California mom sues McDonald's over Happy Meals

Jodi - posted on 12/15/2010 ( 502 moms have responded )

26,469

36

3891

LOS ANGELES (AFP) - A mother-of-two from California launched a class-action lawsuit against McDonald's, claiming the toys given out with Happy Meals unfairly lure kids into eating unhealthy food.

Monet Parham is spearheading the suit backed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), aimed at stopping the fast-food giant's use of toys in marketing aimed directly at small children.

The CSPI says such marketing illegally exploits children. Parham says the main reason her six-year-old daughter, Maya, asks to go to McDonald's is to get toys based on Barbie, i-Carly, Shrek, or Strawberry Shortcake.

"I am concerned about the health of my children and feel that McDonald's should be a very limited part of their diet and their childhood experience," said Parham, from Sacramento.

"But as other busy, working moms and dads know, we have to say 'no' to our young children so many times, and McDonald's makes that so much harder to do.

"I object to the fact that McDonald's is getting into my kids' heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat."

The CSPI cited the Institute of Medicine and the American Psychological Association as saying that "kids as young as Maya do not have the cognitive maturity to understand the persuasive intent of advertising."

"Every time McDonald's markets a Happy Meal directly to a young child, it exploits a child's developmental vulnerability and violates several states' consumer protection laws," said CSPI litigation director Steve Gardner.

McDonald's said it would defend itself against the lawsuit, which Parham and the CSPI said they were filing in the California Superior Court in San Francisco.

"We are proud of our Happy Meals and intend to vigorously defend our brand," spokeswoman Bridget Coffing told the LA Times newspaper, adding that Happy Meals offer quality foods in smaller portions appropriate for children.

"We are confident that parents understand and appreciate that Happy Meals are a fun treat, with quality, right-sized food choices for their children that can fit into a balanced diet," she added.

The action came after San Francisco last month agreed to ban promotional toys served with food that doesn't meet strict nutritional standards, following a similar move in nearby Santa Clarita in April.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world...

Thoughts? Do you REALLY think we should blame the toys? Or should we be blaming the parents who don't say no? Do we need to be more responsible for our choices as parents? What is your take on this lawsuit?

This conversation has been closed to further comments

502 Comments

View replies by

Isobel - posted on 12/19/2010

9,849

0

282

Yes Lacye, this is the first generation of children that is NOT expected to outlive their parents. The rise in type two diabetes is reaching epidemic proportions, and very young children are being found with high blood pressure and are at risk for heart attacks.



why? because stupid lazy parents read what McDonalds puts out and believe them, they follow the path of least resistance and feed their kids what their kids want...and they have been TRAINED to want McDonald's (and all the other crappy foods that give toys with their meals)

Jenny - posted on 12/19/2010

4,426

16

126

Lacye, while this thread is about Mcdonalds the reasoning is equally applicable to any form of junk food from Doritos to Mars bars to Pizza Pops. It is ALL harmful over the long term and should be labelled as such.

Jodi - posted on 12/19/2010

26,469

36

3891

Layce, I don't think anyone is "blaming" McDonalds. Of course it SHOULD be parental responsibility. BUT that isn't what is happening. So while it may be the fault of the parents for being stupid and ignorant, you can't fix stupid. But we CAN do something about the predatory marketing practices of corporations so that lazy stupid parents stop killing their kids.

Lacye - posted on 12/19/2010

2,011

31

160

Nobody deserves to die and it is a parenting issue. I didn't realize kids are dying from a cheeseburger and fries. That's new on me.

Isobel - posted on 12/19/2010

9,849

0

282

let me paraphrase you then...children of lazy stupid parents deserve to get sick and die. McDonald's right to manipulate children is MORE important than the rights of children who have lazy stupid parents.

This is not a parenting issue...because WE ALL AGREE that it is the parents' responsibility...and YET...here we are with CHILDREN DYING

Lacye - posted on 12/19/2010

2,011

31

160

Start the drop kicking Laura because I stand by what I have said all along. The ploys that corporations use would not work if parents would stand up and say no. Therefor, the fault belongs with the parents. People need to stop blaming business men and women for doing what they are being paid to do and get parents to start actually taking care of their kids.

Isobel - posted on 12/19/2010

9,849

0

282

I hope your child doesn't turn into a brainless automaton that does what every corporations tells him to.

C. - posted on 12/19/2010

4,125

35

238

"The meals they serve, are not in moderation"



Oh, Julianne.. There you go now.. You've officially joined the 'blame everyone else but the person responsible' crowd..



Um, just b/c you buy a medium size, doesn't mean you have to eat the WHOLE THING!!!!! YOU (general public of course) have self control. YOU are the one stuffing your face, not the fast food chain.



Heck, when we DO go to McD's, we get our son the 4 pc. nuggets happy meal that also comes with a small fry.. Yep! Fries. He doesn't get it very often, so we're not too worried about it. And he does get the apple slices on occasion. Depends on if I'm feeling nice for whether or not he gets fries. Um, my kid eats LESS THAN HALF of that. We only get him that if we forgot to bring snacks while out and he's hungry (which isn't normal, we almost always bring snacks with us to avoid fast food).



But for crying out loud.. Talk about passing the blame.. People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions and quit blaming everyone except the person that's REALLY responsible-- THEM!

Dana - posted on 12/19/2010

11,264

35

489

I'm way late to the debate, like 400 responses late but, I find that to be confusing as well, Jenny.

Jenny - posted on 12/19/2010

4,426

16

126

I just can't wrap my head around putting higher priority on allowing a company to profit by any means neccessary over children's, well, lives. It just does not compute with me.

Petra - posted on 12/19/2010

533

16

22

That would require a cessation of the manufacture of children's products. Depending on how you spin it, anything and everything can have a detrimental consequence. If you have a product for children, it is going to be advertised. There is no way around that. You are now a marketing expert (congrats, btw!), you're aware of the need to market your product to your target demographic in order to sell said product. Even simple books can have a harmful effect - it is a byproduct of consumerism. Not everything is immediately recognized as safe or harmful, no one product is always safe within a specific set of parameters. Like Tara, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I have acknowledged that I see your point several times over, but I don't think banning marketing for any potentially unsafe children's item is realistic at all. When it comes to food, which isn't necessarily just a product for children (a lot of adults eat happy meals and collect the toys), you simply can't cut out the marketing machine. I still say increasing education focused on health, nutrition and fitness is a better focus than supporting lawsuits blaming McDonald's.

Jenny - posted on 12/19/2010

4,426

16

126

Tara: It is illegal for you to carry your child in a motor vehicle because they have developed safety standards that say it is SAFER. Those laws were not made because a mother sued FORD.



Me: Well is not eating junk fast food also not “safer”?



Tara: It is illegal to merchandise alcohol and cigarettes at hip level because in any amount, cigarettes and alcohol are harmful to children. (in ontario all cigarettes are behind blank cases, you can't see them at all and people still smoke them.)



Me: So is fast food. Smoking a couple of cigarettes will not kill you or cause long term harm. It is through prolonged use (whether it is light or heavy) that we see health issues pop up. People are still smoking them because they are addicted. The rates of new smokers are decreasing through our public education campaigns and making smoking socially unacceptable. We can do the same with fast food, a ban is not necessary and no choices need to be restricted.



Tara: Why is it illegal to show smoking on kids shows? See above.

Drop down cribs have been made illegal because they do not meet safety standards any longer due to over 9 MILLION recalls and numerous deaths.

And again I am sure the mom who had her son die because her hubby didn't put it all together properly really sympathizes with the mom whose kid is fat cause she was too stupid to know the difference between is and can.

Or better yet, too stupid to even read the information and just feed her kid crap.



Me: Good points. Wasn't there a recall on those Bumbo chairs because parents were putting them on tables? How many of these recalls are from parents not using the product properly? How many deaths occur before the product is recalled? I'm positive enough kids have died prematurely from fast food to meet the criteria.



Tara: Marketing and advertising is an evil machine, but we are all free people, not a collective mind, not symbiotic entities that feed off that machine. We are individuals and we can make choices.

BTW, you can choose not to use a car seat, you will get a hefty fine, a visit from child services and your kid might die if your hubby breaks for a kitty crossing the road. But that would have been your choice.

It's not about rubber padding the world, it's about being accountable for ourselves and our choices.

Take away the freedom to choose and you take away your freedom.



Me: That is why I propose putting bold, plain warning labels and limiting marketing to children. The education becomes accessible to all and no choices are limited. It is a rational compromise.

Isobel - posted on 12/19/2010

9,849

0

282

I believe I've said a hundred times now that I believe parents NEED to be responsible...but many aren't. McD's marketing is clearly NOT transparent or we wouldn't be having this conversation. In fact, it's SO good that it has normal everyday people standing up to defend THEIR rights against the rights of children.

I am not simply blaming McDonalds...I've also said a hundred times, that I believe ALL marketing of unhealthy things to children should be illegal.

Petra - posted on 12/19/2010

533

16

22

Laura, they can only be psychologically manipulated if parents expose them to McDonald's in the first place. A company is making a product, publishing the nutritional value of same, and providing a further incentive to its youngest demographic. This mirrors the marketing scheme of any number of companies. I am agreeing that it is unethical. I do think the solution lies elsewhere - as I stated earlier, the very premise of successful marketing is exploitative in nature. It wouldn't exist without a target to capitalize upon. This will never change. You want to limit one, you've got to limit them all, and that's when it becomes detrimental to everyone - governmental control can only go so far before you cease to live in a democracy and we're inching closer to that precipice with every fucktard who demands new legislation to protect us from ourselves. I find the marketing used by McDonald's to be pretty transparent - the words that leap out at me are CAN be a part of..., not HEALTHY. It is a cultural problem that legislation for marketing is not going to solve. Every obese human being in North America, children included, did not get there simply because the McDonald's marketing team is deviously ingenious. There are a lot of other, important factors at work. Blaming McDonald's is just skirting the issue.

Sandra - posted on 12/19/2010

112

22

3

Once a week. Like the majority of people shop. It doesn't take more that one shopping trip a week to eat "naturally". Refrigerators & freezer... they're pretty amazing things. You can put everything in them. Freeze "natural" foods too. Fresh veggies in bulk, portion in ziplock bags and then freeze.



Edited to add: Damn it. I meant trans fat. That's what I get for posting half asleep at 3 in the morning.

Isobel - posted on 12/19/2010

9,849

0

282

we are not debating whether or not the parent has responsibility because we all agree that they do...where we disagree is whether or not McDonald's holds any responsibility for INTENTIONALLY trying to trick people into believing it's healthy AND psychologically manipulating children into lifelong unhealthy eating habits.

Isobel - posted on 12/19/2010

9,849

0

282

It's not vague and tenuous! Children are dying because parents are to stupid and lazy and cheap to bother picking apart the message. period.

It's PROVEN that they are altering the way children think FOR LIFE!

why is that ok with you people?

Petra - posted on 12/19/2010

533

16

22

I'll build on what Tara said, Laura. For the record, your examples are not relevant to the issue of putting a toy into a bag of food.

Carrying child in car: injury directly caused by negligent act; matter of direct cause and effect due to total absence of safety precautions.

Advertising alcohol with cartoon characters at hip level: regulated substance; illegal to sell to children and therefore illegal to market to children.

Smoking on children's television show: regulated substance, illegal to sell to children and therefore illegal to market to children.

Drop side cribs: another matter of direct cause and effect for the mechanism of injury.

Toy in a bag of junk food: extremely vague and tenuous correlation between cause and effect with a number of intervening variables which actually dictate the significance and severity of the injury (obesity and corresponding health issues).

Putting a toy inside a box or bag of junkfood is not new idea, nor is it just McDonald's that employs this tactic, and it alone does not cause childhood obesity or any of the health fallout you've been decrying. Saying that putting a toy in a bag of food makes kids fat is the equivalent of crying witchcraft or sorcery. One does not cause the other, period. Eating a fuckton of McDonald's can make a kid fat, particularly if they are eating it daily, not exercising and not meeting any significant nutritional criteria in any of their other meals. Lending any credence to this entire group of parents blaming the toy in the happy meal for their unhealthy children is skimming over the actual problem and creating a scapegoat in the form of McDonald's. Why? Money. Oh, that damn reward system! But lawyers make it so easy to believe that others are truly at fault!

Why did the original proposed legislation fail? Because it was without merit. If McDonald's practice of putting a promotional incentive into a product made for children is unethical, then so is Crackerjack, any box of cereal that has a “toy prize” or game on the back, any children's movie or video game that comes with a demo or free game, that free bag of candy with your popcorn at the movie theatre; ad infinitum, ad fucking nauseam.

Dropkick me through my computer monitor if you really want to but no amount of demanding that we ascribe to your view of lenience for lack of parental responsibility is going to change that fact that PARENTS ALONE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT GOES INTO THEIR CHILDREN'S MOUTHS. If some parents are too stupid to determine what should or should not go into their children's mouths, and this stupidity is incurable through education, you should be fighting to legislate the right to procreate. By taking the toy out of the happy meal you are doing nothing to solve the problem and everything to perpetuate the idiocy of victim mentalities and evasion of parental responsibility such as this.

Children will first discover that they get a free toy at McDonald's because their parents take them to McDonald's, not because McDonald's hires little devils to sneak into bedrooms and whisper promises of toys into 3 year-olds' ears. The reward system is ingrained long before a child sets food into a fast foot restaurant, cognizant of the possibility of getting a toy. Setting reasonable boundaries for this system is a responsibility that belongs solely on the shoulders of parents. Being stupid/lazy/ignorant is not illegal, and in no way is legislating no-toys-in-bags going to cure the population of its stupidity or its apathy or lessen the unhealthy habits of these kinds of parents.

[deleted account]

The label changes are one of the many factors. What about in ads the way prescription drugs are advertised, they have the list of side effects. That would be another way to increase education about the need to limit the intake of fast food. Saying to an adult, your loved ones (your children) will have life long problems if they eat this too much, would defiantly persuade people not to over eat it. I am an ex smoker, I did read the pack, believe me the labels do open your eyes. The more the bad effects of it are in the media, the better the chances people will not abuse it.

Isobel - posted on 12/19/2010

9,849

0

282

they also made marketing of cigarettes illegal...just sayin'

I think that was a BIG part of it.

Mary - posted on 12/19/2010

3,348

31

119

Julianne, was it label changes or increased education and awareness of the dangers of smoking? There were huge anti-smoking campaigns, and public service announcements out the ass about the damages caused by smoking. The public was also being told that the COPD, lung cancer, and heart disease they or their loved ones contracted was a direct result of smoking.

It's not that I'm against warning labels, but they are only effective if people read them. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that most smokers DON'T read those labels. I'm also fairly confident that even less people will read that greasy burger wrapper.

Isobel - posted on 12/19/2010

9,849

0

282

Legally you also have a week to change your mind after somebody has sold you something in your home, because it's a psychological fact that you feel the NEED to make guests happy...there are ALL SORTS or consumer protection laws out there...the fact that you guys seem to think that this is OK scares the CRAP out of me.

Isobel - posted on 12/19/2010

9,849

0

282

because children are by definition UNABLE to dissect the message. They actually have banned the "call now" commercials because people who are mentally handicapped don't think they have a choice.



Children are particularly vulnerable because unethical marketing practices can change their behaviour FOR LIFE! and they do, and they do it on purpose.

Mary - posted on 12/19/2010

3,348

31

119

So Laura should all advertising and marketing be banned then? Why are we only concerned with the safety and well-being of children...why not the susceptible of ALL ages?

Isobel - posted on 12/19/2010

9,849

0

282

actually, you shouldn't eat and drive...it causes A LOT of accidents (but hey, it' a free country...kill yourself if you like ;) )



the practice in question here is psychologically altering your child's brain to make sure that they are a lifelong customer (it's not only McD's but they are the easiest example)



Children ARE dying and living with life long serious health problems because their parents are too stupid to pick apart the message they way we are here.



Do we really allow a major corporation to PERMANENTLY change the way your child thinks because parents are too stupid to know any different?

[deleted account]

I think it would make a difference in some peoples choices. People started quitting smoking because of the label changes.

Tara - posted on 12/19/2010

2,567

14

107

Sure, a warning label could be applied, but then someone will say "Well I can't read how was I supposed to know?" or "What does cholesterol mean? Is having it high good? What do they mean by eat responsibly? Does that mean I shouldn't eat and drive?"
And so the stupid people would still be feeding their kids crap and others would still be asking for more regulation...
slippery slope.
And I really don't think people would change, they are either McDonalds people or they are not. They either eat it whenever they want or they exercise moderation.

[deleted account]

for the sake of safety maybe macdonalds should ATLEAST put warning labels on their wrappers. something along the lines of. "WARNING Over consumption may result in weight gain, high cholesterol, diabetes and other serious medical conditions. Please eat responsibility."For the safety of the people who don't know any better.That way they can be informed about their decision.

Tara - posted on 12/19/2010

2,567

14

107

I believe that if a product is proven to be unsafe and dangerous to the general public (not just stupid people) than the appropriate governing body should regulate and or legislate changes to ensure said product is safer.
SAFER.
So yes. I do believe it should be illegal to not use a car seat, not because stupid people might not use one if it weren't a law, but because it is in the best interest of all people.
Yes I believe it should be illegal to place cigarettes and booze at kid level, because again it is proven that cigarettes are harmful and children are not appropriate target markets for such a dangerous and addictive habit. (not because their parents are stupid, but because it is unethical to market a DANGEROUS product such as tobacco to children)
Smoking on kids shows? Illegal for the same reasons as mentioned above.
But all of those issues are a far cry from making it illegal to place a toy in a box full of shit food and call it happy.
If that is what you feel, then should ALL advertising marketed at children be banned entirely without exception???
What about products for children like shampoo, or underwear? or movies/video games/clothes/ etc. etc.
If a mother is too stupid to think letting her child play X box all day at age 3 is A-Okay, should we ban all X-Box advertising????
The issue is about choice, freedom to choose, freedom to educate oneself, your country is not oppressed, education is available (as sub-standard as it can be) it's still there.
And there are laws that state they must provide nutritional information upon request... they are NOT hiding anything.
And if they are playing on the stupidity of a whole nation, well that's too bad and really just proves a lot of people right when it comes to the general public of America ~~~ they are a bunch TV watching, brainwashed, bumbling fucktards who can't think for themselves and so need to be regulated every step of the way. (that was a general observation based on all studies regarding Americans that I have read or seen through my not mainstream media sources.)
So America is full of stupid and fat lazy parents who can't seem to say no because for some reason they don't understand what nutritional information is, or they're too brainwashed by advertising to think for themselves etc. etc. well advertising exists everywhere, even in communist countries and yet hmmm.... we don't see the legislating the fuck out of their peoples freedom to choose, why??? Because it is fucking ridiculous and an infringement on our freedom to choose....
That is all, I have done as you demanded Laura? I agree at this point to disagree with you.
Anything else we should regulate to protect the children of stupid people?

Isobel - posted on 12/19/2010

9,849

0

282

so you agree that all those things SHOULD be illegal?...just not a lawsuit

Tara - posted on 12/19/2010

2,567

14

107

Oh for jebus sake I will answer the questions...



It is illegal for you to carry your child in a motor vehicle because they have developed safety standards that say it is SAFER. Those laws were not made because a mother sued FORD.



It is illegal to merchandise alcohol and cigarettes at hip level because in any amount, cigarettes and alcohol are harmful to children. (in ontario all cigarettes are behind blank cases, you can't see them at all and people still smoke them.)

Why is it illegal to show smoking on kids shows? See above.

Drop down cribs have been made illegal because they do not meet safety standards any longer due to over 9 MILLION recalls and numerous deaths.

And again I am sure the mom who had her son die because her hubby didn't put it all together properly really sympathizes with the mom whose kid is fat cause she was too stupid to know the difference between is and can.

Or better yet, too stupid to even read the information and just feed her kid crap.

Marketing and advertising is an evil machine, but we are all free people, not a collective mind, not symbiotic entities that feed off that machine. We are individuals and we can make choices.

BTW, you can choose not to use a car seat, you will get a hefty fine, a visit from child services and your kid might die if your hubby breaks for a kitty crossing the road. But that would have been your choice.

It's not about rubber padding the world, it's about being accountable for ourselves and our choices.

Take away the freedom to choose and you take away your freedom.

[deleted account]

Tara, that is exactly the point. I was trying to make. People are not smart enough to know the difference. Clever wording that to some people means, Its healthy. To you and me, we know the difference. Not all people are born of equal intelligence. Smart and educated people are RARE. That is why the majority of society is easily played upon. They can be manipulated and persuaded to buy and consume what advertising is offering. Thats why ads exist.

Isobel - posted on 12/19/2010

9,849

0

282

answer my question...I specifically put your name on it for a reason! I refuse to answer the EXACT SAME point one more freaking time until somebody answers mine.

Tara - posted on 12/19/2010

2,567

14

107

What should be illegal????
Semantics????
That is wording Laura, wording.
If people are not smart enough to know the difference between is a part of a healthy diet and can be part of a healthy diet must be also watching FOX news. Cause apparently can't even listen/read for themselves. And if it sounds like it's good it must be good even if that's not what was said or printed!!!!!!

Tara - posted on 12/19/2010

2,567

14

107

therein lies the truth



".....can be part of a healthy diet based on the sound nutrition principles of balance, variety and moderation."



EXACTLY my point all along... can be a part of a healthy diet. So they actually said the word healthy. They did not call their food healthy they said it could be part of a healthy diet. Do you see the difference.

Just like when a commercial for Count Chocula is on the tv and it says "Part of balanced breakfast" and in the picture there is also a plate of whole wheat toast with peanut butter, some fruit, and a glass of milk. Which together without the sugar cereal, they make a balanced breakfast, so it's still balanced if you add shit to it.

Just like McDonalds can be part of a healthy diet, if you exercise sound nutrition principles like: eat other foods (variety) and use moderation and balance... they tell you it's part of a healthy diet. They expect you know what healthy is, so what????

Isobel - posted on 12/19/2010

9,849

0

282

ugh...I'm glad I wasn't here last night...first...McDonald's DOES NOT say they are healthy...anywhere. That's part of the beauty of marketing, the average man reads that page and sees healthy, the average judge and lawyer sees "can be a part" of a healthy lifestyle (sure it can, if you eat there once a month).



next, (and I'm going to specify by name because NOBODY has responded to this question yet other than to say it's not relevant and it is ENTIRELY relevant),



Lacye, Tara, and Petra: Why is it illegal for me to carry my child when I am in the car? Why is it illegal for me to advertise alcohol with cartoon characters at hip level? why is it illegal to show anybody smoking on a children's television show? Why are drop-side cribs being made illegal?



Could it be that, collectively, as a society, we have determined that children of stupid, lazy, cheap parents don't deserve to die because their parents are assholes?



and lastly, the next person who comes on here and says that it's the parent's responsibility might just get drop kicked through their computer screen...because we are talking about parents WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND and think that McDs is healthy because they INSINUATE IT!



This law suit is class action...which means it's a large group of people not just one plaintiff. My guess is...it's the same group of people who tried to get it passed legislatively a month or two ago and failed and are simply trying to go another route to get the same result...It's not one greedy stupid woman who thinks she shouldn't be blamed for HER kid being fat. It's a gigantic group of people who are sick of seeing America's children being brainwashed into doing unhealthy things for the rest of their lives because a psychologist a hundred years ago discovered that if you trigger the REWARD CENTER of a child's brain, you create a LIFE LONG habit.

[deleted account]

If you can't see it on the link Sara provided, go into some of the other pages on that site. Look at this one



http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/food/food...



"Many nutrition professionals agree that McDonald's food can be part of a healthy diet based on the sound nutrition principles of balance, variety and moderation." this is what jodi showed us....do you see how macdonalds said they are healthy now??? or are you still going to continue to say they did not say that?Or are you going to continue to be completly oblivious to the facts.





http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/food/food...

[deleted account]

The meals they serve, are not in moderation. Comparison to alcohol, eating the whole bigmac meal is like drinking the entire 40. If you want to moderate the meal. Cut the burger in a third, poor out half the fries and pop...then its in moderation....the sizes are too big. Moderation isn't just the amount of times you eat the meal. Its also the size of the meal. Your forgetting that part.

Tara - posted on 12/19/2010

2,567

14

107

Exactly Petra, and thank you for typing for me. :)

I really have nothing more to say other than...

Parents need to stop passing the buck. Educate themselves and their children. And if people choose not to ask for and read the information that is available to them, that is their choice.
We can't eradicate stupidity by legislating the fuck out of every decision parents make.
People need to start being accountable for their actions.
As an aside, McDonalds is in almost every freaking developed country in the world, but where are the fatties??? In AMERICA. Why??? Lifestyle + bad diet +apathy = fat.
And yes I realize that the obesity epidemic will spread to other countries, if parents and adults there continue to choose to eat easy, fast, nutritionally deficient food. But if that happens it will be no ones fault but the consumers who purchase the food.

Petra - posted on 12/19/2010

533

16

22

@Barb - I appreciate yours and Laura's PoVs, but lawsuits demanding a financial award and blaming unethical marketing (which exists in campaigns other than McDonald's) is not the answer. The poor dumb fuckers who fall prey to the evil marketing machine need to be educated, not to have the potential for bad choices taken away in order to protect them. Their kids and the rising health problems will not be solved by slapping McDonald's on wrist for being sneaky bastards - continued ignorance about diet is the problem and nationwide education about diet is the solution. For the most part, people know that a sedentary lifestyle + nutritionally bankrupt food = bad health, but people choose to continue in this lifestyle anyhow. Creating a legal precedent whereby a multimillion dollar corporation foots the bill and takes the blame IS enabling people to continue to destroy their health. You can not legislate everyone else in order to protect those who OPT to remain ignorant - all of this information is available to those who choose to access it. If you're not going to ask for information, you can't rely on someone else to jump up and provide it for you every single time you are in a position to make a bad decision. Should we implement health waivers at every fast food restaurant? Check the little box noting that we are about to do something that could be detrimental to our health and acknowledging that the provider will not indemnify us for any resulting ill health? The choice to pack up your kids, drive to McDonald's, supersize your fries, and eat every last bite is made of your own volition. McDonald's provides the illusion that they have healthy alternatives, but you still choose to get your ass of the couch and go there and order fries, rather than apples.

*general "you", of course*

[deleted account]

I am not "paranoid" about chemicals. I just don't eat them. If i had no other option and needed to eat something like that. I would. I know that by eating crap i would get overweight and have other health problems follow me. I choose not to be un-healthy. Just because you find it extreme because you love kfc, doesn't mean i am.

[deleted account]

@christina. i am not trying to "push my way of living." simply saying that 1. hfcs and sugar are not the same and

2. macdonalds IS trying to say their food is healthy..

not once did i say the way you eat is wrong and not do it...seriously...skim much?? I was talking about advertising.

Sarah - posted on 12/19/2010

102

39

14

I think that it is ridiculous to sue them. I personally think that it is our job as parents to control what our children eat and to instill healthy eating. I know that McDonalds prays on children and there food isn't healthy but I find there is nothing wrong as using mc"D"s as a treat...like once or twice a month

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. ...
  8. 11

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms