California mom sues McDonald's over Happy Meals

Jodi - posted on 12/18/2010

Quoting Christina:
"It's not always about the money, Sara. There are some companies that care more about people than money."

I know this was a page or two ago, but I just have to say....

REALLY?? You really think McDonalds introduced healthy options because they care more about people than money? Wow, their marketing worked on you!!!

Amanda - posted on 12/18/2010

Wow...I think that's a stupid lawsuit in my opinion! I mean it's about as ridiculous as the woman who sued McDonalds because her coffee spilt on her and burnt her, and they didn't have a "caution hot" warning printed on the cup. I mean seriously!? Who doesn't know that coffee is hot!! Lol...and same with the damn toy in the happy meal...you take your kid to McDonalds they eat crap food, unless you can get them to eat the chicken nuggets, apples and milk, they want the toy and to play. What kid wouldn't want to do that?! I mean how is McDonalds wrong? They are offering something that attracts kids but it isn't necessarily wrong? They have been doing things the same in over decades and things are only imrpoving. Healthier food choices, keeping kids fit by offering the playplaces, and I mean what is wrong wth the cheap little toy they throw in the bag??

Isobel - posted on 12/18/2010

I'm gonna do my best Mrs Flanders here...won't somebody PLEASE think of the children???

;P for those of you who don't watch the Simpsons...just a joke folks

Isobel - posted on 12/18/2010

and the children who are not lucky enough to have a mother like you? they deserve type 2 diabetes because their parents don't get it?

Petra - posted on 12/18/2010

I just feel the need to point out that marketing, and by extension, advertising, is exploitative by nature. These agendas are capitalizing upon human weakness, vulnerability, materialism, insecurity,ignorance, and yes, stupidity. It is unethical, as a whole. But it is a necessary evil - you want variety in your available products, you have to deal with advertising. You want advertising, you've those evil marketing geniuses who can implant the message in really, really tricky ways. This doesn't remove the onus from the consumer.

You can't blame the devil that is modern marketing for all of the poor decisions people make. Yes, people (children included) are the targets of unethical exploitation, but that goes part and parcel with living and participating in a consumerist, capitalist society. My child will be exposed to all kinds of advertising but "brainwashing" will only go as far as I let it, just like religious indoctrination. My kid is going to be exposed to different religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean exposure alone is going to turn him into a pre-programmed, mindless automaton. I do have a say in what he eats, what he watches and what he plays with, and I am responsible for his health. If he ends up a fatty at four years old, that's on me, not McDonald's.

Krista - posted on 12/18/2010

Mmm... deep fried twinkie.

On a separate note: my sister-in-law once tried deep fried Mac and cheese in Florida.... ew? I think so.

Good Day! - posted on 12/18/2010

So true Laura! Anything is better than a twinkie. Except a deep fried twinkie.

Isobel - posted on 12/18/2010

are you suggesting by marking that funny that fruit leather is as bad for you as a twinkie?

Isobel - posted on 12/18/2010

well...it's not as good as fruit, but it's better than a twinkie :)

Good Day! - posted on 12/18/2010

"Personally, I don't see a problem in a company advertising TOYS for a child's meal when they have healthy options available for those meals. That's just up to the parents. They even have tons of commercials showing kids eating chicken nuggets, apple slices and drinking low-fat milk! Do they REALLY have to spell it out for the parents?? "

Taken directly from McDonald's website:

Chicken McNuggets®:
Chicken, water, salt, sodium phosphates. Battered and breaded with: bleached wheat flour, water, wheat flour, food starch-modified, salt, spices, wheat gluten,
paprika, dextrose, yeast, garlic powder, partially hydrogenated soybean oil and cottonseed oil with mono -and diglycerides, leavening (sodium acid pyrophosphate,
baking soda, ammonium bicarbonate, monocalcium phosphate), natural flavor (plant source) with extractives of paprika. Prepared in vegetable oil (Canola oil, corn
oil, soybean oil, hydrogenated soybean oil with TBHQ and citric acid added to preserve freshness). Dimethylpolysiloxane added as an antifoaming agent.
CONTAINS: WHEAT

Low Fat Caramel Dip:
Corn syrup, sweetened condensed milk (milk, sugar), high fructose corn syrup, water, butter (cream, salt), sugar, salt, disodium phosphate, artificial flavors (vanillin,
ethyl vanillin), caramel color, pectin, potassium sorbate (preservative).
CONTAINS: MILK

Apple Dippers:
Apples, calcium ascorbate (a blend of calcium and vitamin C to maintain freshness and color).

Healthy??? A little advertising making you think that, maybe?

Don't get me wrong. We got to McD's and eat chicken nuggets. I go "to town" once a week or so, and that is our treat while we're out. Meh. But you can't for a second pretend that it's a healthy options. Even the apple dippers that have preservatives go into caramel sauce with high fructose corn syrup.

Also, I agree that PARENTS do need to take responsibility. BUT BUT BUT, advertising works and if they can make you think something is good, they will. Fiber in Fruit Loops? "All Natural" fruit snacks? And yes, more than one person has told me that they don't mind their kids eating Fruit Snacks because they are, "made with real fruit" and "all natural." Hmmmm....

Isobel - posted on 12/18/2010

*sigh

Desiree - posted on 12/18/2010

And who exactly is the mother here? the way she tells it you would think that Mc Donalds is. please she should actually grow up. Saying no to your child is part and parcel of being a parent. I know I have to saqy at lest 50 to 100 times a day. It isn't difficult but it does become that way if you just simply don't put your foot down. My kids no better than to ask once no has been said by either parent the punishment is just not worth it. My Kids know the minute I say let me think about it the next word going to be a No. We as parents are responsible for our childrens eating habit and if she can't say no to her kids exactly what is she teaching them. Makes you wonder what her eating habits are, and if this is actually an excuse to avoid her own bad habits.

Isobel - posted on 12/18/2010

and I'm not exaggerating their power...you guys are unbelievably complacent, even fighting for THEIR rights...it's astounding really.

Isobel - posted on 12/18/2010

by EVERYBODY... McDonalds is just an easy target at the moment.



I would also make it illegal to market credit to children (I STILL can't believe they are doing that, it makes me honestly want to vomit), along with many other industries.

Isobel - posted on 12/18/2010

I don't want to stop people from eating McDonald's food though. I LOVE big macs.

I want to stop the psychological manipulation of your child's brain.

Mary - posted on 12/18/2010

Honestly, I think many of you are oversimplifying the problem and giving the marketing gurus too much credit for the health and obesity problems of modern society.

Let's say that we banned the outright existence of ALL kid's meals at ALL fast food restaurants. Eliminated all of the kid-friendly mascots and playgrounds at them as well.

I still don't think that would solve the underlying problem at the root of all this - unhealthy eating habits motivated by a lack of parental time and energy. Perhaps I'm pessimistic, but my guess is that the same harried, overwrought mother in this lawsuit would simply find another quick and convenient way to feed her kids. You cannot convince me that eliminating the Happy meal means that these same kids, whose other is admittedly loathe to say no to already, is suddenly going to replace those fries with carrot sticks, and those chicken nuggets with grilled chicken.

Nope, my guess is that the Happy Meal will only be replaced with carry-out pizza, frozen mac'n cheese, or maybe a burger from Five Guys. Eliminating the toy in the kids meals, or even shutting down McD's altogether isn't going change this (or many other's) fundamental problems of not enough time, and not wanting to fight with their kids about what they're eating. I don't think it's going to change those who have already chosen to go down the path of least resistance when if comes to meal time.

Barb - posted on 12/18/2010

like it's the first time Laura?

Isobel - posted on 12/18/2010

and I erased my comment because it was stupid BEFORE I realized you were all talking about it...sorry, now you look like crazy people hahaha

Barb - posted on 12/18/2010

I couldn't find anywhere in the article where a monetary amount was specified.. If someone could point this out to me, it would be very helpful.

Isobel - posted on 12/18/2010

as for the coffee lady.

a)the coffee wasn't hot, it was nuclear. She sustained permanent damage to her muscles, not skin, muscles.

b)how (In America) can somebody pay for 4 reconstructive surgeries on their vagina without having McDonald's foot the bill?

c)the cups say hot now because of her...they never did before (not that it matters) they can't just say hot on the label and not be liable for serving unsafe coffee.

Barb - posted on 12/18/2010

Congratulations Laura?!! Ta DA!!!

Bonnie - posted on 12/18/2010

I just wanted to add that I rarely eat McDonalds, but I looooove their coffee!

Isobel - posted on 12/18/2010

do you think it's a coincidence that this lawsuit is coming IN California, immediately after the attempt to legislate it failed? This is the same group of people trying to do the same thing through another channel...it's not about money (though I'm sure they won't mind having it)

C. - posted on 12/18/2010

I think you had too many, too, Laura.. You even misspelled wine ;) Congratulations, by the way!!!!!

Isobel - posted on 12/18/2010

I had too many glasses of wine (I graduated yesterday) sorry for the confusion...carry on

Barb - posted on 12/18/2010

I just don't see how anyone can look at the billion dollar figures that Julianne posted and not see the HUGE impact this has on all of us. (no pun intended)

This isn't about one woman's parenting problem or an isolated incident. This is about getting a foothold into unfair and unethical marketing practices and setting a precedent for other fast food chains to follow.

C. - posted on 12/18/2010

"It's about MONEY, not about concern for the health of the general population"

It's not always about the money, Sara. There are some companies that care more about people than money.

I mean, seriously?? All the people that still buy the unhealthy stuff? I hardly think they were/are hurting for cash..

Mary - posted on 12/18/2010

Amen, Petra!

She lost all credibility with me when she started out by whining about "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."

In essence, she was saying that her life is too hard and busy to take responsibility for making her kid's meals, and thereby passing the buck for the content of said meals onto others.

Perhaps if she spent less time on filing a lawsuit, she could fix and freeze a week's worth of healthy meals at home.

If the basis of the argument here is against unethical marketing practices, ONE lawsuit against ONE company is not the solution. Remember, since there is an assumption that it is the lazy and stupid amongst us that are falling prey to this, the only lesson they *might* learn is that McDonald's is bad. Their parenting practices won't change...they'll just drive another block to Burger King.

Good Day! - posted on 12/18/2010

I HIGHLY doubt that McD's changed their menu because they were concerned with overweight children. They were getting bad press, then changed the menu. It's about MONEY, not about concern for the health of the general population.

C. - posted on 12/18/2010

Actually, Petra.. There really was a woman that sued McD's b/c her coffee was 'too hot' when she spilled it on herself.. THE CUP AND LID SAY 'CAUTION: HOT'. What did she expect? If her coffee was cold, she would have complained that it froze her leg/arm/wherever it spilled.. Some people :/



Personally, I don't see a problem in a company advertising TOYS for a child's meal when they have healthy options available for those meals. That's just up to the parents. They even have tons of commercials showing kids eating chicken nuggets, apple slices and drinking low-fat milk! Do they REALLY have to spell it out for the parents??



Oh, and not to mention that at every McD's I've ever been to (that includes in PA, WV, NC, SC AND HI..) they have the Nutritional Information pamphlet available at no cost!!!



They have that right at the counter, and if you go through the drive-thru, you can ask them for it.. *GASP* What horrible people.. Giving out the nutritional information so we, not just parents, but everyone, can make INFORMED DECISIONS about what we buy there!!!



(By the way, Petra.. The rest of that wasn't directed at you- just the top part was.)

Petra - posted on 12/18/2010

While I definitely see Laura's point and I agree to an extent, I take issue with the form of the opposition. Another fucking lawsuit, worded such that its not our fault that our own ignorance led to a negative outcome, even though the information IS out there, is not a step in the right direction. A change in legislation based on unethical practices - hell yeah, I can get behind that. An opportunistic twat creating yet another legal precedent that demands that the government protect us from ourselves? This furthers the notion that we NEED government regulation in every aspect of our lives, simply because we are too fucking stupid to make sound choices on our own. I bought a cup of hot coffee and spilled it on myself, and dang, it burned. The answer? Lawsuit. Our kids are grossly unhealthy because we keep feeding them shit, which is only partially due to insidious, unethical marketing. The answer is not another lawsuit wherein personal responsibility is transferred to someone else - the answer is edu-fucking-cation. Laura knows what's up with marketing, a lot of us know what's in a happy meal - we can access the information ourselves, if we deign to, but because we don't, and we threaten our children's health because of it, we can still point the finger at someone else and profit from it. This only encourages passing the buck when we make bad choices and does NOT necessitate more careful or thoughtful parenting.

C. - posted on 12/18/2010

"This is not about PARENTING!!!!! it's about unethical business practices...excuse me while I go bang my head against a wall..."



Excuse me while I do the same..



Seriously, I couldn't be any more tired of all this 'unethical' BS.



No one is forcing this woman to go to McDonald's. SHE chose to go. SHE chose to buy her kid UNHEALTHY food.. It's HER fault! She has no good reason to sue McDonald's, THEY cannot make the choices for her about what she buys for her kid to eat. Only SHE can.



McDonald's also advertises all the HEALTHY choices you can get in Happy Meals.. Somehow she missed all those advertisements and only saw the unhealthy foods? Doubtful. They have been advertising the healthier options more and more since around 2005, or even before, b/c they know some people won't stop going to McD's but they want them to have healthier options b/c kids are becoming obese b/c their parents are obviously too uneducated to choose to go somewhere healthier.



Again, they HAVE HEALTHIER OPTIONS!!! No one is forcing french fries down her kid's throat! SHE is the one purchasing the fries, burgers, whatever.. Why can't she choose APPLE SLICES??? LOW-FAT MILK??? SHE CAN. She just doesn't WANT to. There is absolutely NO ONE to blame except for this MORON of a mother for her own poor choices that are affecting her kid!!!!

Barb - posted on 12/18/2010

Jenn, it was a lawsuit here in the States. Here is a link to an article on a consumer affairs website:

http://consumeraffairs.com/news04/2010/1...



Dannon made up names for bacteria, for example lactobacillus casei they changed into a trademark name, "L casei immunitas" gently hinting with the word "immunitas" that it would boost your immune system. When in actually, L casei is a totally made up word that means nothing more than the bacteria Lactobacillus that you can buy in just about any other yogurt. It, by itself, does not strengthen your immune system.



That link i posted above was for Activia, a product of Dannon with the made up word of "Bifidus Regularis" . I could not find which strain of bacteria BR is a made up word for. I'm sure it's "proprietary"



The thing that makes me mad about this lawsuit is it does not prevent the company from renaming bacterias to promote false claims. just stupid.



Dannon is also sold in other countries as Danone. or DanOne.

Barb - posted on 12/18/2010

Sherri, the very fact you made the statement: "I really don't buy that Julianne!!" shows the effects of marketing.

Marketing is the most effective when the subjects don't even know they have been effected.

Jenn - posted on 12/18/2010

OK - sort of off topic - but Barb mentioned something about Dannon getting in trouble because Activia et al were claiming to help your immune system - really? I've never seen them claim that. Perhaps this was only in the US?

Jodi - posted on 12/18/2010

I think Laura was joking too........

Johnny - posted on 12/18/2010

I'm getting confused now. I had the impression that Laura is thinking that we were suggesting that sterilization is actually the better option to regulation?!?! Which when I re-read the posts still isn't what comes across to me. I'm pretty sure we were joking. I know I was and I never doubted that you were....

Jodi - posted on 12/17/2010

I don't think anyone suggested you were arguing for regulation, did they? I know I quoted something you said, but I deliberately grabbed that because it's what *I* think should happen :) Is that what you are referring to?

Johnny - posted on 12/17/2010

Um. I was arguing FOR regulation? Just against stupid lawsuits that focus on the smallest part of the problem.

Jenny - posted on 12/17/2010

You know, restricting predatory marketing would in no way restrict where you can choose to eat. I don't see what the problem is.

Jodi - posted on 12/17/2010

Well, it IS an option.......

Johnny - posted on 12/17/2010

Sorry, reflex response.

Johnny - posted on 12/17/2010

Yes, legalized sterilization ;-P

Jodi - posted on 12/17/2010

You're right Sherri, parents should be saying no. But the point is, while you may say no, I say no, Laura, Julianne, Carol, Barb, and everyone else in this thread may say no, there are many, many people who don't.



You HAVE been to the Welcome Page lately haven't you? There are some people who are killing their kids with stupidity......don't those children deserve protection?

Jodi - posted on 12/17/2010

" Legislation regulating the marketing of all unhealthy products, that would be something meaningful."

That is something I totally agree with. No-one should be just targeting McDonalds toys, but looking at the ethics of the way in which corporations can market to children.

Julianne - posted on 12/17/2010

It does when you are a weak minded individual.

Plus fast food has highly addictive substances in it that our body craves. Salt, sugar, msg and god knows what else..It literally is an addiction once marketing pulls them in.

Sherri - posted on 12/17/2010

Yes marketing entices people to purchase it but not to purchase it in excess!! There has to come a point people are accountable for their own actions. I am sorry.

I remember ALL the McDonalds ads growing up and guess what we still didn't go except 1 every other month as a special treat we would all get a cheeseburger, share a fry and a milk. I will never forget it to this day but it was still never abused.

So if we could say NO then, why now has the blame moved from the actual individual shoveling it in their face to the restaurant that is doing nothing differently then they always have.

Julianne - posted on 12/17/2010

Do you honestly believe people CHOOSE to destroy their lives like this?? Its addictive substances in food that cause people to keep going back for more, its marketing that triggers parts of the brain to consume their product. Its more then just personal choice....no one chooses to kill themselves with food.

Sherri - posted on 12/17/2010

I really don't buy that Julianne!!

Julianne - posted on 12/17/2010

It is no longer a conscious choice when marketing gimmicks brainwash you into deciding to do so.