McDonald's Faces Happy Meals' Lawsuit

spud_meister said:

i rarely got fast food when i was a kid, but surprisingly, i'm not traumatised.
Barring medical conditions, the only reason kids are fat is 'cause parents don't feed them properly.

Click to expand...

Seriously, I rarely let my children drink soda or any kind of soft drink.
Saying no isn't hard when you do it from the beginning.

My oldest son is about to be 9, he's had, maybe, 10 full soft drinks in his life.

Harry Guerrilla said:

For goodness sake, you're supposed to be the adult.
Do we really need to .gov to step in because some people can't act like adults?

Click to expand...

Depends. Are we talking "some people" like a scarce handful of genetic wastes, or "some people" like the parents of 1 in 3 children? Some people are always going to be lazier and stupider than the rest, and it's okay to sit back and watch them fail, but when the problem is as widespread and as serious as childhood obesity has become, we need the State to intervene and impose some kind of sensible order upon the situation. Some people are only responsible when there's someone watching them.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Depends. Are we talking "some people" like a scarce handful of genetic wastes, or "some people" like the parents of 1 in 3 children? Some people are always going to be lazier and stupider than the rest, and it's okay to sit back and watch them fail, but when the problem is as widespread and as serious as childhood obesity has become, we need the State to intervene and impose some kind of sensible order upon the situation. Some people are only responsible when there's someone watching them.

Click to expand...

banning toys with fast food meals isn't going to stop lazy parenting, if parents are going to buy fast food for their kids, they'll buy it, toys or not.

It is not McDonald's fault that people get fat.

Crap like this makes me want to hate the society we live in far more than waterboarding.

Ugg, stop being so god damn litigious

spud_meister said:

banning toys with fast food meals isn't going to stop lazy parenting, if parents are going to buy fast food for their kids, they'll buy it, toys or not.

Click to expand...

No, but it will reduce the kids' demand for fast food so that it will rely more on parental laziness than parental permissiveness. Parents choosing fast food is a different animal from children choosing it and parents acquiescing.

Zyphlin said:

Crap like this makes me want to hate the society we live in far more than waterboarding.

Ugg, stop being so god damn litigious

Click to expand...

What if we waterboarded the people who filed frivolous lawsuits? They drown our courts, we drown their faces. Fair's fair.

American said:

It is not McDonald's fault that people get fat.

Click to expand...

No, it's not. But at the same time, the problem has progressed far beyond the point where "ignore it and hope it goes away" is an acceptable solution.

Korimyr the Rat said:

No, it's not. But at the same time, the problem has progressed far beyond the point where "ignore it and hope it goes away" is an acceptable solution.

Click to expand...

Suing McDonalds will not make people thinner.

Kandahar said:

I'm curious...those of you who think the lawsuit should be tossed: Would you feel the same way about, say, cigarette companies advertising to children? Back in the early 1960s, they used to show Fred Flintstone smoking Winston cigarettes during the commercial breaks. And as recently as the 1990s, there was the whole controversy about Joe Camel. I'm just wondering if you think there is a clear distinction between that and McDonald's, and if so, what that distinction is. Or do you think that the cigarette advertising should be legal as well?

Not trying to bait, I'm genuinely curious. I really don't have an opinion on the McDonald's case yet, but in any case it doesn't sound like an open-and-shut frivolous lawsuit to me.

I guess the main distinction (at least from my perspective) is that cigarettes are illegal for minors to consume, and McDonald's isn't. But that's a bit shaky of a defense IMO, because the plaintiffs are not alleging that McDonald's tried to get them to break the law by advertising their toys...only that McDonald's tried to get them addicted by advertising their toys.

Click to expand...

Great question. Personally I'd say they're different. Here's why.

While an argument can be made that fast food is addicting, primarily so in a mental way, it is by no means nearly on par with nicotine. You then must add in the legality factor. While you somewhat dismiss it above, it is a massive thing. You should not be advertising something to a group of people that are years away from even being legally allowed to buy or use said item. I'd feel the same way about beer and liquor advertisements on during "preteen" type shows such as Degrassi or back when I was younger Saved by the Bell. To put such advertisements in place immedietely calls into question the companies intended subjects and gives a legitimate case for them trying to encourage people to violate the law. Such can not be applied to McDonalds. Finally, while Fast Food is hardly the healthiest of foods it does still serve nutrional value, where as cigerettes for children serve little to no "necessary" value to them. Additionally, if the argument is that advertising toys is the problem then the issue isn't that a specific type of food is being advertised. Most of the major fast food chains have started implimenting helathier sides if not main courses, to where the child may be having an unhealthy small burger or chicken nuggets but would be having fruit along with milk or juice along with it. If the kid is having fries and a soda, and the advertisement that is questionable is for the toy and not the food, then the issue is on the parents for not making the kid take the healthier option.

This is a symptom of people being upset, in part, in the way that advertising and capitalism works. Advertising is SUPPOSED to be persusasive. Its supposed to be manipulative to a certain extent. That's in part how its successful. As long as its not doing it in a way that's illegal, or convincing you to do something illegal, then in my mind that's fine.

Korimyr the Rat said:

No, but it will reduce the kids' demand for fast food so that it will rely more on parental laziness than parental permissiveness. Parents choosing fast food is a different animal from children choosing it and parents acquiescing.

Click to expand...

kids'll still want fast food, it tastes good, all this will do is make them select different meals.

American said:

Suing McDonalds will not make people thinner.

Click to expand...

No, it won't. But changing the way it's allowed to advertise to people might.

In other news, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is holding hearing on fatness with testimonies from Big Food.

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.

Click to expand...

Well what if they weren't plastic, hmm? Or weren't toys? I've had books and music CD's from other restaurants?

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.

Click to expand...

What are they trying to do, here, make McD's out to be some sort of twisted pervert - molesting children - or the Child Snatcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang?
"Chillllldren, get your lollipops!"'



And what about other restaurants?
EVERY restaurant has some sort of child-occupation waiting on hand: toys, crayons, video games at Pizza Hut, Burger King, KFC, Taco Bell. . . They all have very unhealthy choices and health-wise choices. (notice how choices is the key word)

Are they really going to take them all on?

I think it's lunacy, honestly - and will it solve "problems?"

I think, if they REALLY feel about this, they should focus on the parents - and encourage adequate FAMILY nutrition and overall physical fitness.

Mell said:

Well, it is still better, if kids are not constantly bombarded with junk food and advertising.

Yes, they can go out and play, and while they are playing they will receive junk food gifts on a daily basis in the playground. Everybody gives kids candy. Even the shop staff hand it out, when parents take their kids to the supermarket, restaruant staff hand it out...

And, yes I know already that there are lots of parents who consider themselves to be perfect, and claim to not feel any pressure from advertising and society, and that they will have all the perfect solutions to share about how the other less perfect parents can make themselves and their own kids perfect too. And, just because I feel like having a childish moment, I say ''Liar Liar, pants on fire'', to those parents.

Click to expand...

Actually, I don't consider myself a perfect parent at all. I just don't blame advertisements aimed towards my kids on my choice to buy them stuff. My kid does get McDonalds Happy Meals. I don't and wouldn't buy them because my child is hounding me. That would take extra effort on my part. I get him a Happy Meal when I plan to eat McDonalds (or whatever fast food place I am eating at). I'm not giving into my kid, I'm just not going to let him go hungry and watch me eat. I couldn't imagine making an extra trip anywhere because my son was begging for a Happy Meal toy.

And, the avoiding advertising is easy for me, because most of what my kids watch is PBS and DVDs. We just don't turn on the other channels that often, at least not while the kids are up. I do understand that older children will most likely want to watch other cartoons, especially if they have friends at school telling them about them. But there is still some parental control over what they watch and how much they get to watch it. Actually, I think DVR, DVDs, and shows on the computer could help parents control advertising to their children as well.

In the end, I still see it as the parents' choice to buy the food for their children. Also, I see some negative consequences to this as possible as well. I know I have been known to buy the smaller kids meal for myself if I wanted the toy (I can be a big kid sometimes), so I ended up eating a smaller meal out because of the toy. If the kids are allowed to choose whatever they want on a fast food menu, then it is possible that the parents will now be getting their kids bigger meals because the kid feels gyped because he isn't getting a toy in his Happy Meal.

If we're concerned about evil corporations advertising harmful products to susceptible populations, we should start by looking at the ads that states direct toward the poorest and least-informed in order to convince them to buy lotto tickets.

One of the most recent ads that I've seen was in Spanish in a heavily latino area on the side of a bus stop. It listed the name of the game, said something like "with a jackpot this big, you can do anything," and had this picture:



The implication is obviously "win the lotto and you can have the American dream/become an American." When you see the astounding amount of money that the poor pay for lotto tickets, **** like that is more offensive than anything targeting kids.

RightinNYC said:

If we're concerned about evil corporations advertising harmful products to susceptible populations, we should start by looking at the ads that states direct toward the poorest and least-informed in order to convince them to buy lotto tickets.

One of the most recent ads that I've seen was in Spanish in a heavily latino area on the side of a bus stop. It listed the name of the game, said something like "with a jackpot this big, you can do anything," and had this picture:

The implication is obviously "win the lotto and you can have the American dream/become an American." When you see the astounding amount of money that the poor pay for lotto tickets, **** like that is more offensive than anything targeting kids.

Click to expand...

Damn good point.

Want to take a wild guess at which type of gambling has the worst odds?
You already know I'm sure.

Korimyr the Rat said:

No, it won't. But changing the way it's allowed to advertise to people might.

Click to expand...

Nope, not by a single ounce.

Actually, I don't consider myself a perfect parent at all. I just don't blame advertisements aimed towards my kids on my choice to buy them stuff.

In the end, I still see it as the parents' choice to buy the food for their children. Also, I see some negative consequences to this as possible as well. I know I have been known to buy the smaller kids meal for myself if I wanted the toy (I can be a big kid sometimes), so I ended up eating a smaller meal out because of the toy. If the kids are allowed to choose whatever they want on a fast food menu, then it is possible that the parents will now be getting their kids bigger meals because the kid feels gyped because he isn't getting a toy in his Happy Meal.

Click to expand...

Sanity and realism!

Amen

Moon said:

Nope, not by a single ounce.

Click to expand...

Do not underestimate the physcological effects of advertising though, it's been worked down to a friggin science, down to the pixels of colours used to entice the viewer. I always thought I was immune to the effects of advertising, but in the end if you start stepping back from yourself, and noticing small tendencies you have towards certain colours...

It goes on and on, Anyone else wanna puff?

Jetboogieman said:

Do not underestimate the physcological effects of advertising though, it's been worked down to a friggin science, down to the pixels of colours used to entice the viewer. I always thought I was immune to the effects of advertising, but in the end if you start stepping back from yourself, and noticing small tendencies you have towards certain colours...

It goes on and on, Anyone else wanna puff?

Click to expand...

Anything to avoid blaming the people responsible, I guess.

Moon said:

Anything to avoid blaming the people responsible, I guess.

Click to expand...

Is that what I said. Nope.

My first post in this thread specifically said, it's the fault of the parents in the case of Mcdonalds.

I was merely trying to say, that the powers of advertising are a force to be reckoned with. They are not the be all and end all of decision making of a person, but it can be a huge factor, especially to an impressionable child, for which companies spend millions in research to see what appeals to them and hit them with everything they've got.

Jetboogieman said:

Is that what I said. Nope.

My first post in this thread specifically said, it's the fault of the parents in the case of Mcdonalds.

I was merely trying to say, that the powers of advertising are a force to be reckoned with. They are not the be all and end all of decision making of a person, but it can be a huge factor, especially to an impressionable child, for which companies spend millions in research to see what appeals to them and hit them with everything they've got.

Click to expand...

Actually, it is what you said.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Damn good point.

Want to take a wild guess at which type of gambling has the worst odds?
You already know I'm sure.

Click to expand...

What really blows my mind is that the government cracked down on numbers games (which had an 80% payout) as being predatory, but now run their own numbers games (which have a 50% payout) and consider it a public service.

We just need a little bit of honesty in advertising - like this guy, here - sorry, no embed


Notice how he directly says that they put the polar bear on the can purely so kid's will like them more.