McDonald's versus the Busy Body PC Police

On June 22nd of 2010, The Center for Science in the Public Interest, (CSPI), issued a press release informing the public and McDonald's that they would sue them if McDonald's continued to use toys to market Happy Meals:

Using Toys to Promote “Happy Meals” Is Unfair, Deceptive & Illegal, Group Says, Citing State Laws

WASHINGTON—Tell it to the judge, Ronald: A nutrition watchdog group will sue McDonald’s if the fast-food chain continues to use toys to promote Happy Meals. According to the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, using toys to lure small children into McDonald’s is unfair and deceptive marketing and is illegal under various state consumer protection laws. CSPI today served McDonald’s a notice of its intent to sue, fulfilling a legal requirement of several states in which CSPI might bring the lawsuit.

The press release goes on to accuse McDonald's of being "the stranger in the playground", and that; "use of toys undercuts parental authority and exploits young children’s developmental immaturity—all this to induce children to prefer foods that may harm their health. It’s a creepy and predatory practice that warrants an injunction.”

Taking the gloves off, and showing that good old American backbone, Jim Skinner, Chief Executive Officer of McDonald's responded to Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D., Executive Director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest directly with this letter:

On behalf of McDonald's franchisees and our 1.6 million employees around the world, I am writing to set the record straight regarding the misinformation that CSPI communicated about McDonald's in your June 22nd press release. I am referring to CSPI's threat to sue McDonald's within 30 days if we continue to include a toy as part of the positive and popular Happy Meal customer experience we provide.

We have a long history of working with responsible NGOs who are interested in serious dialogue and meaningful engagement; and we are open to constructive feedback. You say you want a dialogue with McDonald's, but your tactics and inflammatory rhetoric suggest otherwise. CSPI's twisted characterization of McDonald's as "the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children" is an insult to every one of our franchisees and employees around the world. When CSPI refers to America's children as "an unpaid drone army," you similarly denigrate parents and families, because they are fully capable of making their own decisions. You should apologize.

Continuing with this paragraph:

First, the public does not support your lawsuit. Internet sites, blogs and network surveys suggest that public opinion is running overwhelmingly against your premise. Our customer websites and phone lines at McDonald's are also busy, with more than nine out of ten customers disagreeing with your agenda. Parents, in particular, strongly believe they have the right and responsibility to decide what's best for their children, not CSPI. It really is that simple.

Responding directly to the so called science the CSPI was touting with this paragraph:

On this point, it seems that you purposefully skewed your evaluation of our Happy Meals by putting them in the context of a highly conservative 1,300 calorie per day requirement. I'm sure you know this category generally applies to the youngest and most sedentary children.

Going toe to toe with the CSPI's sanctimonious self congratulatory style with a bit of their own:

Furthermore, your over-the-top rhetoric flies in the face of our 55-year track record of caring for kids, a core McDonald's value. Ronald McDonald House Charities has donated more than $465 million to children's causes since its founding. Additionally, every night more than 6,400 families with critically ill children stay in the 300 Ronald McDonald Houses close to hospitals in 52 countries around the world. Also, customers recognize that their local McDonald's restaurants and the franchisees who proudly run them continue to be some of the strongest supporters of youth athletics and activities in the world. Ronald McDonald also serves as an ambassador for children's well-being, promoting messages around physical activity and living a balanced, active lifestyle.

Will the challenger, the hardly known, and donation dependent CSPI, be able to withstand the massive blows of the heavyweight champion corporation in this match? Is it a match at all, or just a silly exhibition intended to gain a bit of publicity for a wannabe contender?

Hi JPZ,

So are these the cold hearted jerks who took away my opportunity for an annual Beanie Baby schism? The ones who have now forced the kids in my world to all start feeling the need to order from the adult menu?

I think it is absolutely absurd, the stink over Happy Meal toys. As my Kids were growing up, the toy in their Happy Meal was a special part of our monthly McDonalds visit. The kids got hyped looking forward to the toy and it was a chance to make a mundane day seem almost like Christmas or a birthday for them.

I shouldn't have a special interest group telling me that I don't have choices as a parent. Which is exactly what this amounts to. Another group of people telling me that I cannot be trusted to regulate my kids diets and that a simple fifty cent toy is enough to undermine my judgment and my freedom.

Pathetic.

~Heff

First Fat people ruin the whole Super Size food thing, Now there taking away toys from kids?
How the hell do they consider this a good thing? It's not up to them what we buy our children!

Nazis...

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Aside from the fact that there's a distinct ad hominem argument in the OP title, there's an actual point that everyone is missing: Children don't need McDonald's.

In fact, we should be keeping our kids away from it. Have you ever looked at the nutritional information for a Happy Meal? This stuff is ridiculous

I don't understand why parents today don't have the time to cook for their children. I don't exactly have a lot of leisure time these days, but I still take the ten-twenty minutes it needs to prepare a proper meal.

McDonald's has thrived on two things:
The myth that home cooked meals need to take time
The myth that it's worth it to go there instead of cook them.

The first myth is simply false, I can whip up a quick pasta in the time it takes for the water to boil + 5-10 minutes depending on the type of pasta. I can make all sorts of meals with chicken in half an hour, probably less if I have the butcher cut up the chicken for me.

The second myth actually has economic ramifications. If you look at things more rationally, you'll see that their food is actually more expensive than cooking it yourself. You end up paying for their whole process when you could save yourself all that money by being responsible. Then they add a little piece of plastic crap, which I myself grew up enjoying far too much than I think is healthy, to make kids nag their parents about it.

Advertising shouldn't be aimed at children for food, they're not the ones buying it.

OH NOES !!! No more toys in a happy meal???
are you kiddin???

Guess they'll just have to rely on Santa,
Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Birthdays,
visits to grandma's house,
church social functions,
and Halloween for their treats.

Oh by the way is Halloween
gonna be attacked next???

For Christ's sakes,
let the kids have their toys.
They're not gonna be young
forever and can make up their
own minds then.

Ya know, sometimes people come up with some real bone head ideas. This is one of them. No toys in happy meals? What a stupid thing to do. If parent's really wanted their kids to eat healthier, they wouldn't take them to McDonald's in the first place.

So...

I guess that also means that the CSPI will try and stop cereal makers including toys in cereal boxes? Or any association with toys and foodstuffs then? Would be only fair.

I actually don't like to eat McDonald's, but this time, they seem to be in the right.

Cheers
Shane

Kids have toys in happy meals, methinks, for the simple fact that they are kids. If they don't have toys...couldn't they just get a cheeseburger and a small order of fries off the adult menu? I mean, seriously, these people who want to sue have no life and are seemingly trying to draw ideas from the sky that make them seem "important". When I was a wee lad back in the day, in the relatively seldom event that I'd get McDonalds...the toy was the best part, well for me anyways. And besides, its not like you can "supersize" a kids meal. Sheesh.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


There is an adage that thieves always lock their doors. It comes as no surprise that the one accusing me of relying on ad hominems relies on them as well. The point is not at all that children don't need McDonald's, and only sanctimonious people too arrogant to realize they're no smarter than the vast majority of most other parents are the ones who attempt to obfuscate the reality of the situation and present this as if it were something else.

Where does a non-governmental organization get off taking it upon themselves to sue McDonald's over the use of toys in Happy Meals? The use of toys to market goods has been a tradition for longer than McDonald's has even been in business and Cracker Jack's, who still uses toys to market their caramel popcorn, began doing so in 1912. Children don't need Cracker Jack's but the CSPI hasn't threatened to file any lawsuit against them. Further, many of McDonald's direct competitor's also rely on toys to market their meals, such as Burger King, but the CSPI has nary a word to say about them either, and neither do you.

Let's be honest here, you can't be bothered to attack Burger King for their ridiculous menu, or Cracker Jack's for their completely useless food product because it is not hip or popular to do so. Webster's Dictionary doesn't have a term declaring a dead end job a BK job, although it certainly does offer a definition of cracker jack as being excellent, so maybe, just as you have so easily fallen into the dubious usage of the bastardized word myth, (myths are specific tales where the truth or fiction of their characters are irrelevant, and the messages they convey speak of actual truisms, which is why they have survived since time immemorial), you can't be bothered to attack Cracker Jack for their use of toys, because the dictionary defines cracker jack as excellent, but defines McJob as a dead end job and has no compunction about the ad hominem they've employed to use McDonald's as an example of dead end jobs.

Your lack of understanding, claiming that parents don't have the time to cook for their children today, is based upon an assumption, and one you were most likely fed from the main stream media, and certainly not any information you have obtained through empirical data. The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of parents that not only cook for their children, they spend time teaching their children to cook and use that experience as a way to build a strong family unit. When parents do go out to eat, instead of eating at home, not all parents choose McDonald's as the place to go, and for those who do choose McDonald's, it is not the only place they go to when they take their family to eat out. These variables are obvious, and just as the CSPI blatantly twisted caloric facts in order to demonize McDonald's, you do the same, opting for an illusion that parents don't cook for their children and instead run to McDonald's every day and feed their children crap, but it is you and the bogus organization CSPI, that are full of crap. If truth were on your side, it is arguable you would rely more on the truth than falsehoods.

There are many reasons McDonald's has thrived as a franchise fast food company, not two, but many reasons, and not through mythology, but through sound business principles. Further, it has been several years since McDonald's attempted to implement a healthy menu, and while they still feature many items, such as salads, and fruit plates, on that menu, their customers made it pretty clear that they don't go to McDonald's for healthy food. In spite of that, McDonald's keeps their healthy food menu right along with their not at all nutritious but far more popular menu.

If you, or the unknown organization who is getting more attention now than they ever have because they so loudly and arrogantly issued press releases announcing their intent to sue McDonald's, had a genuine just cause, it is fairly assumed you would rely on honesty and integrity to support that cause rather than rely upon falsehoods, and doublespeak.

i take my kids out to this rather aweful place about once every 2-3 months as a special treat, my 10 year old is no longer interested in the toys so orders a more grown up "meal" ( for want of better word i' call it #e meself ), my 6 and 8 year old think its xmas, birthday and such all rolled into one so i let them have their little pleasures then off to the park to burn this crap off for a couple of hours.
Its going to happen over here too the pc brigade full of their own self importance having no faith in me as a parent will wring every little pleasure out of life they can, i have never nor will i ever be bowed by the clever tricks that the advertisers use to convince the kids they have to have this toy/burger/crap on a regular basis, when i say no i fekin mean no but at times i will relent and as we're there in a normal voice i will complain the foods over priced crap and look at the toy son it will end up in the bin like all the others you have had before cause they are crap, to which they reply yes dad your right but at least its fun now and grin, grab the moment my eldest has said and smirks ....... i think i can now sit back and watch my children grow a little wise to the antics of the companies selling this stuff because their dad is a little cynical at times and sees life almost for what it really is me and my family really do not need the help of these busy body pc tossers thank you very much so bugger off we're doing fine on our own.

Here is a little more information about the CSPI touting their own "accomplishments":

2009 With CSPI's input, the U.S. House of Representatives passes the most sweeping reform of the food-safety system in 70 years. After 15 years of urging by CSPI, the FDA announces it will require processing of raw oysters to eliminate deadly Vibrio vulnificus bacteria. CSPI helps secure a further increase in food-safety funding for the FDA, bringing to $390 million the total increase over the last three years.

They are referring to H.R. 2749, The Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009. Here is what Farmtoconsumer.org, a leading opponent of the Bill has to say:

The FSEA gives the Food and Drug Administration tremendous power while making the agency less accountable for its actions. It fails to describe how the resources it provides are to be allocated. The industrial food system and food imports are badly in need of effective regulation, but the bill does nothing to prevent FDA from concentrating a disproportionate amount of its resources on local food producers.

...

Food security is achieved by becoming as self-sufficient as possible in food production. Lessening the regulatory burden on small farms and local artisanal producers will improve both food security and food safety. If the FSEA is implemented, many small producers will not have the economies of scale to be able to comply with its onerous requirements.

The Weston A. Price Foundation, another leading opponent of this Bill, has this to say:

The Senate's food safety bill is in committee and is scheduled for mark-up today, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18. As currently written, the bill would impose sweeping regulations on all farms and food processors - everyone from your local CSA to the small bakers, jam makers, and cheesemakers at the local farmers market.

Small local farms and food processors are fundamentally different from huge, industrial food suppliers that ship food all over the country. Congress can and should address the problems with the industrial food supply without harming the local food systems that provide an alternative for concerned consumers!

The John Birch Society, yet another opponent to this Bill, made this most interesting connection:

It happened just in time, the salmonella egg outbreak and recall, that is. Remarkably so, in fact, to help boost the chances of Senate Bill 510's passing. The Food Safety Modernization Act, whose companion bill H.R. 2749 already passed in the House, was facing quite the uphill battle. But not any more; a vote is now highly likely with approval possible if not probable.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has said there could be as many as 1,300 salmonella-related illnesses linked to the eggs. And that there could be 30 or more unreported cases for every reported case. So far there have actually been 1,953 illnesses reported from May 1 to July 31 of this year with the CDC admitting “some of these cases may not be related to this outbreak.” CNN has an interesting state-by-state listing of reported, suspected, and confirmed cases. It seems then, that labeling 1,953 food-borne illnesses in a three month period in a nation of over 300 million an “outbreak” is a bit of an over-reaction

Here is the CNN state-by-state listing that is referenced above.

Where the CSPI pats themselves on the back and claiming responsibility for the creation of HR 2749 - The Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009, there are many people not so thrilled with this Bill and see it as a power grab by government that is sure to further tighten the choke hold of control over the food supply, aiding the corporate structure while expediting the demise of small business.

Isn't that just special? The CSPI is the Grinch who Stole Christmas, though not nearly as lovable as the Grinch, endeavoring to deny children their toys, and they are the supporters of corporate fat cats, supporting a Bill that is cheered on by Big Business and Corporate Agendas. They make McDonald's look like genuine good guys. Who would have thought a non profit organization could come off as being more corporate than McDonald's?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

There is an adage that thieves always lock their doors. It comes as no surprise that the one accusing me of relying on ad hominems relies on them as well.

I'm sorry, I'm just going to ignore the rest because I see not a single place where I attacked any individual. I just pointed out that "Busy Body" would be an ad hominem, though I did so by saying that there simply was an ad hominem in the thread.

If you're going to resort to outright lying, I'll have to just refrain from discussing things with you because there's enough frustration with people being ignorant without having to deal with them lying.

Of course, if we resolve this I'll deal with the rest of your post.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


You not only defend an organization who used a press release to call McDonald's "the stranger in the playground", and "creepy" and "predatory", you attack parents in general. You generalize and declare that parents "don't have the time to cook for their children" and then sanctimoniously place yourself above those you condemn and declare that given what little time you have you still cook for your children. It is a gross misrepresentation of reality regarding the vast majority of parents.

You tell lies about McDonald's success, while continuing to brag about your own cooking. The first lie you tell about McDonald's is that they have relied, or impliedly so, even perpetuated a notion that home cooked meals need to take time. Of course, in reality, a decent home cooked meal does take time, but if parents choose to quickly cook a meal for their family, they are not under any illusion that it cannot be done. The second lie is the most egregious, where you claim that McDonald's has perpetuated an illusion that it is better to patronize their restaurants than it is to stay at home and cook. McDonald's, in fact, has relied on advertising campaigns, that tell the exact opposite message, with slogans such as "you deserve a break today", they are relying on the fact, that for the most part, parents stay at home and cook for their families, and have relied on the fact that parents today usually both work, while also staying at home and cooking for their families.

You presented your lies as if it was authoritative data, but it was just crap.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


all i can really add to this thread............................

if you arent the parent of the child SHUT THE HELL UP and let someone else parent their own child and YOU parent yours............

its not your place to be telling others what they should be doing in the first place.........


***this statement directed to those people who trying to play god***

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

and that; "use of toys undercuts parental authority and exploits young children’s developmental immaturity—all this to induce children to prefer foods that may harm their health.

I'm not a big McDonald's fan, but if any amount of marketing "undercuts parental authority" then this group should be suing the parents, not the marketing company!

My kids fall for marketing stuff all the time. They want everything they see on TV. Luckily for them, THEY HAVE PARENTS!!! It is my job to coach and steer them to healthier things. I teach them that they eat for nutritional value and to, "grow up big and strong." It is my job to teach them to think rationally and not blindly follow the TV set.

Are we to believe the members of this group never eat at McDonalds? Are they also going to demand that they get rid of Ronald, and the Playground? Are they going after Chuck E. Cheese next? Can we also sue PBS for using cartoon characters in their public service announcements?

Ridiculous.

Absolutely, if a parent wants to wreck their child's endocrine system, introduce carcinogenic, cancer causing ingredients into their child's diet and skew them towards a life of death eating, they should be allowed to...

Honestly, as sarcastic as that sounds I DO believe the right to raise children independent of petty, nanny like intervention. I think McDonalds should be held accountable for their ingredients and should be forced to label CLEARLY on EVERYTHING every carcinogen, there known effects and all GMO's as well. Don't ban things, that is not in the spirit of liberty in the least.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I love your post,brilliant.
McDonalds is absolute rubbish,toys are the only way they can sell the Junk,advertising on sat morning tv while kids are watching cartoons is predatory.
Their image of 'WE CARE' is a farce or they would remove all their food from the market.
If you dont know whats in mcdonalds food then i suggest you have a look.
In August we got rid of about 20 dairy cows all over 12yrs of age,guess where they went,Mcdonalds have their buyers out at the markets same as burger king/hungry jacks,the maccas rep got himself a bargin on some old "choppers",that are gonna be in a burger near you.

Mc Donalds is filth,their predatory marketing is filth,their toys are made in CHINA so theres more landfill for ya.

Fast food from globalist corporations is banned in our home.

Responsible parents that care for their children s health should delve deeper before getting a happy meal.

Anyone want to know how they make and what they put in chicken nuggets?

All the money they give to charity is tax write off so who cares.

Spit on Mcdonalds, NO ONE needs it.

Hi GOOD food fans.

When my children where at home WE NEVER got back to McDamnall,
after I vomited 4 times going to eat their CRAP ! !
___That was in the 1970s !__
2 of the towns McDamnall's MADE ME SICK where Drummondville, and Sherbrooke.
The other 2 places, I don't remember.

I CAN'T BELIEVE that parents go to McDamnall with their children ! !
IT IS criminal to feed someone with food, full of crap like
aspartame, splenda, MSG and the like.
We also all know that those dirty restaurants put filler in the meat ! !

STOP GOING there. You are hurting your health ! ! !

And, DO SOME RESEARCHes on this other **crazyness** : "Roundup ready"
Then, switch to BIOLOGICAL/ORGANIC food ! !

The McDamnall not far from home shot down, and WE ARE VERY GLAD it did ! !

Blue skies !

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

You not only defend an organization who used a press release to call McDonald's "the stranger in the playground", and "creepy" and "predatory", you attack parents in general.

I'm sorry, but did I ever defend the organization? I simply said that they have a point on some level, not that I agree with everything and that they delivered it in the best possible manner.

I also pointed out that you directly called them 'the Busy Body PC Police' which is a direct attack on them rather than their positions, thus making it an ad hominem argument.

You generalize and declare that parents "don't have the time to cook for their children" and then sanctimoniously place yourself above those you condemn and declare that given what little time you have you still cook for your children. It is a gross misrepresentation of reality regarding the vast majority of parents.

I didn't say that it was all parents. I should have been a bit more clear in saying 'some parents'.
And I didn't say that they were horrible individuals for it, I was simply trying to show that they could easily acquire better habits.

Also, I don't have any children, I simply said I have time to cook.

You tell lies about McDonald's success, while continuing to brag about your own cooking.

Being able to cook quickly is hardly bragging. And I'm not telling a lie. They thrive on the basic premise of 'fast food'. They thrive on an illusion of quality (because they hardly have the real thing, just look at the nutrition facts) and speed. They've never dropped the adjective 'fast' for a reason. Different fast food companies have tried to change the implications that it means lower quality, but they never tried to imply that it wasn't speed based.

And honestly, if someone says "Wow! That was fast!" as the only compliment about what you do...well, I think you can provide your own innuendo based joke there.

To reiterate, I can whip up a quick meal, that doesn't mean I'm bragging. I'm simply drawing the parallel that plenty of people can do it.

Secondly, of course McDonald's thrives on making it seem like it's more worth it to buy fast food than to cook at home. If they emphasized home meals they wouldn't make a dime.

The first lie you tell about McDonald's is that they have relied, or impliedly so, even perpetuated a notion that home cooked meals need to take time.

They call it fast food for a reason. If they didn't want to perpetuate the idea that it was faster than home cooked meals they would drop the adjective.

...I don't think "food" would sell on its own.

Of course, in reality, a decent home cooked meal does take time, but if parents choose to quickly cook a meal for their family, they are not under any illusion that it cannot be done.

Again, it doesn't take time. Hell, cooking your own burgers doesn't take time and they'll most likely be healthier than what you get in McDonald's.

The second lie is the most egregious, where you claim that McDonald's has perpetuated an illusion that it is better to patronize their restaurants than it is to stay at home and cook. McDonald's, in fact, has relied on advertising campaigns, that tell the exact opposite message, with slogans such as "you deserve a break today", they are relying on the fact, that for the most part, parents stay at home and cook for their families, and have relied on the fact that parents today usually both work, while also staying at home and cooking for their families.

Their current campaign is significantly different and a bit more nebulous

"i'm lovin' it" isn't exactly one that represents anything specific except that people like that food.

This is a history of their slogans.

1960 — All American Menu – A Hamburger, Fries and a Shake
1961 — Look for the Golden Arches
1962 — Go For the Goodness at McDonald’s
1965 — McDonald’s – Where Quality Starts Fresh Everyday
1966 — McDonald’s … The Closest Thing to Home
1967 — McDonald’s is Your Kind of Place
1971 — You Deserve a Break Today
1974 — McDonald’s Sure is Good to Have Around
1975 — We Do It All for You
1976 — You, You’re the One
1979 — Nobody Can Do It Like McDonald’s Can
1980 — Nobody Makes Your Day Like McDonald’s Can
1981 — You Deserve a Break Today (reintroduction)
1983 — McDonald’s and You
1984 — It’s a Good Time for the Great Taste of McDonald’s
1988 — Good Time. Great Taste
1991 — Food, Folks and Fun
1992 — What You Want is What You Get
1995 — Have You Had Your Break Today?
1997 — My McDonald’s / Did Somebody Say McDonald’s?
2000 — We Love To See You Smile
2003 — i’m lovin’ it

Source

You presented your lies as if it was authoritative data, but it was just crap.

Wow, see, you're being very aggressive. This is why I don't like getting into conversations on here, people that don't like it when people disagree with them and thus start calling the opposing position 'crap'.

I never said my ideas were authoritative, but I did hope that they made a level of sense.

You still haven't proved that I made an ad hominem argument.

When did I participate in name calling? I provided descriptions of business practices but nowhere did I say "McDonald's is a bunch of butt-faces" or anything of that sort. Nor did I refer to them as greedy, conspiratorial, exploitative, or pedophillic.
Other people did, I don't support it. Ad hominems never prove anything.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Thanks again JPZ for making my day. I enjoyed the thread very much but your response to the fellow above was absolutely priceless. You sir are the reason that I still believe that we freedom fighters still stand a chance. You also prove just when I start to lose faith, that the pen is still mightier than the sword. Good show!

As for the suit against McDonald's, of course I think that the answer is that it is and always should be up to the parents whether children eat at McDonald's and up to McDonald's whether they sell toys. That is freedom in action.

JPZ, keep up the good fight my friend.