Ban Ronald McDonald?

[Hermit]

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.

I am sure you are right, at least as far as the duration is concerned. MacD's financial resources will ensure that the company will not quit before the last court of appeal has been reached, if necessary. Look at the McLibel case. After ten years MacD actually won the case - and the princely sum of £40,000 in compensation for defamation, although the European Court reversed that decision in a way, and compelled the UK government to reform its defamation laws.

[Hermit]

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.

Let me put it like this:

Fattening food contributes to obesity. I thought you agreed with that.

Toy bribes increase sales of fattening food. Why else would MacDonalds spend all those millions on the baubles?

If no company used those trinkets as a ploy to increase sales via pestering power, one source of obesity causing food would decrease in impact.

Thus endeth lap... uhm... what lap were we on?

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Let me put it like this:

Fattening food contributes to obesity. I thought you agreed with that.

Toy bribes increase sales of fattening food. Why else would MacDonalds spend all those millions on the baubles?

If no company used those trinkets as a ploy to increase sales via pestering power, one source of obesity causing food would decrease in impact.

Thus endeth lap... uhm... what lap were we on?

You've yet to show that Happy Meals are unduly "fattening." I posted the nutritional information. Does that not matter? I mean - a lunch of 450 calories on the low end to 650 on the high end - and about 23 grams of fat? Have you compared that to other foods?

So what if people eat Happy Meals! Unless people are feeding their kids more than the approximately 600 calories for lunch, it shouldn't be a problem Should it?

What's wrong with the Happy Meal? And, parents are absolutely free to choose the apple slices and a juice rather than soft drinks and fries. They can go with a 450 calorie meal - no problem. And, even if they get the worst one - 650 calories - that isn't a huge meal. Kids routinely need well over 2,000 calories a day, and absolutely SHOULD need more than 2,000 a day, if their parents are getting their kids enough exercise.

The pester factor allegation is downright paternalistic - I mean - since when is "no" something parents shouldn't have the responsibility to say? Mom I want McDonalds! No, son, you can't, we just had McDonalds last week. But, mom, I want it I want it I want it! How about - "I said no, and if the more you pester me about it, the longer it's going to be before you can go again."?

[Hermit]

The company's sales does not equal obesity.

You've yet to show that Happy Meals are unduly "fattening."

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

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

And, parents are absolutely free to choose

since when is "no" something parents shouldn't have the responsibility to say?

Just you wait until you have a few children. You'll see the pester factor from quite a different angle than you do now.

If advertising in general and the inclusion of plastic smurfs, or whatever, in particular, did not influence what is being bought, I don't think we'd have the multi-billion marketing industry. The fact that it works, and that it is such a hugely expensive industry, exposes the claim that we are "absolutely free to choose" as a lie. Why else did the tobacco industry fight tooth and nail for their right to advertise their product, huh? I happen to think that existing marketing techniques should be more regulated than they are.

[Azathoth]

Fucking nonce. Here is some old footage of him luring a child to a horrible fate using the promise of free cheeseburgers.

[Coito ergo sum]

The company's sales does not equal obesity.

You've yet to show that Happy Meals are unduly "fattening."

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

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

And, parents are absolutely free to choose

since when is "no" something parents shouldn't have the responsibility to say?

Just you wait until you have a few children. You'll see the pester factor from quite a different angle than you do now.

If advertising in general and the inclusion of plastic smurfs, or whatever, in particular, did not influence what is being bought, I don't think we'd have the multi-billion marketing industry. The fact that it works, and that it is such a hugely expensive industry, exposes the claim that we are "absolutely free to choose" as a lie. Why else did the tobacco industry fight tooth and nail for their right to advertise their product, huh? I happen to think that existing marketing techniques should be more regulated than they are.

You're missing it, so let me try to explain it differently.

Of course advertising impacts what is bought. That is why they advertise. Some advertising is informative, some is for brand name recognition, etc. - there are many reasons for advertising. If they didn't think that overall it would generate sales, they wouldn't do it. They would do something else that they did think would generate sales. However, that doesn't mean that it causes obesity.

Happy Meals aren't really bad for you, and they certainly allow for healthier options. Apple slices - milk - orange juice - apple juice - and the like to replace fries and cokes. The choices are there. The calories, based on the nutritional value, are from 450 minimum to 650 maximum, depending on what is ordered. Even the maximum is not bad in and of itself in terms of weight gain. For one meal, that amount of food is perfectly fine. The fact that it has empty calories and doesn't provide the nutrition that one might like is a wholly separate issue from the the issue of obesity.

Eating unhealthy food doesn't make you obese, unless you eat more of it than goes "out" of your body (the in/out formula we talked about). So, if McDonald's serves one meal that averages 550 calories or even 600, the kid can't be getting fat because of that meal. The kid must be getting fat because his parents are feeding him or her too much else throughout the day, or ordering extra food at McDonalds to up the calories. Three meals at 600 calories a day - totalling 1800 - is just not enough to make the vast majority of kids fat.

What would you have them serve? No meat? No bread? If they're allowed to serve hamburgers - then the calories and fat are going to be about what they are no matter what. The meat people throw on their grills is not much better. It'd definitely not lower in calorie content, and typically people make much larger burgers at home than at McDonalds. Are restaurants only to be allowed to give away toys if they serve only vegetables and baked tilapia?

Yes - fattening foods make you fat - IF YOU EAT MORE OF IT THAN YOUR BODY NEEDS -- (in/out formula that you agreed with earlier). It's easier to eat more calories of fattening foods because there are more calories per gram. That's why ice cream and whole milk and donuts have so many calories - they are full of fat. But, if all you eat is 600 calories of that, and you then eat two similar meals during the day, totalling about 1800 calories - you ain't gunna get fat.

Is that something you really take issue with?

As for having children, the adult is the adult. Perhaps if he or she can't impose simple discipline like "when I say no to McDonalds I mean no," there are bigger problems than just McDonalds burgers. My guess is that parent won't be able to say no to potato chips, sugary cereals, candy, cake, pie, ice cream and all manner of other treats children love. I find that hard to believe, that parents are so powerless against child pestering, that they can't stop a child from forking too much food into their face. Maybe we ought to just have government issue child-diets, so that the parents can call the police on the children if they keep pestering them for non-government-approved foods. That way folks won't have to deal with all the pestering.

[Warren Dew]

As for having children, the adult is the adult. Perhaps if he or she can't impose simple discipline like "when I say no to McDonalds I mean no," there are bigger problems than just McDonalds burgers. My guess is that parent won't be able to say no to potato chips, sugary cereals, candy, cake, pie, ice cream and all manner of other treats children love. I find that hard to believe, that parents are so powerless against child pestering, that they can't stop a child from forking too much food into their face. Maybe we ought to just have government issue child-diets, so that the parents can call the police on the children if they keep pestering them for non-government-approved foods. That way folks won't have to deal with all the pestering.

Pestering can wear one down.

In this case, of course, there's a simple solution that will eliminate most of the pestering: don't let the kids watch television, and they won't see the television ads.

Of course, then the parents would actually have to come up with some kind of enriching activity for the kids instead of just plopping them down in front of the boob tube and ignoring them.

[maiforpeace]

As for having children, the adult is the adult. Perhaps if he or she can't impose simple discipline like "when I say no to McDonalds I mean no," there are bigger problems than just McDonalds burgers. My guess is that parent won't be able to say no to potato chips, sugary cereals, candy, cake, pie, ice cream and all manner of other treats children love. I find that hard to believe, that parents are so powerless against child pestering, that they can't stop a child from forking too much food into their face. Maybe we ought to just have government issue child-diets, so that the parents can call the police on the children if they keep pestering them for non-government-approved foods. That way folks won't have to deal with all the pestering.

Pestering can wear one down.

In this case, of course, there's a simple solution that will eliminate most of the pestering: don't let the kids watch television, and they won't see the television ads.

Of course, then the parents would actually have to come up with some kind of enriching activity for the kids instead of just plopping them down in front of the boob tube and ignoring them.

McDonald's advertising is in schools, libraries, hospitals, Ronald McDonald houses. Kids hear all about McDonald's from their friends. Kids get coupons from McDonald's in their report cards for getting good grades. McDonald's scouts out schools to locate their restaurants close by for a steady stream of junk food junkies. And that's just to start...are you going to be able to police all of that too?

[sandinista]

As for having children, the adult is the adult. Perhaps if he or she can't impose simple discipline like "when I say no to McDonalds I mean no," there are bigger problems than just McDonalds burgers. My guess is that parent won't be able to say no to potato chips, sugary cereals, candy, cake, pie, ice cream and all manner of other treats children love. I find that hard to believe, that parents are so powerless against child pestering, that they can't stop a child from forking too much food into their face. Maybe we ought to just have government issue child-diets, so that the parents can call the police on the children if they keep pestering them for non-government-approved foods. That way folks won't have to deal with all the pestering.

Pestering can wear one down.

In this case, of course, there's a simple solution that will eliminate most of the pestering: don't let the kids watch television, and they won't see the television ads.

Of course, then the parents would actually have to come up with some kind of enriching activity for the kids instead of just plopping them down in front of the boob tube and ignoring them.

McDonald's advertising is in schools, libraries, hospitals, Ronald McDonald houses. Kids hear all about McDonald's from their friends. Kids get coupons from McDonald's in their report cards for getting good grades. McDonald's scouts out schools to locate their restaurants close by for a steady stream of junk food junkies. And that's just to start...are you going to be able to police all of that too?

I guess, more harmful than other shit that is policed.

[hadespussercats]

As for having children, the adult is the adult. Perhaps if he or she can't impose simple discipline like "when I say no to McDonalds I mean no," there are bigger problems than just McDonalds burgers. My guess is that parent won't be able to say no to potato chips, sugary cereals, candy, cake, pie, ice cream and all manner of other treats children love. I find that hard to believe, that parents are so powerless against child pestering, that they can't stop a child from forking too much food into their face. Maybe we ought to just have government issue child-diets, so that the parents can call the police on the children if they keep pestering them for non-government-approved foods. That way folks won't have to deal with all the pestering.

Pestering can wear one down.

In this case, of course, there's a simple solution that will eliminate most of the pestering: don't let the kids watch television, and they won't see the television ads.

Of course, then the parents would actually have to come up with some kind of enriching activity for the kids instead of just plopping them down in front of the boob tube and ignoring them.

McDonald's advertising is in schools, libraries, hospitals, Ronald McDonald houses. Kids hear all about McDonald's from their friends. Kids get coupons from McDonald's in their report cards for getting good grades. McDonald's scouts out schools to locate their restaurants close by for a steady stream of junk food junkies. And that's just to start...are you going to be able to police all of that too?

While I agree with WD that trying to find worthy activities to do with your children, instead of simply plopping them down in front of the TV, is laudable, trying to protect children by trying to keep them in ignorance of the culture in which they reside is a doomed policy.

I don't think there's any escape for parents from the need to be willing to lay down guidelines for behavior and activities, to explain those guidelines and the need for them as much as possible given the age/comprehension of the child involved, to be willing to be the "bad guy" when the child's desires are thwarted, and hope that when the child is in a position not to be under the parents' supervision (as they get older, form friendships, go to school, etc.), that the lessons the parents tried to impart will have stuck.

In other words, parents need to prepare their children to make good choices for themselves, and then hope for the best.

[maiforpeace]

As for having children, the adult is the adult. Perhaps if he or she can't impose simple discipline like "when I say no to McDonalds I mean no," there are bigger problems than just McDonalds burgers. My guess is that parent won't be able to say no to potato chips, sugary cereals, candy, cake, pie, ice cream and all manner of other treats children love. I find that hard to believe, that parents are so powerless against child pestering, that they can't stop a child from forking too much food into their face. Maybe we ought to just have government issue child-diets, so that the parents can call the police on the children if they keep pestering them for non-government-approved foods. That way folks won't have to deal with all the pestering.

Pestering can wear one down.

In this case, of course, there's a simple solution that will eliminate most of the pestering: don't let the kids watch television, and they won't see the television ads.

Of course, then the parents would actually have to come up with some kind of enriching activity for the kids instead of just plopping them down in front of the boob tube and ignoring them.

McDonald's advertising is in schools, libraries, hospitals, Ronald McDonald houses. Kids hear all about McDonald's from their friends. Kids get coupons from McDonald's in their report cards for getting good grades. McDonald's scouts out schools to locate their restaurants close by for a steady stream of junk food junkies. And that's just to start...are you going to be able to police all of that too?

While I agree with WD that trying to find worthy activities to do with your children, instead of simply plopping them down in front of the TV, is laudable, trying to protect children by trying to keep them in ignorance of the culture in which they reside is a doomed policy.

I don't think there's any escape for parents from the need to be willing to lay down guidelines for behavior and activities, to explain those guidelines and the need for them as much as possible given the age/comprehension of the child involved, to be willing to be the "bad guy" when the child's desires are thwarted, and hope that when the child is in a position not to be under the parents' supervision (as they get older, form friendships, go to school, etc.), that the lessons the parents tried to impart will have stuck.

In other words, parents need to prepare their children to make good choices for themselves, and then hope for the best.

Which means you have to go through the exhausting task of having the conversation when a child is hungry. Not all the time of course, but, how often do children get hungry?

[Warren Dew]

McDonald's advertising is in schools, libraries, hospitals, Ronald McDonald houses. Kids hear all about McDonald's from their friends. Kids get coupons from McDonald's in their report cards for getting good grades. McDonald's scouts out schools to locate their restaurants close by for a steady stream of junk food junkies. And that's just to start...are you going to be able to police all of that too?

I would most certainly talk to the school board to try to get any coupons in report cards stopped, but the rest of it is just background noise. Kids already have something constructive to do in libraries and hospitals; the situation is unlike that with television, where the ads are often the most interesting thing to pay attention to, and thus have much more potential for manipulative effects.

Which means you have to go through the exhausting task of having the conversation when a children is hungry.

As Coito points out, McDonald's food is just as healthy as most other food these days for kids that are hungry. The objective is not to prevent the kids from eating when they are hungry; it's just to prevent them from eating for reasons other than hunger.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I blame Darwin.

[Coito ergo sum]

As for having children, the adult is the adult. Perhaps if he or she can't impose simple discipline like "when I say no to McDonalds I mean no," there are bigger problems than just McDonalds burgers. My guess is that parent won't be able to say no to potato chips, sugary cereals, candy, cake, pie, ice cream and all manner of other treats children love. I find that hard to believe, that parents are so powerless against child pestering, that they can't stop a child from forking too much food into their face. Maybe we ought to just have government issue child-diets, so that the parents can call the police on the children if they keep pestering them for non-government-approved foods. That way folks won't have to deal with all the pestering.

Pestering can wear one down.

In this case, of course, there's a simple solution that will eliminate most of the pestering: don't let the kids watch television, and they won't see the television ads.

Of course, then the parents would actually have to come up with some kind of enriching activity for the kids instead of just plopping them down in front of the boob tube and ignoring them.

McDonald's advertising is in schools, libraries, hospitals, Ronald McDonald houses. Kids hear all about McDonald's from their friends. Kids get coupons from McDonald's in their report cards for getting good grades. McDonald's scouts out schools to locate their restaurants close by for a steady stream of junk food junkies. And that's just to start...are you going to be able to police all of that too?

While I agree with WD that trying to find worthy activities to do with your children, instead of simply plopping them down in front of the TV, is laudable, trying to protect children by trying to keep them in ignorance of the culture in which they reside is a doomed policy.

I don't think there's any escape for parents from the need to be willing to lay down guidelines for behavior and activities, to explain those guidelines and the need for them as much as possible given the age/comprehension of the child involved, to be willing to be the "bad guy" when the child's desires are thwarted, and hope that when the child is in a position not to be under the parents' supervision (as they get older, form friendships, go to school, etc.), that the lessons the parents tried to impart will have stuck.

In other words, parents need to prepare their children to make good choices for themselves, and then hope for the best.

I would add that when we're talking about young children - 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 - they typically lack two things that are necessary for them to eat McDonald's food: (a) transportation, and (b) money. Absent an adult providing them with both of those things, it is basically impossible - or highly impractical - for children of that age to get at McDonald's food. So, in the end, it is up to the parents to control the diet of the child.

A child will ask for or pester for ice cream, chips and snacks, cookies, and other such items. I would think that if it is difficult for parents to defeat their pestering children when it comes to McDonalds, it would be even harder to resist the child's pleas for these other foods, which are worse than Happy Meals.

[Coito ergo sum]

The objective is not to prevent the kids from eating when they are hungry; it's just to prevent them from eating for reasons other than hunger.

Very well said.

Above I posted some links to studies showing the increase in high calorie soft drink consumption in the US over the past 40 years. It's phenomenal.

When I was a young kid, soda - coke - pepsi - root beer - etc. was an occasional thing. The quantity increase in soft drink calories per day among children is huge.

Also, we have the issue of the increase in television and video game time - plainly sedentary activities - over 40 years the amount of time spent in sedentary activities has skyrocketed. Hours and hours of tv and video games every day is the norm, and these activities very often involve eating snacks (more calories). Generally, going out and playing baseball or kickball or tag or hide and seek involves burning more calories, and do not involve calorie consumption during that time period.

The average amount of calories per day has also markedly increased over 40 years.

The result is that overall - in our general eating habits - we are eating more calories, and burning less of them.

It seems to me that the idea of scapegoating fast food not only ignores the problem, but masks it. It's a way to pretend that the problem is something other than parents feeding their kids, every day, too much food, and not making sure that their kids get enough exercise.

The bottom line - if a person has fat kids, it's for one reason. We may not want to hear it. It may piss us off or insult us. But, until we acknowledge it, the problem can't be solved. The main reason most fat kids are fat is that the kid's parents feed them too much food. Of course there are some kids that have glandular issues, etc., but that doesn't explain the wholesale increase in obesity from about 14% to like 31% in just 3 or 4 decades. Kids aren't being born more glandular lately - they're primarily eating too much. This may be hard to swallow for parents of overweight kids. But, frankly, acknowledging the problem is the first step to resolving it - start cutting portions - stop buying soft drinks - stop buying snacks - and increase the percentage of the kids' diets that consists of fiber and vegetables and whole fruits - have the kids get proteins from vegetable sources and lean meats. If that was done, then the occasional Happy Meal would be nothing more than a treat.