Happy Meal Toys? DENIED!

Now, the source of this is a blog, but it was just too stupid not to be shown here.

A lawsuit to get toys out of Happy Meals?

Quote :

Less than two months after a California county voted to ban toys from children's meals at fast food restaurants, the chain known for the Hamburgler and Ronald McDonald may face a lawsuit over the the trinkets it tosses into Happy Meals. Public health research and advocacy group, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), sent a letter (PDF) to McDonald's yesterday denouncing the practice of marketing unhealthy meals to children with the incentive of toys as illegal, and threatening to bring a lawsuit if McDonald's doesn't stop the practice.

Why doesn't it surprise me California voted to ban toys in Happy Meals?

Quote :

In the statement about the potential law suit, the CSPI says that McDonald's has skirted the true issue at the heart of its 2007 pledge not to advertise any meals containing 600 calories or more to children. Ads aimed at kids often feature apple slices or other healthy options available in Happy Meals, the letter points out, but in a CSPI study of 44 McDonald's locations, 93% of the time customers were not asked what side items they wanted in the meal, and the default was always french fries. Beyond that, the CSPI letter points out that not a single Happy Meal meets basic nutrition and calorie recommendations. As Stephen Gardner, litigation director for CSPI writes in the letter addressed to the CEO of McDonald's Corporation and president of McDonald's USA:

"McDonald's practice of dangling toys in front of children is illegal, regardless of what meal the child eventually gets. Not only does the practice mobilize “pester power,” but it also imprints on developing minds brand loyalty for McDonald's. Because most of the company's options (for young children and others) are of poor nutritional quality, eating Happy Meals promotes eating habits that are virtually assured to undermine children's health."

Ok, really, I can get behind kids learning healthy eating habits. However, it's still the parent's decision what to feed the kids, right? I mean, we don't have a state mandated acceptable menu for every meal, do we? And banning toys because kids want them... what's next? Banning Santa Claus because he eats cookies and gives out toys to only the "good" children?

Heeeh. The comments are kinda funny too. Not people saying how silly this is, but taking the opportunity to stand on their own little soapbox and go off about their own issues:

Quote :

parent coercion marketing." ??? Who is this idiot?
What the hell is wrong with this country? It is a PARENTAL DECISION to allow a toy in their children's happy meal, NOT OUR NANNY GOVERNMENT and certainly not a non-profit, tax exempt entity...yet ANOTHER well funding group.
Does anyone know who the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is? They're the PROFITABLE "non" profit of Johnson & Johnson. They BOUGHT smoking bans with tax exempt grants to groups like the ACS, AHA, ALA...they created and funded Tobacco-Free Kids. They own 42,343,491 shares of Johnson & Johnson stock. Johnson & Johnson SELLS THE PATCHES AND THE GUM. Now, take a guess who also funds this Scenter for Science in the "public" interest? RWJF. RWJF is hot on the obesity gig because THEY SELL SPLENDA!! The OWN EthiconEndo, the bariatric surgery company. WAKE UP PEOPLE. You're letting well funded nanny organizations take your RIGHTS TO PARENT AWAY. PUSH BACK. Maybe we should just sign our kids over to these groups now and let them raise them.

Quote :

Yes, I agree with ichoosefreedom, push back and tell the gov't to BAN those 24/7 pharma ads for things you can't get without a prescription. The ads that tell kids it's completely normal to take drugs for everything. Maybe then kids wouldn't be dying everyday from raiding the medicine cabinet! Where is the outrage for this!

Whoever wrote this piece of legislation never saw the adults going crazy for the Beanie Babies. Half the time with these Happy Meal toys, it's the adults who grab them up first.
The other half, they're useless crap that the kids never play with anyway, so what's the point?

To be fair, it was just one county (Santa Clara) in California. And it was on a 3 to 2 vote.

But really, it's not workable. And a lawsuit will be dismissed because parents make a conscious choice to purchase a Happy Meal. No one forces them to do so.

You know, sometimes I think it'd be fun to be one of these nutty politicians, you know, like one of these city council members or even a state legislator. I could propose whatever weird laws I want, and even if they get shot down -- pretty quickly at the state level -- they'd still make the press and get overblown. "[State] proposes ban on 'Mary Sue' fic"! And suddenly everyone acts like it's a real possibility.

EDIT: I'm almost tempted to go have some McDonald's now. Almost.

Maximilia wrote:

Heeeh. The comments are kinda funny too. Not people saying how silly this is, but taking the opportunity to stand on their own little soapbox and go off about their own issues:

Quote :

parent coercion marketing." ??? Who is this idiot?
What the hell is wrong with this country? It is a PARENTAL DECISION to allow a toy in their children's happy meal, NOT OUR NANNY GOVERNMENT and certainly not a non-profit, tax exempt entity...yet ANOTHER well funding group.
Does anyone know who the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is? They're the PROFITABLE "non" profit of Johnson & Johnson. They BOUGHT smoking bans with tax exempt grants to groups like the ACS, AHA, ALA...they created and funded Tobacco-Free Kids. They own 42,343,491 shares of Johnson & Johnson stock. Johnson & Johnson SELLS THE PATCHES AND THE GUM. Now, take a guess who also funds this Scenter for Science in the "public" interest? RWJF. RWJF is hot on the obesity gig because THEY SELL SPLENDA!! The OWN EthiconEndo, the bariatric surgery company. WAKE UP PEOPLE. You're letting well funded nanny organizations take your RIGHTS TO PARENT AWAY. PUSH BACK. Maybe we should just sign our kids over to these groups now and let them raise them.

Actually, I agree with that. It's a bit ranty and TL;DR, but, yeah, these "advocacy" groups are not just grassroots organizations that care about nothing more than public welfare. It's like the whole flap about Canadian dieticians being funded by the food and vitamin industries; when you have conflicting interests and palms are being greased, how can you be unbiased and simply in pursuit of the cold truth? There's definitely a political and social angle here... not just getting kids to eat healthier.

Also, does anyone seriously think that McDonald's is providing a complete, perfectly nutritious meal for kids? One that they can eat all the time indefinitely? Seriously. I had a lot of Happy Meals as a kid but that was far from the only thing I got to eat.

Furthermore, Splenda is shit. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Malganis wrote:

Actually, I agree with that. It's a bit ranty and TL;DR, but, yeah, these "advocacy" groups are not just grassroots organizations that care about nothing more than public welfare. It's like the whole flap about Canadian dieticians being funded by the food and vitamin industries; when you have conflicting interests and palms are being greased, how can you be unbiased and simply in pursuit of the cold truth? There's definitely a political and social angle here... not just getting kids to eat healthier.

I was watching Penn and Teller's Bullshit episode about fast food, they boiled down the people who want to ban fast food as being skinny previlged motherfuckers who hate fat people. Of course they always get the most batshit insane people to defend their stance, but when was the last time you've seen a 300 pound man wanting to tax soda?

Quote :

Also, does anyone seriously think that McDonald's is providing a complete, perfectly nutritious meal for kids? One that they can eat all the time indefinitely? Seriously. I had a lot of Happy Meals as a kid but that was far from the only thing I got to eat.

This, people know that a happy meal is like 500+ calories. They know what they are eating because they have the notion that fast food is rubbish inprinted into their heads. I bet if McDonalds came out with an organic happy meal everyone would be all like "oh it's organic, so it must be super healthy" while it's still the same rubbish it has ever been.

Quote :

Furthermore, Splenda is shit. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I prefer stevia, mayself.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

I was watching Penn and Teller's Bullshit episode about fast food, they boiled down the people who want to ban fast food as being skinny previlged motherfuckers who hate fat people. Of course they always get the most batshit insane people to defend their stance, but when was the last time you've seen a 300 pound man wanting to tax soda?

Be really careful about that show. It's entertaining, yes, but sometimes the evidence they use to make their point is, well, bullshit.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Malganis wrote:

Furthermore, Splenda is shit. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I prefer stevia, mayself.

Can this thread be about Splenda-hate now? I'm all about hating me some Splenda.

No? Oh. Well, okay then.

KelinciHutan wrote:

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Malganis wrote:

Furthermore, Splenda is shit. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I prefer stevia, mayself.

Can this thread be about Splenda-hate now? I'm all about hating me some Splenda.

No? Oh. Well, okay then.

YES! Oh my fucking god, sugar substitutes are fucking horrible. I once had the utterly miserable experience of having to eat a cake made with pretend sugar. It was the most disgusting thing I have ever eaten.

Why is that stuff so horribly sweet?

What sort of stuff were you eating? Sweeteners to me are best described with a vague cloud of adjectives, some of which may or may not be connected to the general idea of sweetness. If any of those substitutes are sweet, it's as a side salad to whatever culinary disaster is being presented as the main course.

I have to use the substitutes, but generally I reduce the sugar on the recipe by about a quarter. Granted, they're not the best thing to put in your tea or coffee or anything.

Morinen wrote:

I have to use the substitutes, but generally I reduce the sugar on the recipe by about a quarter. Granted, they're not the best thing to put in your tea or coffee or anything.

What she said. I am forced to use substitutes as well and they are standable IF you reduce their recommended amounts by a quarter to a third. Most ready-made things with Splenda and co. use the recommended amounts, which means they taste like shit (see for example Diet Rite soda, disgusting stuff), but there are some (admittedly relatively few) product lines that get it right. For example, for my husband's birthday, we had a sugar-free coconut cream pie so I could have some too. A friend of ours who usually hates sugar substitutes and never buys anything sugar-free tried some and said she wouldn't have known if it hadn't said "sugar-free" on the package.

Oh god I hate spenda too. If I were diabetic I would have to just not have sweets at all. *shutters*

^You'd likely change your mind. It's been nearly ten years since I've had cheesecake or orange sherbert, and I'd eat it even if it was made with that really crappy clumpy stuff you get in some places.

Plus, eventually you forget what the real stuff tastes like, at least in large amounts.

Again, what Morinen said Right after my diagnosis, I was also like "Ewww I hate sweeteners, I'd rather not have anything sweet - after all, I am not that big on sweets anyway!"

BOY did I change my tune after months of cutting everything sweet from my diet. I started trying some sweets - sugar-free chocolate was a bit dryer than regular, but tasted okay. Then I moved on to trying some diet sodas and found a couple I could drink, and I insist on at least one piece of fresh fruit a day (something I never did before).

Nowadays, I'll give everything at least a try and if it tastes too much like sweetener (like Diet Rite or Weight Watchers yogurts), I just don't buy them again. But yeah, there is also an element of getting used to it involved.

Toys are just a bonus. Removing them won't make people addicted to McDonald's any less likely to buy them.

Not to mention, it won't make McDonalds lower prices on Happy Meals. They'll charge the same but now you won't be getting a toy with them.

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

Oh god I hate spenda too. If I were diabetic I would have to just not have sweets at all. *shutters*

Why? I often have sweets that don't use sugar substitutes and I've been diabetic for years. I don't mind diet drinks, but I've never tried the non-diet versions, so it might just be that I don't know anything better.

Not that suing McDonalds would hurt them much anyway. They'd just have to dig around in their ashtrays for some spare change.

I can understand why diabetics would use artifical sweeteners, but I can't get why anyone else would. Every type I've tried has a metallic aftertaste to it, although it could just be me. :/ Even the "natural" variations tend to taste off.

VenusRain wrote:

I can understand why diabetics would use artifical sweeteners, but I can't get why anyone else would.

Calories my dear, calories. 0-10 calories for the types of diet soda I drink and 140-180 calories for the regular versions. Multiply by the ridiculous (by any sane standard) amount of soda I drink and it's the difference between becoming a type II diabetic and not becoming one.

And yes, I am addicted to caffeine.

Speaking as a diabetic addicted to caffeine, I can vouch for the artificial sweetener thing. My nutritionist recommended it if was going to have coffee. Actually...she said I shouldn't fear carbs, just make sure I have enough insulin to cover whatever carbs I have. So...I've had the occasional sweets after taking a larger insulin dose. (Previously, I pretty much HAD to as I was trying to gain back some weight after a SEVERE weight loss.)

Finally! Something in the news that I can laugh at.

If they take the toys out of Happy Meals then who would they go after next? Your Jack in the Box heads are no longer safe people! Start hoarding now!

I kinda love how nobody's touched Nihilist's post about how poor people don't have much choice except to eat and feed their kids cheap, shitty food because of how fucked up the food industry is.

Not that the price for Happy Meals would come down if toys weren't in them.

Cyberwulf wrote:

I kinda love how nobody's touched Nihilist's post about how poor people don't have much choice except to eat and feed their kids cheap, shitty food because of how fucked up the food industry is.

I suspect it's because it's the bleedin' obvious.