Ban Ronald McDonald?

[maiforpeace]

[Hermit]

...which reminds me of another theory: The sun is the most useless thing known. It only shines when it's daylight anyway.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito in 9... 8... 7... ....

He'll undoubtedly berate us once again that it's not fattening food that causes obesity.

Why would I do that? Of course fattening food helps cause obesity - because it has more calories per gram.

Eating too much causes obesity. Food is fattening when it contains a large number of calories.

Fat: 1 gram = 9 calories
Protein: 1 gram = 4 calories
Carbohydrates: 1 gram = 4 calories
Alcohol: 1 gram = 7 calories

So - why are foods with a lot of fat in them called "fattening?" Because there are more than twice as many calories per gram of fat than per gram of protein or carbs. So, people cram in more calories in the same mass of food by eating foods laden with fat. It's really quite simple. If you are eating fat, then you have to eat only 44% as much mass of food in order to get the same number of calories. So, if you eat 100 grams of fat, you eat 900 calories. If you eat 100 grams of protein, you eat 400 calories. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that it's very easy to overeat when your diet is high in fat.

Similarly - you can see why vegetables, like tomatoes, are not considered "fattening." Per gram a tomato has less than 1/10 of a calorie. Bacon, on the other hand, while quite tasty, has about 5 calories per gram. So, bacon is fattening, and tomatoes are not.

Is this really all that groundbreaking to people?

The bottom line is, though, that eating bacon doesn't make you fat unless you eat too much of it. Tomatoes can make you fat if you eat too many of those, too. However, it's much harder to cram down enough tomatoes to make you fat because you have to eat about 50 times the mass of tomatoes to get the same number of calories as you get from bacon.

[Hermit]

Predictable, or what?

[Coito ergo sum]

Predictable, or what?

Plainly not, since I neither berated you, nor suggested that fattening foods don't cause obesity. Food causes obesity. Fattening foods cause you to gain more fat because it has more calories per gram. It's why donuts are so fattening - they have around 4 or 5 calories per gram.

Do you really deny this? Do you think that there is some magic to hamburgers you make at home that makes them "less fattening" than a McDonald's hamburger?

A lack of energy balance most often causes overweight and obesity. Energy balance means that your energy IN equals your energy OUT.

Energy IN is the amount of energy or calories you get from food and drinks. Energy OUT is the amount of energy your body uses for things like breathing, digesting, and being physically active.

To maintain a healthy weight, your energy IN and OUT don't have to balance exactly every day. It's the balance over time that helps you maintain a healthy weight.

The same amount of energy IN and energy OUT over time = weight stays the same
More energy IN than energy OUT over time = weight gain
More energy OUT than energy IN over time = weight loss
Overweight and obesity happen over time when you take in more calories than you use.

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Dis ... auses.html

It doesn't matter if you eat McDonald's hamburgers or make food at home. If your energy (calories) in equals your energy (calories) out - then you won't gain weight. People get fat because there is more energy (calories) in than out, over time.

Is this really something you don't agree with? I mean - come on folks - this is supposed to be a forum based on reason, right? That's why it's called "rationalia." There is no dispute in the science and among nutritionists about this. This is basic stuff here.

[Hermit]

Fattening foods cause you to gain more fat because it has more calories per gram.

Which makes it part of the "energy balance", as your source put it. How do we go from here to the conclusion that MacDonalds', or any other junk food company's offerings, marketing and bribes are unobjectionable? Ah! I know. Libertarianism. It's all each individual consumer's responsibility.

I forgot now; which lap are we on?

[Coito ergo sum]

Fattening foods cause you to gain more fat because it has more calories per gram.

Which makes it part of the "energy balance", as your source put it. How do we go from here to the conclusion that MacDonalds', or any other junk food company's offerings, marketing and bribes are unobjectionable? Ah! I know. Libertarianism. It's all each individual consumer's responsibility.

I forgot now; which lap are we on?

I never said they weren't objectionable. McDonald's food, in many people's opinion, including my own, is very unhealthy (high in salt, sugar, and fat). I said they shouldn't be banned, and I said that happy meals aren't as bad as much of the food people feed their kids at home.

It's not just "libertarianism" that is in favor of people deciding for themselves what to eat, and what to feed their kids. It's Enlightenment Liberalism and Civil Liberties too. It's anyone who has any regard for freedom as a value, and the right of a person to be left alone.

The problem with a McDonald's ban is that it's an emotionally driven scapegoat. All the parents out there - and they know how they are - that feed their kids pancakes with butter and syrup in the morning, or sugary cereals like Cap'n Crunch or Frosted Flakes, or make biscuits with sausage gravy, or give their kids grilled cheese sandwiches or hot dogs for lunch, or let them order deep fried chicken strips and french fries at a restaurant, are not feeding their kids food that is any better than McDonalds. So, a McDonald's ban is an open invitation to federal regulation of what can go in an individual's refrigerator.

What if you want to make Christmas cookies for your kids? Most of those are WORSE than McDonalds food. The only difference is the quantity consumed.

A McDonald's Happy meal is quite reasonable in terms of calorie content and fat content. One small burger, small fries and small soda? It's like 600 calories. A kid of the age of 9 or 10 eating 600 calories for lunch is not overeating, generally speaking. The problem is that parents are feeding their kids too much food. Most of that food is given to the kids at home. That certainly is objectionable too. But, whose business is it?

[Hermit]

Not expecting you to remember this, but apart from an initial quip, I have not advocated banning any junk food vendor. I have argued in favour of regulating that shit is marketed, though.

[maiforpeace]

So, what do you think about the class action suit?

[hadespussercats]

Even when I was little, Ronald Mcdonald made me nervous-- I preferred Grimace. But banning him is ridiculous. The clown never made kids want to eat Happy meals-- their entire marketing plan did, including the sort of food they serve, their playgrounds, etc.

Quite frankly, I'd be happier if McDonald's banned the cadmium-laced Shrek glasses and other dangerous cheap toys they've been handing out with their happy meals, than if they took down their main, creepy icon.

[Hermit]

So, what do you think about the class action suit?

This one? Looking at the plaintiffs' filing, I hope they'll win.

[Coito ergo sum]

Not expecting you to remember this, but apart from an initial quip, I have not advocated banning any junk food vendor. I have argued in favour of regulating that shit is marketed, though.

I've not suggested that there should be zero food regulations.

I've argued against banning (the thread is "Ban Ronald McDonald?") - so if you're not advocating banning, then we're in agreement on that.

I also have argued that the Happy Meal furor is a tempest in a teapot, and makes zero sense when one looks at the objective facts. Making a rule about selling a hamburger and giving the person that buys it a toy at the same time is, in my view, ineffective and most certainly has not been shown to be effective in reducing the level of obesity. It is supported by ZERO evidence, and appears to be based only on a loathing of McDonalds.

Should there be regulations about food safety - sure. However, we need to be careful how far we go with that, because there is a difference between keeping food free of poisons, bacterias, and the like, and banning food that one thinks is too fattening for the unwashed masses to deal with.

Also, there is an issue of setting a dangerous precedent. Once we suggest that the federal government can limit the marketing of food because it is too high in calories or too high in fat, then all bets are off. Everyone's diet is up for grabs. And, it seems to me that the right of privacy - the right to do what one wishes with one's own body, includes the right to eat whatever junk food one wants. Doesn't it? And, don't parents have a right to raise their children how they please? We want the government to spend time and money telling parents how to feed children (something parents have been doing passably well for millions of years)? I don't.

I'm not sure, at present, where our disagreement is. But, the above is basically my view.

[Hermit]

Making a rule about selling a hamburger and giving the person that buys it a toy at the same time is, in my view, ineffective and most certainly has not been shown to be effective in reducing the level of obesity.

You said that before, but MacDonalds' marketing budget for toys flies in the face of it. MacD wouldn't spend hundreds of million dollars (in global terms perhaps more than a billion) if it did not make a difference to the company's sales. Yes, you followed by saying MacD is only trying to maintain or increase its share of the junk food market, but the fact remains that the pester power this strategy utilises, actually has the net effect of increasing obesity. Instead of allowing MacD to use it, I think it should be outlawed across the board for that reason.

[Coito ergo sum]

So, what do you think about the class action suit?

This one? Looking at the plaintiffs' filing, I hope they'll win.

If a lawyer can't draft a complaint that sounds good when taken by itself, then it's probably not ready to be filed. The Complaint constitutes only the Plaintiff's lawyer's position, and only their suggestion as to what the law is.

Their basic argument is that McDonald's advertising of Happy Meals is "deceptive" in that McDonald's is “Representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not have . . .” And, they are claiming that McDonald's is “Representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another.” No specifics as to what, exactly, McDonalds has said its food has that it doesn't have. It says it tastes good - that's the basic gist of their advertising. Lots of people agree. The Complaint basically argues that all advertising deceives children because they lack cognitive ability, etc.

Anyway - McDonald's will likely defend the matter and one of the defenses will likely be that they haven't said anything that is false or deceptive. They will point to what is actually said in their advertisements and show that they aren't making any statements which deceive anyone.

The procedure from here is that McDonald's has 21 days to answer the complaint or file a motion to dismiss, unless they get an extension of time (which are routinely granted in federal court). They will probably file a motion to dismiss, because I can see a number of grounds on the surface for such a motion (not that those grounds are sure to be successful, but where a defendant can file a non-frivolous motion to dismiss it almost always behooves them to do so).

The court will then address the matter of the class action. The class must be "certified" by the court - which means that the court must determine whether it's a proper class action lawsuit. It may or may not. We'll see how the parties brief that issue. That determination will take several months.

It's most likely that this case, if it ever goes to trial, will last years. Odds are, it will either be dismissed on a motion, or will settle.

It's possible McDonald's will try to remove the case to federal court, arguing that the case is artfully drafted to avoid a federal question and that a federal question exists under the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act.

In my opinion, it's impossible for most of us to determine how meritorious the case is. California law is often rather peculiar and the case turns on a lot of issues of California law. The success of the case depends on what California requires as proof of "deception." I suspect it doesn't require something as drastic as actual fraud (specific false representation), but rather it will hinge on whether the advertising, as a whole, implies that the food has qualities or aspects different than what it actually has. That's just speculation on my part, though.

We'll see, though.

[Coito ergo sum]

Making a rule about selling a hamburger and giving the person that buys it a toy at the same time is, in my view, ineffective and most certainly has not been shown to be effective in reducing the level of obesity.

You said that before, but MacDonalds' marketing budget for toys flies in the face of it. MacD wouldn't spend hundreds of million dollars (in global terms perhaps more than a billion) if it did not make a difference to the company's sales. Yes, you followed by saying MacD is only trying to maintain or increase its share of the junk food market, but the fact remains that the pester power this strategy utilises, actually has the net effect of increasing obesity. Instead of allowing MacD to use it, I think it should be outlawed across the board for that reason.

Just because McDonald's is good at selling its food doesn't mean that Happy Meals contribute to obesity, or that if you eliminated Happy Meals that obesity would be reduced. If it can't be shown that the elimination of the Happy Meal would reduce the rate of obesity, then on what basis is the claim that Happy Meals cause obesity made?

The company's sales does not equal obesity.

You've made a claim that McDonald's advertising/marketing has the "net effect of increasing obesity." That's a very specific and testable scientific claim. Do you have any evidence for it?

Look - a Happy Meal, traditionally, had a "hamburger, fries and a milk" - 590 calories - 23 g fat - 72 g of carbs - 5 g of fiber and 23 g of protein. For a child of the age of 7, 8 or 9 -- having a lunch of that amount of calories is just fine. Clearly, something else is going on - if a kid ate 3 meals a day of that sort, he would get 1770 calories - he would not get obese, even in a sedentary lifestyle. People don't generally feed their kids happy meals every day. So, isn't it abundantly clear that the rest of the kids' diets must have something to do with the obesity?

Here is the nutritional information for a Happy Meal: http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritio ... n_List.pdf

Compare that to two 3.6 ounce slices of pizza, which has about 544 calories, 20 g of fat, 68 g of carbs and 22 g of protein. And, that's without a drink. Add the milk and the 7.2 ounces of pizza and milk would be more fattening than a happy meal.

That is why I keep telling you that you will need to present evidence that the Happy Meals are causing obesity.

I can point you to real science that shows that one of the leading causes of the increased calorie consumption among Americans over the last 40 years has been the increase in consumption of sweetened beverages. ^ Malik VS, Schulze MB, Hu FB (August 2006). "Intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review". Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 84 (2): 274–88. PMID 16895873 http://www.ajcn.org/content/84/2/274.full

From 1971 to 2000, obesity rates in the United States increased from 14.5% to 30.9%. http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/288/14/1723.full During the same period, an increase occurred in the average amount of calories consumed. For women, the average increase was 335 calories per day (1,542 calories in 1971 and 1,877 calories in 2004), while for men the average increase was 168 calories per day (2,450 calories in 1971 and 2,618 calories in 2004). http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm

That's a boatload of increased calories and it correlates directly to the increased fatness of the country.

The science says people are fat because people eat more calories than they need. Based on the nutritional information of a Happy Meal, one can eat that and not get fat, provided one's diet is not excessive elsewhere during the day. There just quite simply is nothing "excessive" about a Happy Meal having between 450 calories at the low end and 650 at the high end. Is there? Frankly - if most kids ate 3 meals a day of that quantity, and didn't snack or otherwise pad the calories over about 1750 to 1850 a day - we'd have a very skinny country.