Ban Ronald McDonald?

[Ronja]

Coito, try to understand that the point of criticizing McDonald's marketing tactics is not directed towards those marketing tactics per ce. The point is WHAT they market. What McDonald's sells is not food, it has a value for our nutritional needs and well-being not too far removed from sawdust (only energy-enriched). McDonald's and their like sell EATABLE FOODLIKE SUBSTANCES, nothing more, nothing less.

And the point is, is it OK to market such shite directly to kids? IMO it is not.

[Coito ergo sum]

So, as you see, based on the above a civil servant here has a legal duty to act (the minimum being talking to her/his boss), if there is a possible risk for e.g. the relevant population's health. And the possibility is enough - there does not need to be conclusive evidence. In fact, a civil servant does not have the right to wait for conclusive evidence, if there is a reasonably conceivable risk. So if McDonalds' giving away toys with Happy Meals was questioned here, McDonalds would have to prove that their policy of giving away toys does not encourage kids to eat at McDonalds insanely often, or prove that the food, with which the toys are given, is healthy.

The problem with that is in its application to specific situations. If the legal duty arises if there is a mere possibility of a risk, then the government should ban fast food altogether and devise a recommended diet that poses the least risk. Alcohol should be eliminated and smoking should be eliminated, including cigars. All automobiles should be required to be electric due to the pollution from exhaust. And, each person should be assigned a crossing buddy when they cross the road, because of the known risk of car accidents.

How in the world can McDonald's "prove" that kids aren't encouraged to eat McDonalds' insanely often? What is "often?" What is "insanely often?" Once a week? Twice? Once a month?

What's "healthy" mean? Are nachos healthy? Hot dogs? Salami? Pizza? No on all counts.

At least one Finnish hamburger chain (HesBurger) offers a choice: either a toy or a small portion of ice-cream. I've not been to McDonald's for such a long time that I'm unsure if this is their policy, too (in Finland, that is).

I noted above that they offer options like soda/diet soda/ lowfat milk/ orange juice/ apple juice. You can skip the fries and get apple slices too.

It seems entirely reasonable. I mean - if a hamburger, apple slices and an apple juice is not healthy enough, then what the heck is? Must we all eat Arugula and chives with mango salsa on the side and spritzer of spring water and wedge of lemon? No offense to anyone...but, this sort of law just chaps my ass....

3) Where do you draw the limits of such right and/or duty, if you believe either exists?

I think that if a local government is going to do something it should have a rational basis and be reasonably related to the ends it seeks to achieve, and I think also that the government should not be permitted to violate fundamental rights in achieving its ends.

On the level of principle, it looks like we agree on this - however, our respective interpretations of what constitutes "rational basis" and "reasonably related" likely don't converge too well. Also "not permitted to violate fundamental rights in achieving its ends" sounds woolly. But we can get back to that later.

Well - regarding fundamental rights - a local government is bound to respect the rights embodied in the US "bill of rights" - freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, etc.

I don't know what your level of reasonableness is -- but, for me, all they've said here is "kids are fat. McDonalds sells food we think is not healthy. Therefore, let's limit their ability to give away toys with the food." - if there is any way you can see that this will result in a reduction in the Obesity rate in San Fran, I'd love to hear it. Shouldn't the town have done a study about how many such meals are consumed by how many kids? I mean, what is the potential for improvement if we even elminated the Happy Meal altogether, or made McDonalds totally off limits to children?

4) How does it influence your answer if we are talking about children or the mentally disabled?

It doesn't.

To me, *that* sounds weird. More later...

The law still has to be reasonably related to the intended purpose of the law, doesn't it? I mean, the "save the chil'run" argument only goes so far. If it's just symbolism or ineffective nonsense (as this measure obviously and plainly is), then it doesn't matter who they claim is the injured party here. If there really is a risk here, they need to do something that works, not just make a show piece.

[Coito ergo sum]

Do you have a choice? Why are you immune from this all-powerful advertising?

Because I don't like the food so the advertising has no effect. If I liked the food the marketing and advertising would.

Secondly, condescending? I don't give a shit. It's what is happening.

I'm pretty sure the folks who eat at McDonalds are just as capable as you to choose what to eat or not. Yeah - condescending - because you refuse to acknowledge that others might have that capability.

[Trolldor]

There is an increasing epidemic of obese children. However, there is no evidence that removing happy meal toys will have any effect. Is there?

Well there is a demonstrable increase in sales when popular toys are given out, sales increased dramatically when the toys were introduced, and now we'll get to see whether banning the toys has any effect.

[Warren Dew]

Well there is a demonstrable increase in sales when popular toys are given out, sales increased dramatically when the toys were introduced, and now we'll get to see whether banning the toys has any effect.

No we won't, because the toys haven't been banned.

What we will see is a move towards less healthy happy meals with soda instead of milk and other such substitutions so as to continue giving out the toys.

[Warren Dew]

If you eat more, and exercise less -- what happens? You gain weight.

Not in my experience. In my experience, it matters what I eat, not just how many calories.

But hey, stick to a theory that has so little predictive capability it can't differentiate between gaining 1 lb a year and gaining 31 lb a year. Meanwhile, I'll stick with a theory that keeps me lean.

[Ronja]

... condescending? ...

I'm pretty sure the folks who eat at McDonalds are just as capable as you to choose what to eat or not. Yeah - condescending - because you refuse to acknowledge that others might have that capability.

Coito - I don't get the impression that TMH would be condescending. Please don't read so much into another person's text, none of us are mind-readers here.

Besides - you seem to be going to the other extreme. You appear to be denying the scientific evidence for that a number of people who eat at McDonald's, Wendy's, KFC, etc. are NOT capable of choosing wisely what to eat or not. Please follow the links and read just the first page or abstract of each, and you will see.

Compulsive Eating Shares Same Addictive Biochemical Mechanism with Cocaine, Heroin Abuse http://www.scripps.edu/news/press/20100329.html
Yale Food Addiction Scale (YFAS), designed to identify those exhibiting signs of addiction towards certain types of foods (e.g., high fat and high sugar) http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/resources ... icle09.pdf
Overweight adolescents are more susceptible to the adverse effects of fast food than lean adolescents http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/ab ... 91/23/2828

Just because you, TMH and me can eat sensibly does not mean that everybody else can, and even though genuine fast food addiction is not behind all obesity, it is an existing, measurable and identifiable condition. As we do not know for sure what leads to it, but can see that overweight kids have greater difficulties than lean ones in eating less at meals after a fast food meal, it seems to me that making fast food less tempting for kids is a prudent course of action, in principle.

However, micromanaging what can and can't be in the meal and letting the toy be a part of some meals and not others is, IMO, a load of BS. If I got to decide, any establishment that sells even one kids' meal, which contains more than 1/3 of the daily caloric need or does not contain any vegetables or fruit, should not get to advertise to kids at all, in any shape or form, regardless how "healthy" the other kids' alternatives are.

Then again, I also believe that any establishment that serves even one grownup portion with more than 1/2 of our daily caloric need or without a serving of vegetables/fruit/berries should pay a gross income based making-the-population-sick-on-purpose tax from every such portion sold.

Unhealthy food should cost more, not less, than healthy food, regardless of where we buy it from. And any government subsidies for food production should encourage fresh, as unprocessed as possible food reaching the whole population.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, try to understand that the point of criticizing McDonald's marketing tactics is not directed towards those marketing tactics per ce. The point is WHAT they market. What McDonald's sells is not food, it has a value for our nutritional needs and well-being not too far removed from sawdust (only energy-enriched). McDonald's and their like sell EATABLE FOODLIKE SUBSTANCES, nothing more, nothing less.

So what?

People sell cotton candy at carnivals, and elephant ears/beaver tails at local festivals. People eat hot dogs at ball games.

And the point is, is it OK to market such shite directly to kids? IMO it is not.

There is no way to market anything "indirectly." They have a commercial on t.v. Kids watch t.v.

And, yes, it is "o.k." to market stuff directly to kids. Some breakfast cereals, like Count Chocula and Cap'n Crunch, are far worse than an egg mcmuffin or a happy meal - a solid rush of simple carbohydrates - a massive burst of sugars.

Kids don't buy stuff. Parents buy stuff. If the parents think it's o.k. to buy them a happy meal once in a while, even with a toy in it, then it's nobody else's business.

[Ronja]

Coito, try to understand that the point of criticizing McDonald's marketing tactics is not directed towards those marketing tactics per ce. The point is WHAT they market. What McDonald's sells is not food, it has a value for our nutritional needs and well-being not too far removed from sawdust (only energy-enriched). McDonald's and their like sell EATABLE FOODLIKE SUBSTANCES, nothing more, nothing less.

So what?

People sell cotton candy at carnivals, and elephant ears/beaver tails at local festivals. People eat hot dogs at ball games.

Carnivals and festivals hardly sit at the corner of your block all year round, do they? Few people go to ball games every week, much less every day. Therefore their health impact is much smaller than that of those junk food places that are continuously accessible.

And the point is, is it OK to market such shite directly to kids? IMO it is not.

There is no way to market anything "indirectly." They have a commercial on t.v. Kids watch t.v.

And, yes, it is "o.k." to market stuff directly to kids. Some breakfast cereals, like Count Chocula and Cap'n Crunch, are far worse than an egg mcmuffin or a happy meal - a solid rush of simple carbohydrates - a massive burst of sugars.

Kids don't buy stuff. Parents buy stuff. If the parents think it's o.k. to buy them a happy meal once in a while, even with a toy in it, then it's nobody else's business.

And here we must part ways. We (Finland, and the other EU member states) have limited and government controlled advertising during children's' TV programs, and frankly, I prefer it that way. Many kinds of advertising to kids are completely forbidden and others are tightly regulated, and I am happy with that. See this page for a summary: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/ ... 011_en.htm

So I guess we will agree to disagree, and that's that. Thanks for an interesting thread!

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, try to understand that the point of criticizing McDonald's marketing tactics is not directed towards those marketing tactics per ce. The point is WHAT they market. What McDonald's sells is not food, it has a value for our nutritional needs and well-being not too far removed from sawdust (only energy-enriched). McDonald's and their like sell EATABLE FOODLIKE SUBSTANCES, nothing more, nothing less.

So what?

People sell cotton candy at carnivals, and elephant ears/beaver tails at local festivals. People eat hot dogs at ball games.

Carnivals and festivals hardly sit at the corner of your block all year round, do they? Few people go to ball games every week, much less every day. Therefore their health impact is much smaller than that of those junk food places that are continuously accessible.

But, cotton candy is sold all over the place, daily. Candy is sold in huge quantities. Soft drink consumption is ridiculous - people drink 42 ounce "big gulps" from 7-Eleven and similar products from every other convenience store. Hot dogs are consumed not only at ball games, but at home. And, I would feed my kid a happy meal over a hot dog any day of the week.

And the point is, is it OK to market such shite directly to kids? IMO it is not.

There is no way to market anything "indirectly." They have a commercial on t.v. Kids watch t.v.

And, yes, it is "o.k." to market stuff directly to kids. Some breakfast cereals, like Count Chocula and Cap'n Crunch, are far worse than an egg mcmuffin or a happy meal - a solid rush of simple carbohydrates - a massive burst of sugars.

Kids don't buy stuff. Parents buy stuff. If the parents think it's o.k. to buy them a happy meal once in a while, even with a toy in it, then it's nobody else's business.

And here we must part ways. We (Finland, and the other EU member states) have limited and government controlled advertising during children's' TV programs, and frankly, I prefer it that way.

Why? It hasn't helped anything. Britain is right behind the US in terms of obesity, and the EU obesity rate is increasing as well. All this "government control" has amounted to naught. The obesity rate being lower in Europe can be explained by the fact (demonstrated) that they have a less sedentary lifestyle on average and don't consume on average as many calories per day as Americans. But, the rate of obesity has been steadily rising in many European countries. What keeps the obesity rate down, though is primarily the fact that a good deal more walking and biking and physical activity in general occurs in Europe as compared to the US.

Many kinds of advertising to kids are completely forbidden and others are tightly regulated, and I am happy with that. See this page for a summary: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/ ... 011_en.htm

So I guess we will agree to disagree, and that's that. Thanks for an interesting thread!

We don't need to "agree" to disagree. You are free to disagree with me, with or without my say-so. LOL

If people are not going to be regulated in what they feed their kids at home, there is no regulation of fast food enterprises that will impact the obesity rate at all. The reality is, that people eat too many calories at all their meals, even at home. So, even if you eliminated - wiped off the face of the Earth - all "fast food" restaurants, the obesity rate would not change, because the stuff people eat at home and in non-fast food restaurants are as bad or worse, by and large. So, this Happy Meal toy rule amounts to throwing a deck chair off the Titanic.

[Ronja]

Agree to disagree
Meaning: Set aside an irreconcilable difference in order to maintain a civil dialogue.

Source: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/agre ... agree.html

Take the hint, Coito. You are not going to convince me and I am not going to convince you, so the polite thing is to cease trying.

[Warren Dew]

Coito - I don't get the impression that TMH would be condescending. Please don't read so much into another person's text, none of us are mind-readers here.

He's not reading anything in' it's right there in black and white. "I know what people at McDonald's should be eating", with the assumption that they don't, assumes superiority, which is condescending, intentional or not.

Take the hint, Coito. You are not going to convince me and I am not going to convince you, so the polite thing is to cease trying.

And yet, here's a post trying to get in the last word.

If you want to cease trying, cease posting responses.

[stripes4]

Believe it or not, some don't "have a choice" because McD's has put a lot in to advertising and conditioning.

How very condescending.

Do you have a choice? Why are you immune from this all-powerful advertising?

Part of the reason they included toys with happy meals wasn't just to encourage children to eat there, but when those children grew up they would 'remember' the
fond times and the toys and continue to eat there, and then take their own children.

Oh....my....GOD!!! That is...I mean.... wow....McDonald's really does that? The unmitigated GALL! The pure in sense evil!

They put out a food product....and couple that with an enjoyable, memorable experience?

Jesus! What's next? Do you think they actually try to make their food taste good so that people want to buy it? If that's true, I'm getting out the picket sign...

It's the same reason they invested so much in to the 'sight' and 'smell' of McD's being universal, so you would always feel 'at home' no matter which store you went to. (Store, not restaurant).

God almighty....I wasn't aware that restauranteurs thought about making their restaurants pleasant, memorable and consistent from place to place. I mean - whenever I go to Chilis, they're totally different. I wouldn't even know I was in a Chilis.....That McDonalds, man, they are SLY! They make their restaurants generally consistent so that when you go to a McDonalds the experience is the same, you order what you want, and get it AND you feel at home? BASTARDS!

And it works. People are conditioned to go, conditioned to associate it with 'enjoyment' and 'good times'.

You know what.... it just dawned on me.... Disney does that... right here - just an hour away....Walt Disney World...home of Mickey Mouse for the love of anything that is holy! They associate that place with "enjoyment" and "good times!" That makes them want to come back again!

I see what you're getting at here...I see it now...if a company puts out a good product that people want to buy, and then they create a nice, attractive atmosphere that makes people feel at home, and they manage to get their customers to associate their product with enjoyment and good times, they are removing the freedom of choice from us! We are in their power!

They changed the menu colours to give the illusion of being healthier (Use of Green etc.)

I've not seen the "green menu" at McDonalds. Maybe the section that has salads? Not sure... How dare they use green though. That is just horrible.

There is a lot of subtle effects they trot out. (Not subliminal ffs, if it was subliminal you wouldn't notice it and therefore it wouldn't have an effect)

A Government doesn't have the duty to 'influence the health' but to manage it. In other words, to act where appropriate. In this case there is an increasing epidemic of obese children, the population is clearly not capable of taking the matter in to their own hands so the Govt. has to intervene. If the population was capable then there would be no need to.
People are stupid, they are easily manipulated and easily herded.

There is an increasing epidemic of obese children. However, there is no evidence that removing happy meal toys will have any effect. Is there?

You do indeed piss excellence

[Ronja]

Coito - I don't get the impression that TMH would be condescending. Please don't read so much into another person's text, none of us are mind-readers here.

He's not reading anything in' it's right there in black and white. "I know what people at McDonald's should be eating", with the assumption that they don't, assumes superiority, which is condescending, intentional or not.

Could you link to the post from which this quote is (the one that I bolded)? I would like to see the context. Thanks!

[Warren Dew]

Could you link to the post from which this quote is (the one that I bolded)? I would like to see the context. Thanks!

I know you are from Finland; out of curiousity, are you not a native English speaker? In English, quotations marks are used for more than just direct quotes; they are also used to present attitudes or ideas of other that one doesn't agree with oneself. The quotation marks prevent the reader from thinking that the writer holds those ideas himself.

On bulletin boards in particular, direct quotes usually have a specialized quoting system, such as the one I use above to quote you.

Perhaps if you reread Coito's and my posts with that in mind, you'll see what I'm paraphrasing. I think we explained it as well as we could.