with lazy parents that have no idea - or frankly just don't care - about the long-term health risks this particular kind of food can have on their children. It's the same with drugs (in my opinion). If there was no demand for drugs, we would have no drug dealers. I think the only thing there is no demand for which we have in abundance is... taxes.

Re:I don't get it...

[sammyF70]

I think you misunderstand the function of marketing for non-essential products. or underestimate its power if done correctly.

It's all about creating a demand for something people don't actually need. Believing that adults are immune against it is ignoring the reality, especially if kids are used as additional leverage.

One thing I might need to make clear though is that I don't promote going with your kids to McD (nor actually going to McD yourself), but putting the blame solely on the parents is just plain shortsighted

Re:I don't get it...

[Thraxy]

I dunno... I kinda like non-essential products in general.. lol

My point though is that you yourself are responsible for the health of your children. In this case, common sense should be used before trying to drag the law into it.

On another note, I believe people who honestly can stomach McD deserve a toy :p

Photo - US McD's?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't quite look right.

Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

McDonald's use of toys undercuts parental authority

If a fucking piece of shit toy undermines your parental authority then you are a fucking piece of shit parent. Nobody said raising kids was going to be easy.

Missing the point

[wonkavader]

This summary, and even the NYT article seem to be missing the point.

The point is not that MacDonald's serves crap. We all know MacDonald's serves crap. Even MacDonald's knows MacDonald's serves crap, which is why they are constantly saying "look! We have these non-crap things on the menu, TOO!" (And even when they do that, they point to their alternative to fries -- apples you can dip in a sugar mixture. Brilliant.)

The issue is advertising to children.

To quote the article: "Citing toys aimed at promoting the latest "Shrek" movie, the Center for Science in the Public Interest said that the plastic promotions lure children into McDonald's restaurants where they are then likely to order food that is too high in calories, fat and salt."

The important part of this line should be: "Citing toys aimed at promoting the latest "Shrek" movie, the Center for Science in the Public Interest said that the plastic promotions lure children into McDonald's restaurants" Because that is ILLEGAL.

Advertising to children is not legal. It's something that we, as a society, have looked the other way on for many, many years, but there are laws aimed at preventing it. When you advertise to children, you externalize the cost of advertising to the parents because the children will nag the parents until they cave. Influencing adults costs a lot more, when you do it directly, and sometimes it's just impossible. Many parents wouldn't dream of ever taking their kids to MacDonald's, but cave when they're shrilly begged for MacDonald's for the 400th time. You want to keep your children healthy by keeping them from eating that crap, but it's far, far easier to cave than to fight your kids every single day, and even if you do, their sitter or grandmother or even their teacher on a field trip will cave. It's practically an irresistible force.

I once talked to a MacDonald's ad man (a woman, in this case) who proudly pointed out to me that Ronald never eats the burgers. You see, any MacDonald's ad is broken into segments. The entertainment segments don't advertise. The advertisement is only the parts where Ronald isn't on screen. The parts where Ronald is on screen is apparently a friggin' PSA.

The toys in the Happy meal are supposedly a value item to help an adult make a judgment to buy a happy meal because it will both feed and entertain his/her child. That's value. That's also bullshit. The toy, as we all know, is there because kids will want to go to MacDonald's to get the toy.

They're advertising to children. They need to stop.

The fact that they serve crap is immaterial.

Re:Missing the point

[qoncept]

the Center for Science in the Public Interest said that the plastic promotions lure children into McDonald's restaurants" Because that is ILLEGAL. ... They're advertising to children. They need to stop.

Holy shit. That is the dumbest fucking think I've ever heard (including the time I heard, "Just fuckin, fuckin, fuckin, fuck you, Paul"). I'll take your word (at least for the sake of this conversation) on the fact that it actually is illegal.

you externalize the cost of advertising to the parents because the children will nag the parents until they cave

Boo fucking hoo. Might as well make it illegal to sell candy bars at grocery stores (or gas stations or baseball games or cafeterias or vending machines) because kids are going to nag parents. Might as well make it illegal to put Transformers on shoes or Sponge Bob on underwear. When your kids nag about something they shouldn't be doing, you either cave or you're a good parent.

My buddy's daughter was trying to open the door while riding in the car. His wife told her to stop once and she kept doing it. My buddy says "Make her stop doing that!" The reply? "I told her to stop but she won't." Are you fucking kidding me? Better just take the kid to McDonalds.

Re:Missing the point

[qoncept]

Pardon the missing /b

Re:Missing the point

[Jaysyn]

It's illegal to advertise cigarettes & alcohol to children. The fact that there are toy & cartoon advertisements on TV makes your argument complete nonsense.

Also:

"In the United States the Federal Trade Commission studied the issue of advertising to children in the 1970s but decided against regulation." --Wikipedia

Re:Missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Advertising to children is not legal.

Wrong. It's perfectly legal.

It's something that we, as a society, have looked the other way on for many, many years, but there are laws aimed at preventing it.

Name one.

Re:Missing the point

[zerocommazero]

Your argument goes out the window. You can just buy the toys from McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's, etc. without getting the food..... I have for my kids. So problem and lawsuit solved.

Re:Missing the point

[luther349]

heck yea mcdonalds cant be responsible for parents unable to control there kids. i eat mcdonalds and im a 6'2 130 pound man. its ok to eat garbage once and a wile its not going to make you a fat bastard maybe a couple times a month. its the people that live on the stuff that become your fat bastards. and you cant blame mcdonalds for someone that's eating there 5 days a week because there to dammed lazy to cook something and do nothing to keep the wight off. i used to work some distance from home to for a time in my life i was eating alot of fast food. i ddint become a fat bastard but i also was working 60 hrs a week. as for kids its not just mcdonalds making them fat. they sit for 8 hrs a day in school then come home and watch tv and play there video games or use a pc depending on there age, they are eating high fat foods and doing little moving around at all. its not fast food making them fat its a total lack of motivation. how often do you see young kids outside being active in your neighborhood and if you do they probably are not insanely fat.

Re:Missing the point

[JxcelDolghmQ]

Bugger off, hippie. So what if they're advertising to children? Children, just like adults, would like to know what choices are available to them. It is still ultimately up to the PARENTS to make sure that their children aren't eating so much unhealthy, fattening food that their weight becomes a problem. The parents, and ONLY the parents. I hate McDonald's food. However, they have the right to keep right on selling it as long as dumbasses are willing to buy it. Now shut the fuck up and go back to your tofu. K? Thx.

Re: the card played

[jgagnon]

By definition, any business that produces and/or sells a non-essential product is abusing stupidity. Buying non-essential products could also be easily considered as stupidity, especially if you favor them over essential products.

Those parents teaching their kids about responsibility by letting them loose and not educating them about product quality is blatant stupidity. It's like opening a checking account for your kid and then handing them the checkbook without another word of advise. Is the kid seriously going to go educate themselves about how to balance the checkbook and keep from bouncing checks? Some might, but most wont without some form of training. Same thing with food. Most will eat where their friends eat or eat where the food tastes the best to them and not bother to research food quality or nutritional content.

This isn't science, this is parenting. It's a lot of hard work and sacrifice to raise a good kid and there are no easy ways out unless you just happen to be blessed with a naturally good kid (very, very rare in my experience).

Fuck

[ShadowDragoonFTW]

Hey, I ate Happy Meals and Big Kids Meals and all that other stuff when I was a kid. I practically never ate at a fast food restaurant unless they had a toy that I wanted. And even then, I ate my meal, got my toy, played a little bit, and moved on. I had constraint. Even at 7, I was showing enough constraint that I didn't need to eat four or five meals just to get a few toys. That's absolutely ridiculous. And frankly, my dad would have whupped me if I tried to get a happy meal JUST for the toy. Is that what they're suggesting? Kids want more than one happy meal because of the toy, but the parents say "Okay, but only if you finish all your food!" RIGHT? If anything, it's the dumbass parents' fault for... y'know what? Fuck it. It's not even worth me talking about. Stupid dumbass fucking world and not a single god-damned person willing to take responsibility for their shit-headed actions...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

This shoulda been done long ago

[BlackBloq]

MY kids see the fucking lame ads and they don't want the steamy burger just the fucking toys. Then they eat whats there if you are lucky. Main thing no dishes. On real young kids networks like Treehouse there are hardly any ads (sometimes shows show a 3 second blip, one ad from a "sponsor" these are highly vetted and are mostly mattel early toys like barbie stuff. No food or war (nurf GI Joe types) . Mute the fucking ads or download your TV shows. (pay for cable then download them). These toys have no power without media. They milk the big movies to get your kids in and the big kids shows. Like spounge bob getting sold by burger king is saying Nickelodeon endorses the kids meal. Krusty burger HO!

While I don't necessarily agree...

[Anonymous Coward]

...with a litigation-happy nation, such as it is, in a way I'm ok with using this method to throw a wrench into such a huge corporations methods to persuade kids.

They have happy meals and toys obviously to attract kids. Mom & Dad asks "where should we eat tonight?" and these incentives have the kids saying "MCDONALDS!", because of toys, not necessarily food. You grow up adoring McDonald's which then leads you to continue eating there through your teens and on into adulthood.

Yes, I agree that adults and parents must take responsibilty, on the other hand, we have laws regarding advertising to kids, yet, corporations are still permitted to manipulate young gullible minds with what basically amounts to a bribe. "Eat here and we'll reward you with this gift."

THIS!

[xtracto]

Completely agree with parent.

Granted, I hate McDonald's food and would not touch it with a 10mt pole. However, I like eating at BurgerKing; when I eat there I take the BBQ burger menu with SALAD instead of chips and a soda (usually coke.. yah I know). If I go with someone else (usually my wife) the other peron will ask for a menu with CHIPS and we share half chips and half salad. (Burger King chips are SOOOO good here in Germany)

That way I can satisfy my chips craving and have a cheap (BBQ burger is a cheap menu option) meal. Sometimes my wife just asks for a small burger (she doesn't drink soda) and it is even better.

I have had chicken salad or chicken wraps at Burger King, and when I *must* (until now just once I went to France... no Burger King there) buy in McDonalds, I get the chicken option.

Ultimately it is the responsibility of the person... nobody would blame WalMart for selling so many beer after someone dies of level malfunction due to drinking too much.

Once again, a "watchdog" group is shortsighted...

[centre21]

I'm really sick of "watchdog" groups. Just like anything else in the U.S., they start out great, and then get too big for their britches and forget the real reasons they exist. And who asked them anyway?
But really, the important thing in this particular story isn't about the lawsuit (or the threat of one), but it's about how most of these "watchdog" groups are so shortsighted that they don't pursue the better plan. To many, this seems logical - Oh, McDonald's is offering toys in their Happy Meals and this is causing the children to want to eat McDonald's and they're all getting fat. So if we stop with the toys, kids won't want happy meals and then they won't get fat.
Ridiculous.
1. A Happy Meal is nothing more than a collection of the most popular food items among children that McDonald's sells. The toy is a bonus. Kids will still get Happy Meals, toy or not because it's convenient for them and their parents.
2. Happy Meals are also offering fruit and other healthier choices. Should we just offer the toy in those meals?
3. Ultimately it's not about the toys, but about the parents. Last I checked, kids don't have jobs, so someone is buying these Happy Meals for them, toys or not.
4. Why just McDonald's? Burger King has Kids Meals with toys. Subway Kids Meals have games. So does Wendy's. Are we going to sue them too?

No, see, the "watchdog" groups aren't out to protect anyone or anything, they're out for headlines and profit. If they really wanted to make a difference, they'd sue those companies who serve healthier, fast choices (like Sweet Tomatoes) for not having Kids Meals with toys to get kids in THEIR restaurants. They'd sue these establishments for not having competitive prices or convenient locations.
But they won't. Because it's not about kids' health. It's about being able to point fingers and make profit.

Easy Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Then don't fucking take your kids to McDonalds. But little Jimmy wants the toys! Oh no we have to go can't make little Jimmy sad! Damnit really? You're the parent, don't take them to McDonalds if you don't want them to eat at McDonalds.