It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"Kid's meals and toys simply no longer make sense for us to put resources behind," said Greg Creed, chief executive officer of Taco Bell, in a statement early Tuesday. He added that the move will have an "insignificant impact on sales."
Kids meals have been criticized by some public health groups for contributing to childhood obesity by making young children more eager to eat high-calorie, fast food meals.
But at the same time, it expressed concern that parents will now get adult meal combos for their children. "It's not as if its adult menu is full of health food," it said.
Assuming for a moment that the parents who do take their kids to Taco Bell regularly enough to notice this, don't stop taking them just because of this change in menu? Is it really a good thing they've done? If the garbage is what's for dinner, one way or the other, which is better? A half size meal in the Kids menu (Which I'd call more a snack from some I've seen at those prices) or not having the smaller option and just getting the kid the full adult combo as the next best thing?
Which is worse, given that? Having kiddie size or not?
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
It's essentially starting from the premise of a bad option being taken for granted. That being Taco Bell for diner, no matter what this changes. Which is worse, given that? Having kiddie size or not?
"insignificant impact on sales."
"It's not as if its adult menu is full of health food,"
The best of two evil's argument is the kind of mentality that leaves us with mediocrity as the only choice, as opposed to demanding premium, high quality services.